Fig. 2: a more ambitious forgery,
which may have been copied from a genuine medieval ampulla. (Courtesy Cuming Museum)
Not surprisingly, the
appearance of so many artefacts of a type hitherto unknown aroused
suspicion. Henry Syer Cuming of Southwark, secretary to the British
Archaeological Association, and Thomas Bateman, the Peak District
archaeologist, were dubious of the examples they saw, and corresponded on
exposing the fraud. Their scepticism was shared by the keepers at the
British Museum5. In March 1858 The Gentleman's Magazine compared the
objects to children's toys and dismissed them as "almost worthless"6.
By the end of March Henry Syer Cuming had discovered how the objects were
being made. "The game is now almost up, and it is high time it should be"
he wrote7. On 28th April he lectured on the finds to the British
Archaeological Association. He said that 12,000 has appeared. This was an
exaggeration, but does suggest the speed with which they had circulated
and the interest they had attracted. He pointed out the anachronisms in
their designs, described the crude way in which they had been
manufactured, and concluded by condemning
5. Southwark Local Studies Library, Ms. 4565; T.B.A.C., 15th Feb. & 2nd
April 1858.
6. March 1858 234.
7. T.B.A.C. 29th March 1858.
8. June 1858 649-50.
9. 8th May 1858 595.
10. August 1858 98.
11.T.B.A.C. 4th Aug. 1858.
12. Proc Soc Ant Lond I ser 4 (1858) 209; Trans London Middlesex Archaeol Soc
1 (1858) 312.
|
them as a "Gross attempt
at deception" and regretting that there were no legal methods of punishing
the forgers.
The lecture was not published in the Journal of the Association, but it
was reported in The Gentleman's Magazine8 and Athenaeum9. Sales declined
rapidly, and George Eastwood wrote to The Gentleman's Magazine assuring
the readers of the authenticity of his stock"10.
Meanwhile the eminent archaeologist Charles Roach Smith inspected the
finds. By 1858 he had retired from public life, but his reputation was
still very high. He was not sure what the objects were, but he felt that
they belonged to the 16th century, partly on the logic that no forger
would create anything so preposterous. If they were forgeries, he wrote,
they would be "The most extraordinary insults that ever were offered to
the judgments of collectors this century"11.
The Reverend Thomas Hugo, vicar of St. Botolph's Bishopsgate, also took an
interest in the finds, believing them to be varieties of pilgrims' signs12.
But the debate moved away from academic speculation when George Eastwood
sued the publishers of Athenaeum for libel. He claimed that they had
published an article which accused him of selling forgeries, for although
he was not named, he
Fig. 3:
another ambitious forgery - a small shrine. Courtesy Curving Museum
|
