Exploring the ‘Workshop of The World’

This month I’ve started work on a major project to catalogue our collection of the historic records of Vickers Armstrong and its predecessor companies. This will make all the documents fully available to the public for the very first time. Although the firm operated internationally most of these records relate to its activities on Tyneside from the 1840s onwards. The project is entitled ‘Workshop of the World’ a phrase often used to describe Britain’s manufacturing dominance during the Nineteenth Century. It’s a very apt description for the Elswick Works, which employed tens of thousands of men and built a wide variety of products for customers around the globe.

Elswick Works, c1900 (TWAM ref. D.VA/57/9)

The remarkable scale and diversity of the firm’s achievements are neatly demonstrated by Peter McKenzie in his biography of Lord Armstrong (published by Longhirst Press, 1983). He explains how in 1876 the firm (then known as Sir W.G. Armstrong & Company) built thirty-one 100-ton guns for the Italian Government.

“These were shipped from Elswick in the Italian ship Europa. She was the first vessel to pass though the Newcastle Swing Bridge channel. The Swing Bridge was at that time the largest in the world. The 100-ton guns were also the largest guns in the world and the sheer-legs that lifted them were the largest sheer-legs in the world. When the guns arrived in Italy, they were lifted ashore by a 180-ton hydraulic crane that was the largest of its type in the world. All these ‘largest in the world’ items had been built at Elswick”.

After the firm merged with the shipbuilder C.M. Mitchell and Company in 1882 a naval yard was established at Elswick. With the advent of the Elswick shipyard, as McKenzie notes, “Elswick was the only factory in the world – nationally owned or otherwise – that could build a man-of-war and arm it completely”. The yard went on to build warships not just for the Royal Navy but also for the navies of the world, including those of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Turkey and the United States among others.

HMS Victoria passing The Swing Bridge, 1889 (TWAM ref. D.VA/24/3)

Most of the Vickers Armstrong material we hold isn’t catalogued and has lain undisturbed on shelves for over twenty years.

View of part of the Vickers Armstrong collection in our storage areas, February 2014

When a record office takes in a very large collection it’s not usually possible to catalogue it all straightaway. A task of that magnitude requires the dedication of at least one member of staff over a long period of time. That has now been made possible by the award of a grant of over £46,000 to Tyne & Wear Archives through the National Cataloguing Grants Programme for 2013.

My first job is to look through the unlisted material and sort it into a coherent order. As well as sorting the records I’m also repackaging them to help with their long-term preservation. This will involve placing papers in acid-free envelopes or folders and loose photographs in archival polyester pockets. This is essential to make sure that these unique documents remain in good condition for future generations.

One of the most exciting things about working on an unlisted collection is that you simply don’t know what you might find. As I sort through and catalogue the collection over the next two years I’m sure that fascinating documents will be unearthed and great stories will emerge. I’ll look forward to reporting these to you in future blogs so please watch this space!

Two James Taylors?

For my first blog post, here’s an interesting puzzle that someone out there might have an answer for. Wading through boxes of prints at the Laing Art Gallery with John Millard, looking for portraits by North-East Victorian artist Ralph Hedley, I came across two pictures. Both are signed by Hedley, with his trademark “R.H.” monogram. The first portrait on the left here, the gentleman with a goatee beard, intrigued me right away: the clear late 19th century American influence of his dress – ribbon tie, Confederate style double-breasted suit- has echoes of General Custer, Buffalo Bill or a Barnum and Bailey style showman. Incidentally, the portrait is reproduced back to front, (look at the R.H. monogram). The name James Taylor is stamped on it in bold capitals. The second portrait below it, also with Hedley’s monogram, shows a man in similar dress, but no goatee and a wide cravat instead of the ribbon tie. And this portrait is signed “James Taylor” at the bottom right

So, in the time honoured tradition of Crimewatch UK, the question is begged, firstly, are they both the same man, drawn by Hedley at different points in his life? And more to the point, who was James Taylor? (Google is no help, obviously- just brings up loads of You Tube music videos of Carole King’s ex-husband…).  Except it has led me on a brief foray into Tyneside rowing history: there was a James Taylor, a Tyneside rower, who coached for the Tyne Rowing Club in the 1860s/70s and was cox for the renowned Tyne Champion Four Crew which included legendary local rower James Renforth. I believe Taylor accompanied the crew on at least one of two important rowing challenges in Canada, the latter which led to Renforth’s tragic death during a race in St John, New Brunswick. Perhaps the Canadian visit influenced Taylor’s dress style? The portraits were presumably drawn back here in the Newcastle area.

