Archaeologies of Rules and Regulation: Between Text and Practice

By Ben Jervis

How can we study the impact of rules on the lives of past people using archaeological evidence? To answer this question, Archaeologies of Rules and Regulation presents case studies drawn from across Europe and the United States. Covering areas as diverse as the use of space in a nineteenth-century U.S. Army camp, the deposition of waste in medieval towns, the experiences of Swedish migrants to North America, the relationship between people and animals in Anglo-Saxon England, these case studies explore the use of archaeological evidence in understanding the relationship between rules, lived experience, and social identity.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Berghahn Books
• Release date: Jan 29, 2018
• ISBN: 9781785337666

Book preview

Part I

Networks

Introduction

Rules, Networks and Different Kinds of Sources

Natascha Mehler

The chapters presented in Part I analyse and discuss some of the rules and regulations that linked people with other people, and with institutions and homelands during the later medieval and early post-medieval period in parts of Central and Northern Europe and beyond. The interpretations are guided by, and embedded in, a firm body of social theory, predominantly drawing on concepts from Pierre Bourdieu (1977) and Bruno Latour (2010). The approaches presented here are both fascinating and inspiring. Ben Jervis engages with the agency of rules by means of a late medieval merchant’s guild book from Southampton, United Kingdom, and by presenting these rules within the framework of Latour’s approach to law and regulation. Beyond that, and in the context of this late medieval document, he reflects critically on the relationship between archaeological and historical sources, herewith providing a methodological umbrella for Part I as a whole. Ute Scholz draws on sociological consumer research, predominantly using concepts of systematic food consumption, in her analysis of the late medieval archaeological material discovered at Tulln, Austria. Greta Civis, in her analysis of rubbish management in the medieval settlement of Diepensee, Germany, applies the concept of habitus for her discussion on how refuse can help to study regulation by means of archaeology. Furthermore, she offers a persuasive methodology for the interpretation of rubbish in the archaeological record, based on the concept of socially embedded material culture. Civis and Scholz both discuss regulations concerned with hygienic matters. But while Scholz presents her material from a consumer perspective, Civis does this from the point of view of disposal. Finally, Magdalena Naum gives an understanding of how the lives of the settlers of New Sweden, United States during the seventeenth century and later were guided and influenced by regulations from their motherland of Sweden. It should be pointed out that her discussion, based almost exclusively on written sources, allows us also a rare insight into disobedience and the defiance of rules, a theme that reappears throughout this volume.

The case studies presented here stem from a period that is characterized by a steady increase in literacy, recording and the creation of private documents, which accrued and transmitted the many aspects and expectations of previous generations. Indeed, our knowledge about how trade, waste management, consumption, and religious and moral interactions were regulated and connected through networks stems largely from written sources that require critical consideration regarding the extent of their implementation, and it seems to be straightforward to transfer our knowledge from these. Consequently, all the authors in Part I embed their discussions within this context. Jervis particularly moves beyond a multidisciplinary approach that is historical and archaeological into an interdisciplinary reflection about the meaning of textualization for social dynamics, and how inherited written regulations evolve within, and are influenced by, networks. Considering Part I from a methodological point of view, all the chapters are characterized by a confrontation of the archaeological record with written sources that convey the regulation of social interactions. Archaeological findings of, for example, food waste are contrasted with textual directives for waste management; something that is only rarely possible. Jervis particularly stresses that such a contrast of the archaeological with the written record is more than an attempt to provide explanations for patterns observed in the archaeological material, and he calls into question the nature of the reality or truth that archaeologists and historians often believe they encounter in their evidence. Anders Andrén has reminded us that such a contrast between the archaeological and historical source material is deeply rooted in the research traditions of the specific academic disciplines (Andrén 1998: 172). Indeed, all the authors – being archaeologists – share the standpoint that archaeological material can reveal past realities not presented in the written record. While some documented regulations seem to express an ideal condition that may never have been enacted, the archaeological material is viewed as a unique source that may tell us how things were handled in reality, even more so when the archaeological record tells a different story from the written documents. In fact, such a contrast makes evident yet again that one source group cannot be understood without the other, and this also stresses the need to critically reflect on investigations that provide a larger set of particular evidence (e.g. written sources) and very little of another (e.g. archaeological sources). The latter is the case with Naum’s study, where archaeological evidence is sparse. Her critical comparison of the rich body of written regulations with other accounts of the colonists’ engagement with their material environment enables Naum to trace the dynamics that underlie the relationship of governance and identity creation in colonial contexts. What we need to keep in mind here is that the description of people’s interaction with material culture is in itself a representation that needs to be handled with caution, especially when the scarcity of contemporary archaeological material and contexts does not allow for further scrutiny of past practice.

