First published 2015 Christopher Binding, FRGS, 12, Harbour Road, Sherborne, Dorset DT9 4AN. email@example.com ÂŠ Christopher Binding, 2015 The right of Christopher Binding to be identified as the Author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Author.
SUMMARY OF GRAFFITI AND RITUAL PROTECTION MARKS ON THE SARCOPHAGUS OF BISHOP JOHN HAREWELL IN WELLS CATHEDRAL, SOMERSET by CHRISTOPHER BINDING
ABSTRACT The sculpted sarcophagus of Bishop John Harewell in Wells Cathedral is covered with more than 530 inscribed marks, a quarter of which are considered to be ritual protection marks, in the classes of apotropaics, Christograms and unusual symbols, probably dating to the 17 th and 18th centuries. The similarity of the marks to others found in dwellings throughout Britain and in local caves is noteworthy; the term ritual protection mark is preferred to the description “witch marks” used in some references, to avoid confusion with the same term which refers to the marks left on a witch's body by its familiar, and which was used as a diagnostic in many witchcraft trials. The high incidence of ritual protection marks on the sarcophagus leads to a surprising conclusion.
INTRODUCTION In Wells Cathedral, Somerset, an alabaster memorial sculpture (Figure 1) overlays the tomb of John Harewell (c1322-1386), former Bishop, famed for commissioning the south tower of the magnificent West Front. John Harewell was from Harwell, Berkshire, son of John Halle of Harwell; his mother Margery was heiress of the Bayllols Manor, also from Harwell. Educated at Oxford before becoming Rector of Whichford, Warwickshire, Archdeacon of Berkshire and finally in 1366 Bishop of Bath and Wells (Ford, 2003). “Bishop Harewell was interred in the south aisle of the choir. His tomb, which is a plain pedestal on a basement step, is let into the south wall. His effigy has been richly ornamented, but is now much defaced and broken” (Britton, 1824). At his feet there are two opposing carved hares, considered a play on his name.
Figure 1. Sarcophagus of John Harewell Photo: C. Binding
Figure 2. Floor plan of Wells Cathedral showing the location of the John Harewell sarcophagus DISCUSSION Many years after the identification of ritual protection marks in some local caves 1, an impromptu investigatory visit to the Cathedral was undertaken in March 2015 during which a large number of similar markings were noticed on the sarcophagus of John Harewell. Subsequently, a further site visit was arranged so a thorough photographic record could be made which allowed a systematic close study of images, resulting in a comprehensive listing and categorisation of the graffiti; a third and final site visit took place for final checking. There is an abundance of graffiti marking the sarcophagus and many are superimposed on others thereby making a complete record of all of the inscriptions nearly impossible; this paper lists the majority of the more than five hundred visible and legible etchings, which fall into the following categories: Personalised marks Ritual Protection marks
┌ ┤ └ ┌ ┤ └
Initials Dates Names Apotropaics Christograms Symbols
NB: It is reasonable to group initials, dates and names together since they serve as personalised markers, in keeping with the “Kilroy was here” tradition. Similarly apotropaics, Christograms and symbols can be classified as variations of ritual protection marks provided it is accepted that they served a purpose over and beyond a hasty graffito by someone wishing to record their presence (in the Cathedral). 1 Ritual Protection Marks in Goatchurch Cavern, Burrington Combe, North Somerset, 2004:
Ritual Protection Marks in Wookey Hole and Long Hole, Somerset, 2010. BINDING, C & WILSON, L.. Proceedings University of Bristol Spelaeological Society.