If anyone can shed any light on either of these portraits, please let me know. Particularly if you have any knowledge of local rowing history: that’s providing my hunch is not a complete red herring.

Roll up, roll up! See the MERMAID!

Mermaids have been part of myth and legend from as early as 2000 BC and the Assyrian goddess, Atargatis. She flung herself into the sea in grief over accidentally killing her mortal lover. She wished to become a fish, but her beauty was so great that it could not be destroyed and she became a half-female half-fish: the first mermaid.

From Atargatis, to the Greek nereids and tritons, to European folklore of mermaids and sirens- mermaids have always been beautiful and dangerous creatures. They were signs of bad luck, or harbingers of watery doom. Now, most of us associate the myth of mermaids with Disney’s Ariel.

But this particular mermaid is as far from that image as possible.

(Copyright Great North Museum: Hancock, TWAM)

This is our ‘Fiji Merman’… but it is not from Fiji. This name comes from one of the most famous of these specimens. It is actually Japanese; a representation of the Japanese mermaid legend: the ningyo. This legend differs from the common image of the beautiful, human-like upper body and long fish tail. The ningyo is between the size of a baby to that of a large seal. They are hideous to behold, with disfigured fish-like faces, long bony arms, fingers tipped with long claws, and glowing golden scales. Eating their flesh is supposed to give eternal life and youth. But they are powerful and can curse humans who attempt to do them harm.

Ningyo illustration {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}

The museum’s specimen is, of course, not a real mermaid. Although there is some variation, these ‘Fiji’ or ‘Feejee’ mermaids are generally a monkey torso attached to a fish tail, often with a ceramic, wooden, or plaster section disguising the juncture of the two. The tradition of making these mermaids began in the Edo Era in Japan (1630-1867), when sideshows including misemono (literally, ‘fake things’) became popular. Many yokai (Japanese supernatural creatures) were manufactured for these shows, and the art form took off. Japanese fishermen began making and selling the mummified ‘mermaids’ to supplement their income.

In the 19th century, shows like sideshows, circuses, freakshows, etc, became popular in America and Europe. Mid-century trade opened between the West and Japan, and trade in these mummified ‘mermaids’ grew.

One particular ‘mermaid’ would make these specimens famous in the West. It was acquired by Captain Eades of the Pickering. He encountered the specimen in Batavia, and completely enamoured of it, sold the ship (of which he owned only 1/8th) to purchase the dried mermaid.

Illustration of Eades' 'mermaid' {{PD-US}} {{PD-OLD}}

September 1822, Eades brought the mermaid to London. William Clift, accomplished biologist and assistant to Sir Everard Home, examined the specimen minutely, and declared not only that it was a fake, but how it was made.

It’s body was 86 centimetres long. The cranium and torso were of a female orangutan, the jaws and teeth of a baboon, and the eyes were artificial. The skin of the face was reconstructed to form the nose, ears, and other features. The bones of lower arms had been sawed through under the skin to shorten them to human proportions and the nails were of horn or quill. The fish was a large salmon, detached just below the head, artfully manipulated to give the impression that a single spine continued through the whole creature.

Fortunately for Eades, Clift and Home were sworn to secrecy before their examination. After several weeks held by confused customs agents, who presumably had never before encountered a mummified mermaid, Eades was able to exhibit his mermaid.

 

Advertisement for mermaid exhibit, 1822 {{PS-US}}

During the autumn of 1822, Eades’ mermaid was a sensation. It was estimated that every day 300-400 people paid a shilling to see it. The public, less skeptical than scientists, were largely convinced of its authenticity. Other naturalists recruited by Eades to examine the specimen mostly supported this belief.

However, in November 1822, Eades advertised that Sir Everard Home declared the mermaid genuine. This infuriated Home, who decided that this rendered their secrecy agreement void, and ordered Clift to write an article debunking the mermaid.