What the chapters, and the contrast and tension evident between the different kinds of sources, leave us with is a challenge to think about the many facets of the relationship between regulation and reality. Historical reality is at the centre of the research of both historians and archaeologists. Still, we are unable to fully know and understand past realities (Goertz 2004: esp. 11): no matter how many types of evidence we investigate and methodologies we apply, we only find fragments of past realities. Is it that rules, as Jervis has suggested, present an idealized state and hence only suggest how things could have been handled in reality? Moreover, what does it mean when our sources at hand do not give us any indication about regulation at all? By engaging with questions such as these, the studies in this part outline what different kinds of sources may tell us about rules, regulation and disobedience, and how we can move beyond the dichotomy of the different and sometimes even contrary evidence at hand to get a step nearer to past realities.

Natascha Mehler is a historical archaeologist, with a Ph.D. from Kiel University, Germany. She has published widely on the development of the discipline and on material culture and is especially interested in interdisciplinary work. She is Senior Researcher at the German Maritime Museum in Bremerhaven, Germany, Docent at the Department of Prehistory and Historical Archaeology at the University of Vienna, Austria and Honorary Reader at the Centre for Nordic Studies at the University of the Highlands and Islands.

References

Andrén, A. 1998. Between Artifacts and Texts: Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective. Philadelphia, PA: Plenum Press.

Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice, trans. R. Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goertz, H.-J. 2004. ‘Abschied von historischer Wirklichkeit: Das Realismusproblem in der Geschichtswissenschaft’, in J. Schröter and A. Eddelbüttel (eds), Konstruktion von Wirklichkeit. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 1–19.

Latour, B. 2010. The Making of Law: An Ethnography of the Conseil d’Etat, trans. M. Brilman. London: Polity Press.

Chapter 1

Rules, Identity and a Sense of Place in a Medieval Town

The Case of Southampton’s Oak Book

Ben Jervis

Introduction

A key feature of medieval towns is their heterogeneity. Urban settlements vary in terms of size, economy and, most importantly for the purposes of this chapter, custom. Municipal rules, on the one hand, can be considered to reflect customs, whilst on the other hand, adherence to regulations served to maintain the character of a place and community. Therefore, rules do not simply reflect a social context. By regulating practices, they contribute to the emergence and, particularly, the maintenance of the relationships, which underpin social life as a web of entangled connections between a variety of human and nonhuman actors. Archaeologists and historians have struggled to develop methods and interpretive frameworks in which it becomes possible to explore this relatedness. Rather than being truly interdisciplinary, in the sense that it is these relationships that are the subject of study, examinations are generally cross-disciplinary, in the sense that one source of evidence is taken to support the other (Wicker 1999: 169). Such an approach has dominated attempts to integrate medieval history and archaeology, with one often being used to account for the other’s deficiencies, rather than exploring the common ground and related nature of these sources (Tabaczynski 1993: 3; Andrén 1998: 32). Rather than seeing either the textual or archaeological record as reflecting the ‘way things were’ in the past, we can alter our perspective to see texts as a form of material culture, formed through and active in social relationships, albeit with particular properties that differentiate them from the structures and portable objects that are the focus of the archaeologist’s attention (Driscoll 1988: 167; Moreland 2006: 137). The aim of this chapter is therefore not to simply trace the adherence to rules in medieval England, but rather to explore the effect of rules in the development of a particular social context: that of medieval Southampton.

