Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T15:54:12.982Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE BILLY AND CHARLEY FORGERIES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2022

Robert Halliday
Robert Halliday*
Affiliation:
7 Philip Road, Bury St Edmunds, IP32 6DH, UK. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Billy Smith and Charley Eaton were mudlarks in London. In 1857 they began to manufacture counterfeit antiquities. Their creations displayed many significant errors and anachronisms, and some archaeologists were immediately sceptical. Nevertheless, other leading experts were convinced that Billy and Charley’s supposed discoveries were authentic archaeological finds. The ensuing debate resulted in an inconclusive court case. Eventually a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London used subterfuge to expose the fraud. Even after this, Billy Smith and Charley Eaton continued producing forgeries for another decade. This paper explores how the forgeries were made, why they generated controversy, how the fraud was detected and how Billy Smith and Charley Eaton could produce their forgeries over such a long time-span.

Keywords

forgeryhistory of archaeologycourt casestrade in antiquities
Type
Research paper
Information
The Antiquaries Journal , Volume 102 , September 2022 , pp. 447 - 469
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society of Antiquaries of London

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Primary sources

BL, Add ms 30927, Thomas Hugo’s correspondence book, 1850–75Google Scholar
BL, Add ms 33347, Thomas Wright’s correspondence book, 1859–75Google Scholar
SAL, ms 857, Letters to Charles Roach SmithGoogle Scholar
SLHLA, ms 4565–4566, Letters to Henry Syer Cuming, c 1850–80Google Scholar
SMT, TBC, AC 1848-58, Thomas Bateman’s antiquarian correspondence, 1848–58Google Scholar
SMT, TBC, Letters from Thomas Bateman, c 1860Google Scholar
TNA, 1851 census, HO107Google Scholar
TNA, 1861 census, RG9Google Scholar

Letters

Bateman, T 1858. ‘Letter to H S Cuming’, 13 February 1858, SLHLA, ms 4565Google Scholar
Bateman, T 1860. ‘Letter to T N Brushfield’, 3 February 1860, SMT, TBC, LettersGoogle Scholar
Cuming, H S 1858a. ‘Letter to T Bateman’, 15 February 1858, SMT, TBC, AC 1848–58Google Scholar
Cuming, H S 1858b. ‘Letter to T Bateman’, 29 March 1858, SMT, TBC, AC 1848–58Google Scholar
Cuming, H S 1858c. ‘Letter to T Bateman’, 2 April 1858, SMT, TBC, AC 1848–58Google Scholar
Cuming, H S 1858d. ‘Letter to T Bateman’, 22 December 1858, SMT, TBC, AC 1848–58Google Scholar
Eastwood, G 1857. ‘Letter to T Bateman’, 4 November 1857, SMT, TBC, AC 1848–58Google Scholar
Eastwood, G 1858a. ‘Letter to T Bateman’, 2 June 1858, SMT, TBC, AC 1848–58Google Scholar
Eastwood, G 1858b. ‘Letter to C Roach Smith’, 9 June 1858, SAL, ms 857 (3)Google Scholar
Edwards, W, 1858a. ‘Letter to T Bateman’, 23 January 1858, SMT, TBC, AC 1848–58Google Scholar
Edwards, W 1858b. ‘Letter to T Bateman’, 1 February 1858, SMT, TBC, AC 1848–58Google Scholar
Roach Smith, C 1858a. ‘Letter to T Hugo’, 27 July 1858, BL, Add ms 30927, item 270Google Scholar
Roach Smith, C 1858b. ‘Letter to T Bateman’, 4 August 1858, SMT, TBC, AC 1848–58Google Scholar
Roach Smith, C 1858c. ‘Letter to T Hugo’, dated ‘Thursday’ [written 5 August 1858], BL, Add ms 30927, item 276Google Scholar
Roach Smith, C 1858d. ‘Letter to T Hugo’, 24 August 1858, BL, Add ms 30927, item 284Google Scholar
Roach Smith, C 1859. ‘Letter to T Hugo’, dated 7 January 1858 [written 7 January 1859, but mis-dated to the previous year], BL, Add ms 30927, item 184Google Scholar
Tupper, A 1864. ‘Letter to H S Cuming’, 26 January 1864, SLHLA, ms 4566Google Scholar
Wright, T 1859. ‘Letter to J Mayer’, 28 January 1859, BL Add ms 33347, fol 1Google Scholar