This was the beginning of the end for Eades’ mermaid. Those scientists who had confirmed its legitimacy were ridiculed for believing in a half-mammal, half-fish. The London public’s interest dwindled away and the exhibit closed in January 1823. The mermaid toured around Britain and Europe with mild success, and within 10 years record of its location was lost.

Eades’ big mistake eventually caught up with him, when the ship’s 7/8ths owner, Stephen Ellery, demanded his money back from the sale of the ship. After a protracted legal battle, Eades was commanded to work off his debt to Ellery, and died at sea still trying to pay it off.

It is at this point in the story we lose the mermaid’s trail for a time, and must travel to America to pick it back up…

In 1842, Mr. Moses Kimball, proprietor of the Boston Museum, informed P.T. Barnum (businessman and entertainer who would go on to found Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus) about a new artefact acquired from a Boston seaman- a mermaid. The Boston seaman told a tale of his father, who had acquired it by selling his ship, and was sentenced to pay back the money for the ship through indentured servitude at sea, eventually dying there with nothing more to his name than this mermaid.

It was Eades’ mermaid!Rediscovered almost 10 years later, thousands of miles away from its last known location. Barnum took the specimen to a naturalist, who immediately pronounced it a manufacture. But Barnum was unconcerned, knowing that he would be able to turn it to his own profit.

He convinced newspapers that a ‘Dr. Griffin’ (really his friend Levi Lyman) from the London Lyceum of Natural History was coming to the United States and bringing a mermaid, caught off the ‘Feejee’ Islands, which he hoped to display to the public. ‘Feejee Mermaid’ (or ‘Fiji’) became become the name by which all of these fabricated mermaid specimens are known. Barnum’s associate, playing the fake Dr. Griffin drummed up interest for the mermaid. Soon, Barnum contacted local papers, telling them that he was trying to persuade Dr. Griffin to allow him to exhibit his Feejee Mermaid, but had failed. He offered each editor the exclusive rights to the drawing of the mermaid he had commission, and each accepted. When the papers were printed, they realized Barnum had given different drawings of the mermaid to each paper. The same day, Barnum distributed 10,000 leaflets advertising the mermaid’s exhibition for 1 week only. The fraudulent Dr. Griffin discussed the mermaid as the missing link between humans and fish in lectures and pamphlets.

Barnum mermaid advertisement {{PD-US}}

Barnum’s advertising suggested a beautiful womanly figure with a fish tail, but what visitors saw after they had paid their fee left many disappointed and some irate.

By the summer of 1843, New Yorkers were growing bored with the mermaid, so Barnum arranged a tour of the southern states. However, it soon fell apart when, in Charleston, the show got caught between two rival newspapers. It was very popular and drew large crowds, but when it was declared fake, the Charleston public was humiliated and enraged. The mermaid and its manager had to be removed back to New York for safety.

{{PD-US}}

 

In 1859, Barnum returned the mermaid to Kimball and the Boston Museum. Although Barnum toured with a mermaid again in the 1880s, this was most likely another specimen.

The Boston Museum burnt in early 1880’s, but it was claimed the specimen was rescued, and later donated to Harvard University’s Peabody Museum of Ethnology and Archaeology. However, when this specimen was displayed, it was discovered that this “Feejee Mermaid” was not the real fake mermaid, but is another, which differed greatly from the drawings and descriptions of the original ‘Feejee Mermaid’.

So where is the real fake?

Probably destroyed, unfortunately. Most likely, a tinder-dry taxidermy would have burnt with the Boston Museum in the early 1880s, or was destroyed by an unwitting individual ignorant of its worth. No examples yet found in Europe or America have matched the specimen Eades, and then Barnum, displayed.