Initials are normally noted as sets of letters traditionally attributed as referring to a person and it is a reasonable presumption that the initials are those of the person making the marks; it is not uncommon for initials to be found in association with a date (Binding & Wilson, 2004). Most people are familiar with this type of marking as it persists to this day. The majority of inscriptions on the sarcophagus are of this nature. Reversal and/or embellishment of just a few initials, for example Ƨ and ᴙ appears purposive. Confusion regarding the orientation of characters would be less prevalent given the context, since there are so many reference examples on the sculpture anyone semi-literate, or dyslexic, who wished to add their mark could do so by copying. The occurrence of single R characters, both correctly oriented and reversed, perhaps suggests an apotropaic intent, as mentioned in The Archaeology of Ritual and Magic, “The reversal could be part of the magic, and not merely a measure of secrecy to make it more difficult for a finder to identify the target” (Merrifield, 1987). The single character R could have Christogram or Marian significance, being Rex or Regina, but this is conjecture – the letter arises singly in many other locations, often embellished and unequivocally inscribed by different hands. “...R with a dash through its tail... is a mark that English physicians place at the beginning of their prescriptions, as they have apparently done for over 500 years, as a contracted form of the word 'Recipe'...” (Merrifield, 1987, cf. Spurrell, 1894). Therefore a lone initial R could have gained notoriety as an icon of supposed supernatural importance, due to it being used by cunning men emulating physicians; “...Cunning-folk was just one of several terms used in England to describe multi-faceted practitioners of magic who healed the sick and the bewitched, who told fortunes, identified thieves, induced love, and much else besides...” (Davies, 2003). Because of this there may be a case for the reversed characters on the memorial to be considered as a class of apotropaic or charm, rather than mistakes by semi-literate people who had plenty of immediately visible examples of correct polarity characters they could copy. Names are recorded as written, whether fully legible or partially obscured through polishing/abrasion or other damage to the alabaster such as chipping, scratching or blunt impact and obliteration. There are few such etchings on the memorial, namely: AbbRlH SidNing BVIOHP ChristoppY E HOLE Ɨ OHNBATƗ Ɨ OHN HOLE 1600 JAMES:WISHE:RICHARD:COOKE LH DAVIS PETER RAY R Bromme ROBERT:HEEL ROBERT HOLE CHORISTER Roibdn THOR T THOM W A MOGE 1636 WILLIAM BARTLET WILLIAM HARFORD
Apotropaic marks (coming from the Greek word Apotropaios, literally “averting evil”, from Apotrepein, “turn away or from”, + ic) (Oxford Dictionaries, 2015) most commonly appear as the letter W or M and traditionally have been associated with the Virgin Mary, the letter W often being formed by two conjoined Vs overlapping. The composite character referring to Virgo Virginum, literally Virgin of Virgins, namely Mary, the mother of Christ (Easton, 2004) (Suffolk Medieval Graffiti Survey, 2014). Other recognised apotropaic Virgin Mary marks involve the initial M with an adjacent R for Regina (Queen); in a compact combination of AMR this can be read as Ave Maria Regina (Easton, 2004). Butterfly Cross (below) marks closely resemble the D or dagaz rune (Binding & Wilson, 2010) and could be a variation on the conjoined Vs symbol. Yet another variation of conjoined Vs is a vertical overlapping of ˄ with a ˅ forming a symbol akin to the Masonic Square and Compass but due to the present context would be attributable as Marian, rather than Masonic; this appears as a capital A either singularly or in association with conjoined Vs (variations below, figure 3). Apotropaics are recorded as having many types and variations thereof – Medieval daisywheels, figurative birds, embellished squares and composites – but from the 17 th and 18th centuries most commonly take one of the following forms:
Conjoined Vs looking like ⨈
Inverted Conjoined Vs looking like ⨇
Butterfly Cross looking like ⧖ or ⋈
Marian variation looking like ⩙ can resemble an A
Figure 3. Variety of apotropaics, being Marian marks and Christograms on the John Harewell sarcophagus Illustration: C. Binding
Christograms are monograms or combinations of letters that form an abbreviation for the name of Jesus Christ, and were traditionally used as a Christian symbol. The letters IH are the first two letters of the Greek form of Jesus, and IHC and IHS are common Christograms in other contexts (Binding & Wilson, 2010). There are 23 individual examples of a marking that resembles a capital I, with an extra horizontal line in the middle and which generally appears in combination with other marks, although it has been found in isolation. In this paper the symbol Ɨ will be used to represent this mark. It is widely acknowledged that this character is an early print form of the letter J (which was not used in Latin). The same mark has been noted in underground sites and its significance has been debated (Cordingly, 2000). Based on its ubiquity in Britain it is strongly believed that Ɨ used singly represents Jesus, or in combination with VV represents Jesus and Mary. Other common combinations such as ƗA, ƗB, and ƗD are recorded elsewhere in speleological literature (Cordingly, 2000) (Binding & Wilson,
2010), and while these latter occur in association with other recognised apotropaics they have not yet had their meaning or intention satisfactorily defined or explained. Further research on this is in hand and may form part of another paper. Notwithstanding that many of the occurrences of the Ɨ character appear to form initials, most likely of the inscriber, the character appears disproportionately common. In total, if we consider all instances of: Ɨ, ƗA, ƗB, ƗD, ƗH, ƗHR, Ɨ Ɨ, ƗR, Ɨ ᴙ, and ƗW - of which where there are altogether 64 occurrences – these equate to approximately 12% of all inscriptions; a very high percentage. Finally, Symbols are markings which do not conform to any of the former categories and their meaning remains unknown - assuming they were more than mere doodles and were intended to have purpose. They are few, but noteworthy for their unusualness. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION In total this paper records 534 inscribed marks on the sarcophagus of John Harewell. Of these 364 are initials (some with dates), 21 are names, 14 are symbols and unaccompanied dates and 135 are believed to be ritual protection marks of one type or another, the latter accounting for just over 25% of the total. This categorises the John Harewell sarcophagus as a very heavily adorned object, representing a major ritual or folkloric focus which deserves comment. In terms of quantity of ritual protection marks it is a mother lode object, presently without a known equal, and begs the question why would John Harewell or his sarcophagus attract such an interest?