Secondary sources

Anon 1858a. ‘Leaden figures and badges’, Gentleman’s Mag, 204 (March), 234Google Scholar
Anon 1858b. ‘Antiquarian researches’, Gentleman’s Mag, 204 (June), 644–57Google Scholar
Anon 1858c. ‘Proceedings, 17 June 1858’, Proc Soc Ant Lond, 1st ser, 4, 208–20Google Scholar
Anon 1858d. ‘Eleventh general meeting, 7 July 1858’, Trans London Middlesex Archaeol Soc, 1, 308–13Google Scholar
Anon 1858e. ‘Proceedings, 9 December 1858’, Proc Soc Ant Lond, 1st ser, 4, 240–4Google Scholar
Anon 1858f. ‘Proceedings, 16 December 1858’, Proc Soc Ant Lond, 1st ser, 4, 244–50Google Scholar
Anon 1858g. ‘British Archaeological Association, April 28’, Athenaeum, 8 May, 595Google Scholar
Anon 1858h. ‘Archaeological Association’, Literary Gazette, 15 May, 477Google Scholar
Anon 1858i. ‘Eastwood v Holmes and another’, Times, 6 August, 12Google Scholar
Anon 1858j. ‘The tablet’, Tablet, 14 August, 520–1Google Scholar
Anon 1859a. ‘Proceedings of the Association, 12 January’, J Brit Archaeol Ass, 15, 265–71Google Scholar
Anon 1859b. ‘Meetings of the Institute, Bury St Edmunds, January 26 1859’, Proc Suffolk Inst Archaeol, 3, 402–3Google Scholar
Anon 1859c. ‘Antiquarian researches’, Gentleman’s Mag, 206 (February), 163–74Google Scholar
Anon 1859d. ‘Curious leaden figures discovered at Shadwell’, Illus Times, 26 February, 133Google Scholar
Anon 1859e. ‘The leaden figures discovered at Shadwell’, Times, 7 February, 7Google Scholar
Anon 1861a. ‘Proceedings, 21 March 1861’, Proc Soc Ant Lond, 2nd ser, 1, 360–6Google Scholar
Anon 1861b. ‘Society of Antiquaries of London’, Gentleman’s Mag, 210 (May), 533Google Scholar
Anon 1861c. ‘Forged antiquities’, Times, 7 August, 11Google Scholar
Anon 1861d. ‘Forged antiquities’, Times, 8 August, 9Google Scholar
Anon 1861e. ‘The leaden pilgrim signs’, City Press, 17 August, 3Google Scholar
Anon 1861f. ‘Forged leaden objects’, City Press, 24 August, 5Google Scholar
Anon 1861g. ‘The alleged forgery of leaden objects’, City Press, 14 September, 3Google Scholar
Anon 1861h. ‘The alleged forgery of leaden objects’, City Press, 21 September, 3Google Scholar
Anon 1861i. ‘The alleged forgery of leaden objects’, City Press, 28 September, 3Google Scholar
Anon 1862a. ‘Meeting of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society’, City Press, 26 March, 9Google Scholar
Anon 1862b. ‘Forged relics’, Illus London News, 29 March, 321Google Scholar
Anon 1862c. ‘Police courts – Bow Street’, Morning Advertiser, 13 October, 7Google Scholar
Anon 1863. ‘Proceedings, fifteenth session’, Trans Hist Soc Lancashire Cheshire, 15, 235–62Google Scholar
Anon 1864a. ‘Proceedings of the Association, 27 January’, J Brit Archaeol Ass, 20, 81–90Google Scholar
Anon 1864b. ‘Proceedings of the Association, 28 March’, J Brit Archaeol Ass, 20, 267–74Google Scholar
Anon 1864c. ‘Proceedings of the Association, 28 November’, J Brit Archaeol Ass, 20, 352–7Google Scholar
Anon 1867a. ‘George Eastwood deceased’, Standard, 18 January, 1Google Scholar
Anon 1867b. ‘Sham antiquities’, Windsor and Eton Express, 20 July, 4Google Scholar
Anon 1867c. ‘Sham antiquities’, Windsor and Eton Express, 27 July, 4Google Scholar
Anon 1868a. ‘Exhibition in Portsea’ Hampshire Telegraph, 15 January, 2Google Scholar
Anon 1868b. ‘Supposed Roman antiquities’, Hampshire Telegraph, 18 January, 5Google Scholar
Anon 1868c. ‘Spurious antiquities’ Hampshire Telegraph, 25 January, 2Google Scholar
Anon 1868d. ‘Southampton’ [local news column], Hampshire Telegraph, 1 February, 6Google Scholar
Anon 1868e. Untitled article about the Rev Kell’s warning to the public about purchasing spurious antiquities, Birmingham J, 1 February, 7Google Scholar