Medieval Municipal Rules and the Southampton Oak Book

From the reign of Henry I (1100–35), established towns in England increasingly sought to gain varying degrees of independent rule by means of the granting of charters that bestowed rights and privileges upon town burgesses (Campbell 2000: 60). In the context of Southampton, which forms the subject of this chapter, a charter of 1249 sanctioned ‘that the alderman of the guild merchant shall be chief both of the Guild and of the town’ (Studer 1910: xx). Therefore, Southampton was one of only a small number of towns to achieve a high degree of autonomy in its governance, where the burgesses of the town could elect officials (Rigby and Ewan 2000: 292). In the context of Southampton, the Guild refers to the Guild Merchant, an association of townsmen that existed for commercial and social purposes, with a defined membership and particular privileges, principally relating to trade.¹ Such guilds were common features of towns across northern Europe and are likely to have exhibited a high degree of variability in their origins, character and administration (Gross 1927: 20). However, a unifying theme of these organizations was the protection of the mutual interests of their members (Reynolds 1997: 71–73; Campbell 2000: 64). The rights granted in charters, including the right to form a Guild Merchant, were largely confirmatory in character and there were a number of motives behind their granting. Chief amongst these were the securing of lines of credit between merchants and the king, and the need to secure the support of the towns for military service and, more generally, political stability, as well as the generation of income in exchange for the granting of these rights and privileges (Reynolds 1997: 182; Campbell 2000: 66–70). In the case of Southampton, an urban settlement since the mid-Saxon period (see Jervis 2011 and references therein), it is likely that the medieval Guild Merchant had pre-Conquest origins. The first written reference to the Guild Merchant in Southampton is in a charter of 1154, but it was considered by Studer (1910) that within Southampton it is possible that the Guild Merchant was founded by immigrant merchants to cement their position in the developing port, with local merchants and others gradually joining the group as barriers broke down. Chief amongst the concerns of the Guild Merchant was the securing of the right to buy and sell within the borough market without paying the tolls or customs levelled at non-members (Hilton 1995: 92). Certainly there is evidence for the presence of continental traders in Southampton in the mid and later Anglo-Saxon periods, and it is likely that the Guild Merchant, or its predecessor, became a means by which a cosmopolitan community of merchants, which did not just include those from England and Normandy, but probably also individuals from Flanders and elsewhere in France, could construct communal links and maintain power over commerce within the port (Platt 1973: 19; Reynolds 1997: 167). Southampton therefore stands in contrast to the new towns of post-Conquest England, in that it was an established centre of trade with customs that likely stretched back some way in time. However, it is important to stress that in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the Guild Merchant, although influential within the town, was quite distinct from the municipal authorities (Gross 1927: 62). The granting of charters most probably formalized existing customs and it is common amongst medieval towns that those that had long been established exhibit the most individuality of character in terms of their civic organization and regulation (Campbell 2000: 78).

Guilds of all kinds existed principally for the protection of the mutual interests of their members. One way in which this could be achieved was through the establishment of rules and regulations, which were intended to prevent the development of individual monopolies, ensure fair and low prices, and secure the good character of a town (Britnell 1996: 92). The Oak Book contains the guild ordinances of Southampton and is believed to date from around 1300. The writing down of rules was one way in which customs could be formalized, in particular, perhaps, in response to the inward migration, which towns experienced throughout the Middle Ages (Reynolds 1997: 185). This not only protected the essence of the place and the position of its inhabitants, but also provided a basis upon which new social and economic relationships could be founded on a foundation of trust (Blockmans 2010: 579–80). For a port such as Southampton, the wealth of which was reliant upon international networks of trade and credit, and therefore trust, rules were essential for maintaining the reputation of the port as a credible place to do business and defining the community as good and trustworthy (Rosser 1984: 112; Casson 2012: 398). Furthermore, it was essential that towns exhibited evidence of being trustworthy and just places in order to receive further grants and liberties from the king, and to ensure that those that had been received were not rescinded (Casson 2012: 405). Rules were therefore a mechanism through which the goal of the Guild Merchant could be achieved and through which the status and identity of the town and its population could be maintained; indeed, they can be considered to have been produced as much for those outside of the guild as for those within it (Gerchow 1996: 140).

The Oak Book itself is preserved in Southampton’s city archives and consists of sixty vellum leaves bound in hard oak covers. The section that is the subject of this chapter dates from around 1300 and consists of the ordinances of the Guild Merchant. In the medieval period, the book appears to have been known as the ‘Paxbread’, as the Southampton court was held at Easter (the pasche) (Studer 1910; Barron 2012). Later, probably fifteenth-century, alterations to the original text are present on the document. These are principally minor changes of procedure that do not fundamentally alter the spirit or substance of these ordinances (Studer 1910: xxxvii). The document consists of seventy-seven ordinances relating to a range of activities. They begin with the rules surrounding the administration of the Guild Merchant, including the electing of officials and the arrangements for meeting. Also addressed early on in the ordinances are the charitable and welfare functions of the guild, including provisions covering the illness or death of a guild member. The majority of the ordinances relate to the regulation of economic activity in Southampton, including detailing regulations to control trading activity and the regulation of activities such as baking and butchery within the town. The document goes on to outline some procedures relating to the organization of the town watches, the procedures for those who witnessed a breach of the rules and rules surrounding the management and organization of the quayside, including the loading and unloading of ships. The earliest surviving legal records date from the fifteenth century and relate to the common court, which was concerned with the upkeep of English common law (Olding 2011). The Court Leet met to pass judgment in relation to the upkeep of local laws; however, the earliest surviving records date from 1550 (Court Leet Records). The 1550 records show the addition of new rules (such as those preventing the milking of cows in the streets), as well as the upkeep of existing rules – for example, Thomas Casberd was fined for ‘polluting the street’. These records show that the rules were regularly updated to adjust to new problems and also that they were upheld. Future study of the Court Leet Records may allow the identification of new rules developed between the writing of the Oak Book and 1550 through the records of punishments; however, this is beyond the scope of the current chapter.