Our own Fiji Merman was featured in the The Journal this week in an article about the many different magical, mystical, and legendary stories that will be told in the upcoming Magic Worlds exhibition opening March 22 2014.

http://www.thejournal.co.uk/news/north-east-news/newcastles-great-north-museum-set-6389046

 

Insults and infighting in Seventeenth Century Newcastle

Last year I wrote a short blog about a new addition to the Tyne & Wear Archives collections – an apprenticeship register of the Incorporated Company of Tailors of Newcastle upon Tyne dating from the Tudor period. The register was accompanied by several other items relating to the Tailors guild and one of these has turned out to be of outstanding historical interest. The document in question is a minute book recording the meetings of tailors in Newcastle upon Tyne from 1682 to 1689. At this time the Tailors seem to have met in Manor Chare, near the junction with Pilgrim street.

Part of Thomas Oliver's Map of Newcastle upon Tyne, 1830

The minute book covers an interesting period of British history. In 1688 King James II of England fled the country and was replaced on the throne by the joint monarchy of William and Mary. I thought it would be interesting to see whether the minute book contained any references to these national events. My research didn’t reveal any details of the country’s political struggles, but what I did find was just as compelling – an account of the petty infighting between the tailors of Newcastle upon Tyne.

The minute book is a rare survival. While the lives of the wealthy are relatively well documented through letters and diaries this is not the case for all sections of society.  It’s unusual to get an insight into the daily lives and behaviour of humble tradesmen during the Seventeenth Century. Low levels of literacy meant that few people would’ve been able to write their thoughts and feelings. It’s also unusual for disputes to be recorded in such colourful language.

A browse through the minutes for 1688 reveals that the tailors of Newcastle upon Tyne fell out with each other on a regular basis. There was also little respect for authority amongst certain members, with three tailors in particular appearing in the minute book as repeat offenders – John Charlton, John Watson and Henry Wallis. John Charlton’s list of misdemeanours at the tailor’s guild meeting on 9 January 1688, is especially long and must have cost him a small fortune in fines.

 

Minutes of tailors guild meeting, 9 January 1688 (TWAM ref. GU.TY/2/1)

 

“John Charlton for disturbing the Company.

John Charlton for biding Richd Farrington kis his britch [backside] when commanded to hold his peace.

John Charlton for biding Nicho. Stephenson kis his britch also when desired to hold his peace.

John Charlton for disturbing the Company againe.

John Watson for disturbing the Company

John Charlton for biding Richd Farrington kis his britch againe.

John Charlton for saying if he had Nicho. Stephenson out of the meeting house he would have satisfaction of him.

John Watson for not takeing his place when commanded.

John Charlton for wilfull refuseing to absent himselfe when commanded by the stewards.

Noe man to worke with John Charlton till he had paid a shilling for two oaths.

John Charlton swears by his God that he will bring two men from London & will imploy in dispite of the Company …”

This last comment might seem quite harmless but would have been taken very seriously by the Company. The employment of men from outside (or ‘foreigners’ as they were called) would have been a real slap in the face to the Company’s rules. The entries carry on in similar vein for another page. The final entries read:

“John Charlton informes that Nicholas Stephenson kept a foreigner working in his garret.

Richd Farington complaines agst John Charlton for holding up his hands in threatening manner & saying Sirrah Farington you have not payd for your Bastards”.

This remark was a slur on Richard Farington’s name with Charlton appearing to accuse him of fathering children out of wedlock and then not paying their maintenance. The minute book doesn’t say that John Charlton was drunk but his behaviour has all the hallmarks of a man out of control.

The minutes of the meeting on 12 April 1688 give us our first introduction to Henry Wallis, who seems to have had a violent and vindictive streak.

Minutes of tailors guild meeting, 12 April 1688 (TWAM ref. GU.TY/2/1)

“Richd Farington complaines agst Henry Wallas for defaming him in the open street calling him beggarly rogue & much abusive & unbrotherly language …

Tho Bilton complaines agst John Watson for calling him rogue & Abusing him in his owne shop

John Watson Complaines agst Tho Bilton saying to Jno Watson thou deserves to have thy Eares cutt out”.

There was clearly considerable rivalry amongst the various members of the Company of Tailors. Members were quite prepared to slander each other to get work as this entry from 17 April 1688 shows:

“Tho. Joplin complains of Thos Bilton for seeking worke from him & saying he was blind. Tho Bilton complains that Tho Jopling informes his customers that Tho Bilton cannot performe worke himself but payed to get others to doe it whereby the worke is botched”.