Anon 1868f. ‘Brummagem shams’, Birmingham J, suppl, 21 March, 2Google Scholar
Anon 1868g. ‘Spurious antiquities’, Birmingham J, suppl, 4 April, 2Google Scholar
Anon 1868h. ‘Proceedings of the Association, 25 March’, J Brit Archaeol Ass, 24, 175–82Google Scholar
Anon 1868i. ‘Forged antiquities’, Bedfordshire Times, 21 March, 8Google Scholar
Anon 1868j. ‘Spurious antiquities’, Birmingham J, suppl, 11 April, 2Google Scholar
Anon 1868k. ‘Forged antiquities’, Cambridge Chronicle, 11 April, 5, 8Google Scholar
Anon 1869a. ‘Forgeries’, Q J Suffolk Inst Archaeol, 1 (January), 24Google Scholar
Anon 1869b. ‘Proceedings of the Association, 10 February’, J Brit Archaeol Ass, 25, 78–88Google Scholar
Anon 1870a. ‘Proceedings of the Association, 12 January’, J Brit Archaeol Ass, 26, 69–81Google Scholar
Anon 1870b. ‘Proceedings of the Association, 23 November’, J Brit Archaeol Ass, 26, 376–9Google Scholar
Anon 1871. ‘Proceedings of the Association, 8 February’, J Brit Archaeol Ass, 27, 255–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowley, A L 1900. Wages in the United Kingdom in the Nineteenth Century, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
Cuming, H S 1858. ‘Roman coffin found at Shadwell’, J Brit Archaeol Ass, 14, 355–7, pl 26Google Scholar
Cuming, H S 1868. ‘On some gladiatorial relics’, J Brit Archaeol Ass, 24, 309–12Google Scholar
Cuming, H S 1869. ‘A few words on forgeries’, J Brit Archaeol Ass, 25, 389–92Google Scholar
F S A 1862. ‘Forgeries of coins’, Gentleman’s Mag, 212 (May), 606–7Google Scholar
Gerrard, C M 2003. Medieval Archaeology: understanding traditions and contemporary approaches, Routledge, London CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, M and Wright, S M 1988. Joseph Mayer of Liverpool, 1803–1886, Society of Antiquaries of London Occ Papers, new ser, XI, SAL, LondonGoogle Scholar
Heard, M 2010. Leo’s Heroes, Book Guild Publishing Ltd, Brighton Google Scholar
Humphrey, S 2002. An Introduction to the Cuming Family and the Cuming Museum, London Borough of Southwark, London Google Scholar
Post Office London Directory 1866, W Kelly, LondonGoogle Scholar
Post Office London Directory 1867, W Kelly, LondonGoogle Scholar
Roach Smith, C 1846. ‘On pilgrims’ signs and leaden tokens’, J Brit Archaeol Ass, 1, 200–12Google Scholar
Roach Smith, C 1852. ‘Pilgrims’ signs’, in Collectanea Antiqua: etchings and notices of ancient remains, illustrative of the habits, customs and history of past ages, vol 2, 43–50, 7 vols privately published by the author 1848–80, LondonGoogle Scholar
Roach Smith, C 1858a. ‘Pilgrims’ signs: rectification’, Gentleman’s Mag, 205 (July), 65Google Scholar
Roach Smith, C 1858b. ‘Medieval leaden badges’, Gentleman’s Mag, 205 (October), 400–1Google Scholar
Roach Smith, C 1859. Illustrations of Roman London, privately published by the author, LondonGoogle Scholar
Roach Smith, C 1861. ‘The leaden images found at Shadwell’, Collectanea Antiqua: etchings and notices of ancient remains, illustrative of the habits, customs and history of past ages, vol 5, 252–60, 7 vols privately published by the author 1848–80, LondonGoogle Scholar
Roach Smith, C 1883–91. Retrospections, Social and Archaeological, 3 vols, George Bell and Sons, London Google Scholar
Sharp, S 1865. ‘Antique counterfeits and counterfeit antiques’, Ass Architect Soc Rep and Papers, 8, 111–33Google Scholar
Sheppard, T 1908. ‘Forgeries and counterfeit antiquities’, Antiquary, 44, 209–15, 301–4 (subsequently re-issued as Hull Museums Publications 54)Google Scholar