Figure 4. Marian marks on John Harewell sarcophagus Photo: C. Binding
Figure 5. Marian marks illustration from Ritual Marks on Historic Timber, cf. Easton
The listing of graffiti from the sarcophagus contains no inscriptions commencing with the letters O, Q, U, X, Y or Z but these are relatively uncommon first letters for names so this is not surprising. Granted that the letter Ɨ is interpreted as being a J and/or an I especially during the 17 th 18th centuries, and it serves a dual role – namely a letter commencing a name, but also an unrelated separate ritual function - this may explain the high incidence of the letter, either singly or in initial groupings. A few later graffiti may explain the presence of the character J which does feature, but only three times, respectively commencing JAMES:WISHE:RICHARD:COOKE, JOE and J.W.. The exceptionally large quantity of various ritual protection marks on the sculpture suggests a significance that is worthy of deeper consideration; on the one hand perhaps it is not surprising that the sarcophagus is inscribed, simply because alabaster is easily scratched and so it is relatively straightforward to use as a medium on which people can leave their marks. However, it is significant that the John Harewell sarcophagus serves as a major focus specifically for ritual protection marks, clearly attracting a disproportionately large number of them within the Cathedral; other ritual protection marks are in evidence elsewhere in the Cathedral – notably three small groups, totalling fewer than 6 inscriptions, on the Thomas Boleyn sarcophagus (1451-1472) and just a single instance of conjoined Vs on the heavily inscribed Robert Creyghton sarcophagus (17 th century), both of which are also alabaster sculptures and hence similarly capable of being easily marked by anyone wishing to do so. Comparing the frequency of initials, particularly the first letter, with popular male and female names indicates that the most commonly occurring initials on the Harewell sarcophagus do not correspond with common Christian name initials.
Figure 6. Singular conjoined Vs on John Harewell sarcophagus Photo: C. Binding
The very high number of conjoined Vs on the sarcophagus and other variations of ritual marks strongly support the likelihood they were inscribed by different people over a significant number of years; the conjoined V symbol is common and well documented – whether it played a non-protective role and served merely as a talisman, charm or supernatural icon is not yet determined. Certainly the initial presumption is that inside a Cathedral it would not be serving the same role as those inscribed on lintels, hearths, doorways or inside caves, where they were placed specifically to deter entry to unwelcome spirits; however it is reasonable to presume that the conjoined Vs on the sarcophagus served a function in the minds of those who inscribed them, over and beyond merely representing the letter W. It would not be a normal expectation to feel a significant need to avert evil within the structure of a consecrated ecclesiastical building of such status. Protective conjoined Vs, with and without accompanying marks, exist in other sites in the locality, notably Goatchurch Cavern at Burrington Combe, and Long Hole and Great Oones caves in Cheddar Gorge, and in profusion inside Wookey Hole Cave (Binding & Wilson, 2004, 2010).