From June onwards the entries become even more interesting as they document what appears to be a vindictive campaign against John Shaftoe, a steward of the Company. The main culprit is again Henry Wallis.

At a meeting 5 June 1688

“Henry Wallis for calling John Shaftoe whores bird before the whole Company”.

At a meeting 6 August 1688

“Henry Wallis for an oath

Henry Wallis for saying he cared not a fart for John Shaftoe a Steward

Henry Wallis for Calling both the Stewards Roges [rogues]

Henry Wallis for strikeing at John Shaftoe in the meeting house & takeing by the haire & strikeing at his face …”

Minutes of tailors guild meeting, 6 August 1688 (TWAM ref. GU.TY/2/1)

John Shaftoe had endured a lot already but if anything the abuse he suffered became more widespread with other members joining in.

17 September 1688

“John Shaftoe complaines agst Henry Wallis for abusing and railing agst him in the open street & threatened to beat him.

John Shaftoe & Tho. Pattison complaines agst Geo. Marshall & Robert Vipont for calling them cheaters on the open keay [quay] & seemed to justify the words when they were reproved”.

29 September 1688

“John Shaftoe Complaines against Tho. Prockter for calling him botcher & said he would prove it & that he never did a piece of good worke in his life”.

30 November 1688

“John Shaftoe complaines agst Mark Trumble for bidding him kiss his arse when he discharged Mark working aboard of a ship at the instance of Thomas Prockter & Mark Trumble further sayd that he would take noe discharge from John Shaftoe”.

Minutes of tailors guild meeting, 30 November 1688 (TWAM ref. GU.TY/2/1)

With position comes responsibility, and sometimes a fair amount of flak. Certainly John Shaftoe’s experience as Steward seems to have brought him into confrontation with his fellow members. I can’t help wondering how typical these events were in Seventeenth Century Newcastle. There’s no reason to believe that tailors were any rowdier than other tradesmen. That leads me to assume that infighting and disrespect for authority may have been quite common and that the only unusual circumstance in this story is the detail in which events have been recorded.

Our Seventeenth Century ancestors can sometimes seem very distant and remote. Their daily lives were so unlike ours and they had a different world picture, yet the descriptions of these tailors guild meetings really bring the people involved to life. Their behaviour cuts across the centuries and has a familiarity that reminds us that human nature hasn’t changed so very much in 325 years. The minute book should be of great interest to both social and family historians. It is a truly fascinating addition to the Archives.

 

Shopping Local

Have you done all of your Christmas shopping yet? Or are you waiting until the last minute to shop while Carol singers and brass bands are playing in the street and people are wishing each other a merry Christmas?

Christmas shopping in Fenwick, Newcastle, 1966.

My job is to preserve modern objects for future generations to understand about our lives now in 2013.  Over the last few years I have collected the best selling Christmas toy from Fenwick’s and other Christmas related objects which would otherwise not be saved.  Things like wrapping paper and crackers are part of most people’s Christmas traditions and are at the bottom of the wheelie bin by the end of Christmas day.

At the moment I’m working on a project to collect material to represent the local high street.  For many different reasons the high street is changing.  Mary Portas believes that it is in crisis and people need to shop local and use their local high streets in order for them to survive.

Northumberland Street, Newcastle, 2013

Most people who celebrate Christmas do a lot of shopping in November and December so it’s a good time to see how people shop.  Are you an avid supporter of shopping local, do you buy most of your presents on the internet or do you do a bit of both?  I’d really like to know so that I can find out what the people of Tyneside think about their high streets and how they use them.

I’ve been looking at high streets in Gateshead, Newcastle, South Shields and Whitley Bay.  I want to collect objects from businesses and shoppers which give information about what it’s like to shop or work on the high street.  Objects might include shop signs, merchandise, posters, shopping bags, shop baskets, Christmas gift guides, shop uniforms and badges as well as recorded interviews with shop staff, street cleaners and shoppers.

Park View, Whitley Bay, 2013

What I’d really like is for others – anyone in Tyne and Wear – to suggest what they think Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums should collect to represent their local high street and why it is or isn’t important to them.  What objects would you preserve to show future generations about your memories of shopping?  What do you think is important?  Please let me know.