The granting of freedoms to Southampton and the conflation of the Guild Merchant and the town administration poses an important question regarding who these rules were for and the extent of their effect. Only a limited number of trades or crafts are referenced in the document – bakers, brewers, butchers, victuallers, innkeepers, brokers and porters – and of these, all but the last two can be considered forms of public servant (Studer 1910: xxviiii). For example, ordinance 29 relates to the calculation of the assize of bread and ale. This was a means through which the price of bread was fixed in relation to the price of grain in order to secure the supply of food to towns. One function of this was to limit the profit of bakers, who, in accordance with contemporary social theory, were seen as operating for the common good of the town (Davis 2004: 485). Furthermore, by regulating profit and wages in this way, the assize became an instrument for bringing about social stability (Britnell 1996: 92; Davis 2004: 404–5). Butchers too were essential to providing sustenance for the urban population. However, the regulation of their activity principally relates to the treatment of their waste and can be seen to relate chiefly to a concern on the part of the Guild Merchant in relation to the spread of disease through ‘miasma’ (bad smells) and the need to project an image of being a ‘respectable’ town (Carr 2008; see also Chapters 2 and 3 in this volume). The rules can be considered to have been administered to by the burgesses of Southampton and it was they who took an oath, to be found at the beginning of the ordinances, to uphold these rules. The burgesses, however, did not account for the whole population of the town and therefore the community defined through adherence to these rules was limited to the population of burgesses (Reynolds 1997: 184). Many of the rules, particularly those relating to the control of trade and market activity, refer to burgesses and grant them privileges. These rules had the effect of both excluding those from outside of the town and those who were not members of the guild from participating in these activities. This was a useful instrument for maintaining a degree of social and economic hierarchy, essential to the running of the town. Certain rules, for example:

That no man have before his house muck or dung, or pigs about. No man shall have any pigs going about in the street or have before his door, or in the street, muck or dung beyond two nights; and if any one has, let whoever will take it away; and he who shall have acted contrary to this statute shall be grievously fined (Oak Book: ord. 43)

as well as those relating to the arrangements for keeping the town watch, appear to relate to the whole population of the town. Here, perhaps, we see some clues to the development of the document as the writing down of a disparate set of customs, some relating to the wider management of the town when it was administered by royal officials and some derived from previous ordinances of the guild, defined when it was concerned only with the activities of its members and not of the management of the town as a whole. The rules then appear to derive from Southampton’s history both as a cosmopolitan port and as a royal town (Gross 1927: 159). With the conflating of the Guild Merchant and the town administration, we see the guild hierarchy becoming the urban hierarchy. To some extent, therefore, the guild ordinances can be considered to exist to further and protect the interests of the guild members, who constituted the legal, if not the actual, population of the borough. The extent to which this can be considered a form of urban oligarchy is a matter of debate (Rigby and Ewan 2000: 291). Whilst only a small proportion of the urban population were involved in the municipal authorities (Hilton 1995: 100), a simplistic view is problematic. There is, however, inevitably a certain degree of protectionism inherent in the formation of guilds and the ordinances that they created. Within the medieval mindset, the ‘worthiest’ men, considered the most well-qualified to speak on behalf of the townspeople, were also the wealthiest (which perhaps was considered to relate to class and status, given moralistic concerns regarding the corrupting influence of money) and most-established burgesses (Thrupp 1948: 15; Reynolds 1982: 15; Hilton 1995: 114–17). Furthermore, a degree of literacy was required to execute official roles, and this was a skill limited to a few within the context of a medieval town (Hilton 1995: 60). We cannot necessarily think of the guild, and particularly its officers, as a closed clique amongst the urban community (Kowaleski 2003: 114). In reality, they are likely to have only met a few times a year and, furthermore, the self-interest of individuals was intrinsically linked with other burgesses, with whom lines of credit may have been extended and with the success of the town as a whole (Rigby and Ewan 2000: 311; Goddard 2013: 19). Furthermore, in order for the pool of potential officials to be refreshed, it was necessary to recruit new members into the higher ranks of officialdom, for example, through the sponsorship of applications by individuals to become a burgess (Kermode 2002: 45–46; Kowaleski 2003: 114). Indeed, Susan Reynolds (1997: 73) has gone as far as to argue that the development of guilds and ordinances was an extension of the rural manor where the lord had a duty to protect his tenants. The rules then were more than simply a tool that could be used by a mercantile elite to suppress the urban population and preserve their own self-interest. Whilst this was one effect, they also played a crucial role in underpinning trust networks and the towns reputation and bringing a degree of socioeconomic continuity that was central to the success and prosperity of the town and its