Figure 7. Singular conjoined Vs in Goatchurch Cavern, Burrington Combe Photo: C. Binding
Figure 8. Singular conjoined Vs in Long Hole Cave, Cheddar Gorge Photo: C. Binding
Figure 9. Singular conjoined Vs in Great Oones Hole, Cheddar Gorge Photo: C. Binding
Figure 10. Conjoined Vs on inglenook lintel, High Ash Farm, Badingham, Suffolk Note characteristic looped H in lower left hand corner
THE INSCRIBED DATES The dates on the sarcophagus are, in chronological order: 16th century
(cf Ɨ OHNHOLE1600)
1604 1629 1636 1637 1637 1644 1655 1657 1663 1664 1669 1677 1683
(cf (cf (cf (cf (cf (cf (cf (cf (cf (cf (cf (cf (cf
1713 1768 1769 1770 1778 1790 1791 1793 1795
1861 1873 1890
SH1604) Ɨ C1629) WAMOGE1636) CT1637) Ɨ G1637) MM1644) RITC1655) Ɨ C1657) WK1663) SH1664) WL1669) PH1677) RH1683)
(cf Ɨ xR1769) (cf Ɨ L1770)
(cf TV1793) (cf AG1861) (cf CG1890)
The majority of the dates fall within the period of activity associated with ritual protection marks, namely 1600-1800, and presumably the majority of the inscriptions on the sarcophagus do also – however a word of caution needs to be raised since earlier graffiti, of which vague marks remain, could easily have been obliterated, over-written or polished away during the intervening years. It is noteworthy that 20th century dates are not in evidence. It was a commonplace and accepted part of village life in the 16th and 17th centuries that there were village healers, cunning-folk, who practised their craft dealing in herbs and medicines, providing solace and assistance to the credulous or desperate. The extent of purported witchcraft recorded at the time “perhaps reflected the large amounts of money people could make by posing as witches” (Castelow, 2014). It was a time when witchcraft was revered and feared and fascinated common folk; it caught the attention of King James I (1566-1625) who had been greatly interested in witchcraft even before taking the throne in 1604, writing the key reference book Daemonologie (1597) in which readers were instructed to condemn and prosecute supporters and practitioners of witchcraft, the latter to be executed (Daemonologie, Chapter 6, Book 3). The scepticism of the King became reflected in the feelings of unrest about witchcraft among the common people. In 1611 the King James I version of the Bible, translated into English and hence accessible to a far larger readership than earlier Latin versions, stipulated that “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” (Leviticus 20:27) (Bible, King James Version).
Unsurprisingly the king's views were imposed upon the legislators; in 1612 instructions were given to each Justice of the Peace to compile a list of all those who refused to attend Church or take Communion (a criminal offence) and to present this at the beginning of the year. Mendip had a reputation for being “a wild and lawless region”, as later described by Hannah More of Cheddar, and the collection of names on such a list for the locality would very likely have produced suspects. Witch trials did occur within the locality, notably those of Jane Brooks of Shepton Mallet in 1657, less than 6 miles away, and several women from Beckington in 1689-1691 (Uszkalo, 2011), some 22 miles distant. Between 1555-1707 48 people were tried for witchcraft in Somerset, 14 of them men (Notestein, 1911 and Murray, 1921). Furthermore, just a few miles away, at Croscombe, Nancy Camel was considered to be a witch (Farbrother, 1859) but disappeared during the great storm of 26th November 1703, the same storm causing the death of Bishop Richard Kidder (16331703), and his wife, when the chimney blew over and crashed through the roof of the episcopal palace onto them in bed; the storm also caused significant damage to the West Window of the Cathedral nave. A belief in the supernatural and witchcraft was widespread, and the perceived reality of it would have been reinforced by the legal recognition implicit in the Witchcraft Act 1604 whereby convictions were punishable by hanging (over-ruling the earlier Witchcraft Act 1563, conviction previously resulting in the condemned being burned at the stake),. When combined with the wealth of publicity and a large corpus of reference documentation being available, it is reasonable to presume people would be in a highly receptive state, and respond accordingly to any news of malevolent goings on. Nearby Wookey Hole Cave had long been renowned as a focus of supernatural occurrences (Binding & Wilson, 2010), the earliest record of the cave dating to the 2 nd or 3rd century, by Clement of Alexandria, in his writings, Stromata (Boon, 1976). Generally, maleficia, or supernatural acts of a malign type, were ascribed as the proximate cause of otherwise inexplicable events and the regular recurrence of plague pandemics following the original devastating Black Death, 1348-1349, were good examples. Britain suffered sporadic resurgences of plague epidemics, becoming less severe due to intervening safeguards, culminating with a final major outbreak in London between 1665-1666. Against this backdrop it is not unreasonable to posit an increase in the use of, or recourse to, talismanic safeguards between c.1650-c.1750 and examples are common throughout Britain during this period; furthermore, people would have been on their guard, looking for telltales, living with such a belief or paranoia. Witches were believed to have been aided and befriended by their familiars – a range of creatures - spirits in animal form, given to the witch by Satan himself and the hare was commonplace in this guise. “The cat and the hare are the two creatures into which the witch transforms herself when in extremity”, “The hare is the most common disguise of a witch in all the northern countries of Europe” (Henderson, 1879). Similarly “It was unlucky for a hare to cross your path, because witches were said to transform themselves into hares” (Brewers, 1870). The association was not a new one, there being medieval references, including at St. Albans Hertfordshire, where “Many tales connected with hares were told in medieval times; the most wellknown is the one describing how witches were able to transform themselves into hares. In the small church at Higham Gobion there is a carving of a woman's head on one of the corbels, and lying on her head is a hare. The local belief is that the carving represents a witch” (Pritchard, 2008). Anthony Locke, in Superstitions and Folklore of the Rabbit and Hare, 2013, states “The Celts believed that the goddess Ēostre's favourite animal and attendant spirit was the hare... Ēostre changed into a hare at the full moon... the symbol of a hare was used deliberately to transfer old pagan religion into a Christian context, and the Albrecht Dürer woodcut of the Holy Family (14711528) clearly depicts three hares at the family's feet. Later superstition changed the Easter Hare into the Easter Rabbit, for it was less threatening than the ancient pagan symbol – very few people will
be aware that the hare ever held such standing... although the ancient beliefs died, superstitions about the hare remained and many witches were reputed to have hares as their familiars”. Common knowledge could also have been augmented by the widespread publicity surrounding the high profile trial and conviction of Isobel Gowdie in 1662 which may have seeded the imaginations of the public due to her vivid and ground breaking confessions (they were gained without recourse to torture) regarding the coven to which she belonged. These included claims that she and her accomplices possessed the ability to transform into hares, using the conjuration “I shall go into a hare, with sorrow and sych and meickle care; and I shall go in the Devil's name, ay while I come home again”, and to transform back they would sing “Hare, hare God send thee care. I am in a hare's likeness now, but I shall be in a woman's likeness even now” (Pitcairn, 1833). Gowdie made several confessions over many days, in the course of which she repeatedly referred to being transformed into a hare, enabling her to secretly perform errands for the Devil.
Figure 11. The two hares at the feet of John Harewell Photo: C. Binding
In what appears to be a variation on the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy (“after this, therefore because of this”, falsely implying a causal link) it seems that the inclusion of hares on the memorial to John Harewell may have created, almost three hundred years after his death, a genuine belief in the eyes of the local populace that he was involved in witchcraft in his own right, whether or not there was any material evidence to support such an accusation. The demonic familiars (sculpted hares) on the sarcophagus would have been sufficient visible proof to the credulous, since “It was common knowledge, for centuries (author's emphasis), that witches would turn themselves into hares... (and)... they are consistently described as unlucky, unfit to eat, uncanny, and as witches in disguise. The documentary record for hare beliefs is unusually full, and a significant number are mentioned by medieval writers” (Roud, 2006) Presuming it was indeed the case that John Harewell was posthumously imagined to be involved in witchcraft there is also the additional problem created by the presence of his remains within the Cathedral, since the existence of an interred practitioner of witchcraft inside a House of God would have caused distress to many and if it was not possible to physically (or politically) have the sarcophagus and its contents removed from the building, the next best practical solution would be to scribe ritual protection marks on it in order to contain, control or banish any residing evil emanations that might persist.
It is important to note that it is not necessary for John Harewell to have had any actual involvement in witchcraft (of which no evidence exists), but only necessary for him to subsequently have been suspected of being involved in order that his sarcophagus became inscribed with more than a hundred ritual protection marks and other symbols – perhaps a form of “better safe than sorry”. The profusion of talismans can be explained by the simple premise that the tomb was believed to contain a practitioner of witchcraft and hence would also satisfactorily explain why it was “much defaced and broken” (Britton, 1824). It is highly likely that John Harewell's significant formative involvement in the Cathedral construction would have made retrospectively removing his memorial politically embarrassing or unacceptable in some regard and so it remains to this day as testament to the man, and the inscriptions serve witness to those who misinterpreted him, with the evidence of their misunderstanding enduring on plain view even now. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to acknowledge the help of the following people with this paper: Anne Crawford, archivist at Wells Cathedral, for assistance and suggesting the paper be written; the Virgers of Wells Cathedral, David and Timothy, for kindly allowing access to photograph the sarcophagus from the aisle and from the Chapel of St. Calixtus; and Linda Wilson for commenting on the paper and supplying reference material relating to hares. REFERENCES BIBLE, KING JAMES VERSION. 1611 BINDING, C & WILSON, L. Ritual Protection Marks in Goatchurch Cavern, Burrington Combe, North Somerset. Proceedings University of Bristol Spelaeological Society, 2004, 23 (2), 119-133 BINDING, C & WILSON, L. Ritual Protection Marks in Wookey Hole and Long Hole, Somerset. Proceedings University of Bristol Spelaeological Society, 2010, 25 (1), 47-73 BOON, G. Clement of Alexandria, Wookey Hole and the Corycian Cave. Proceedings University of Bristol Spelaeological Society, 1976, 14 (2), 131-140 BREWER'S DICTIONARY OF PHRASE AND FABLE. Cassell, London. 1870 BRITTON, J. The History and Antiquities of the Cathedral Church of Wells, Volume 1: Volume 4. 1824 CASTELOW, E. The Pendle Witches. Historic UK, 2014. http://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/ThePendle-Witches/ accessed May 2015 CORDINGLY, J. More On Those Inscriptions and the Letter I. Craven Pothole Club Records. 53, January 1999 CORDINGLY, J. Inscriptions in Peak and Speedwell Caverns – a Bit of Historical Research. TSG Journal 2000 DAVIES, O. Popular Magic. Cunning-folk in English History. 2003 EASTON, T. Ritual Marks on Historic Timber. Weald and Downland Open Air Museum Magazine. Spring 1999, pp. 22-30
EASTON, T. The Use of Conjoined Vs to Protect a Dwelling. (Appendix to Ritual Protection Marks in Goatchurch Cavern, Burrington Combe, North Somerset. Proceedings University of Bristol Spelaeological Society, 2004 ENGLISH WITCH TRIALS. http://www.hulford.co.uk/county.html accessed May 2015 FARBROTHER, J.E. Shepton Mallet: notes on its history, ancient, descriptive, and natural. 1859 FORD, D.N. Royal Berkshire History. 2003 www.berkshirehistory.com/bios/jharewell.html accessed March 2015 HENDERSON, W. Notes on the Folk-Lore of the Northern Counties of England and the Borders. 1879, p.109 KING JAMES I. Daemonologie, 1597. https://ia700604.us.archive.org/20/items/daemonologie25929gut/25929-pdf.pdf accessed May 2015 LOCKE, A. Superstitions and Folklore of the Rabbit and Hare. 2013 MERRIFIELD, R. The Archaeology of Ritual and Magic. 1987 MURRAY, M. The Witch Cult in Western Europe. 1921 NOTESTEIN, W. A History of Witchcraft in England from 1558-1718. American Historical Association. 1911 OXFORD DICTIONARIES. www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/apotropaic accessed March 2015 PITCAIRN, R. Ancient criminal trials in Scotland. Bannatyne Club. 1833 PRITCHARD, V. English Medieval Graffiti. Cambridge University Press. 2008 ROBERTS, E. Hampshire Houses 1250-1700: Their dating and development. Hampshire CC. 2003 ROUD, S. The Penguin Guide to the Superstitions of Britain and Ireland. 2006, pp. 240-241 SHEPTON MALLET TOWN COUNCIL, Nancy Camel and the Devil. www.sheptonmallettowncouncil.gov.uk/SheptonMallet/nancy_camel_and_the_devil-16456.aspx accessed May 2015 SUFFOLK MEDIEVAL GRAFFITI SURVEY. VV, W and M Symbols. www.medieval-graffitisuffolk.co.uk/page15.html accessed March 2015
USZKALO, K.C. The Witches in Early Modern England Project. 2011. http://witching.org/brimstone/detail.php?mode=county&county=Somerset accessed May 2015 <http://witching.org> This is a topic with significant ongoing research taking place, and the author invites comments, observations and reports of ritual protection marks noted or found elsewhere. Christopher Binding, FRGS 12, Harbour Road, Sherborne, Dorset DT9 4AN Christopher@binding1176.freeserve.co.uk June 2015
APPENDIX I Comprehensive listing of inscriptions on the John Harewell sarcophagus
APPENDIX II Full listing of all graffiti
Christopher Binding, 2015