Coppens Land of the Gods

How a Scottish Landscape was Sanctified to Become Arthur's Camelot
1. Auflage 2007
ISBN: 978-1-62309-234-4
Verlag: BookBaby
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)

E-Book, Englisch, 238 Seiten

Land of the Gods is the story of the ancient inhabitants of the Lothians of Scotland. When the Romans were retreating from Britain and for the first time, neighboring tribes tried to lay claim to the land, a magnificent warrior appeared, who fought for the survival of his land. He was remembered as Arthur and his Camelot was the Lothians and Borders region.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Coppens, Philip

Leseproben

Introduction

DH Lawrence stated: “Every people is polarised in some particular locality, which is home, the homeland. Different places on the face of the earth have different vital effluence, different vibration, different chemical exhalation, different polarity with different stars: call it what you like, but the spirit of place is a great reality.”
According to Lester Borley, Director of the National Trust of Scotland and an authority on world tourism, “perhaps the most powerful of all world tourism motives is the desire to visit special places which have a spiritual quality.” Some have gone so far as to distinguish these people from “the tourist” and have labelled them “pilgrims”, as they use the tourist industry to reach places which for them are of special significance.
Is it possible that a part of Scotland, in particular the Lothians and the Borders, was once considered by its inhabitants to be a “sacred land”, a land favoured by the Gods? This concept might seem outrageous to propose at the beginning of the 21st century. But only half a century ago, the Jews claimed the land of Israel because they believed that that land had been given to them by Yahweh 3,000 years earlier. In our 21st century, 400 years after being colonised by Europeans and nearly 250 after the Declaration of Independence the United States of America still feels it is specifically favoured by “God”. More than any other political leader, its presidents use the name of “God” in their speeches, obviously indicating how they think their decision is favoured by him, or in his interest, and how he will bless and help the American nation. The United States are not alone; various other countries believe the same. And originally, it seems various cultures believed this: from Easter Island, to Egypt, to Sumer, etc. In all these cases, past and present, the belief in a special relationship between God or the Gods and the people, and hence the nation, married the people to the land they lived.
So, to some extent, the answer to the question of this special relationship that might have applied to the Lothians and the Borders should be a rather uncontroversial “yes”. But, whereas we have written records of the claims of the Jews and the Egyptians about their relationship with God, who apparently gave them their country, such evidence seems to be lacking from the Lothians. So did it happen, or didn’t it? To ask the well-tried question: “is absence of evidence, evidence of absence?” Or is there another reason for this absence?

The evidence is, in fact, lacking throughout the length and breadth of Britain –– at least it is when we try to find it around 2000 BC. The Lothians do not form the exception; they are the norm. But to the West, in Ireland, there is evidence. Ireland, scholars affirm, has the best preserved and richest store of mythological traditions of any country north of the Alps. Why? The most likely reason is that Ireland had no exposure to the Roman invasion that changed Britain forever. The transition in Ireland went from the Celtic religion to the Christian religion. It is well known that Christian missionaries had specific orders to make sure that religious places were the prime targets for conversion; the pagan sanctuaries were often occupied literally by the Christian missionary – hence the name “Christianisation”.
On mainland Britain, the situation was different. With the Romans, the prime locations for occupation would be the forts or areas where the local people did battle with them. The Romans occupied Britain and often erected new towns to suit their needs. Bath became a prosperous Roman town because the Romans used it as a spa. At the same time, the Romans brought with them their own religion. Hence, it is often unclear whether certain locations were “Romanised” Celtic sanctuaries, or whether the Christians merely “Christianised” Roman temples in locations where there had been nothing before the arrival of the Romans. In London, Westminster Abbey and St Paul’s Cathedral are thought to have been built on Roman Temples – but whether or not those temples were built on Celtic religious sites, is completely unknown.
Contrary to the Romans, the Christian missionaries also ensured that they left written records of their conversions: the accounts of the early saints show evidence of how their work converted a people from worshipping “the devil” to the worship of God. The missionaries felt it was important to show the process of Christianisation, to underline the evil of what was there before. Throughout Christianity, the contrast between the pagan, evil ways and the “good way” would continue to be underlined – often with painful and lethal illustrations along the “good path”. The Romans simply did not bother; their records were administrative: on their way to conquer this and that, they came across these people, who they fought there, etc. Often, the accounts were written after the events, and often written by those not witnessing the events.
This difference in approach is one of the primary reasons why the mythology of Ireland has been well documented and to a large extent remains active to this day, though often under a layer of veneer, painted and frequently restored by Christianity. But the underlying imagery remained visible. In Ireland, the pilgrimage at the end of July to Croagh Patrick clearly reveals its pagan roots. The hill was sacred in pre-Christian times and the annual pilgrimage is literally identical to the pagan festival; the only difference is that, as it is performed by Christians, the pilgrimage now marks the victory over the pagan ways. The ancient rituals were literally Christianised – but to any neutral observer watching the progression, little or no difference would be visible.

In contrast to Ireland the imagery in mainland Britain is more dispersed – but nevertheless it is still traceable. However, there is only so much that archaeology can uncover. The best way of ensuring the survival of things that archaeology cannot deal with – language, belief, social organisation and so on – would be in the local folklore. But in nearly all areas it is clear that Britain, and specifically Scotland, has suffered more than Ireland. Therefore, where native evidence has gone missing, analogies will have to be used. However, it is important to make sure that the analogies used are topical and close to home.
All too often, both archaeologists and non-scientific authors, draw comparisons from outside of the framework. Comparisons between the Old World and the New World, e.g. Egypt and the Maya civilisation of Mexico and surrounding countries, comes to mind. Several millennia separate both civilisations, as well as the Atlantic Ocean. The fact that both civilisations built pyramids following the same general pattern is intriguing, but straightforward comparisons cannot be made. Arguing, as some have done, that the similarity, small though it is, of more than one civilisation building pyramids (which are structurally completely different in each civilisation) is proof for the existence of a “lost civilisation” is therefore only allowable if extra-ordinary evidence can be produced to substantiate the claim.

However, for some unknown reason, during the period 3000 BC to 500 AD, from the era of the megalithic civilisation to the departure of the Romans, the role of the Lothians and the Borders has remained largely unexplored. Here enters a second problem: the division between England and Scotland, with the Lothians and Borders belonging to the latter, though often sandwiched between both. North of the border, allegations that English historians have always minimised the importance of Scottish history have never stopped; but they are nevertheless true. Even when it comes to megalithic monuments, the main focus is on Stonehenge and Avebury – England. That Scotland has megalithic monuments might be unknown to a large percentage of the British population. That monuments rivalling Stonehenge and Avebury are present in the Orkneys and the Isle of Lewis, is also little appreciated.
There is, therefore, less knowledge of Scottish megalithic monuments than there is of those located in England. Knowledge of Lothian and border megalithic monuments is even less. This is very strange, as the area is littered with megalithic monuments – some of them extreme importance. The Romans discovered a Celtic tribe living in the area which, uniquely, they did not subjugate, but instead they entered in partnership with them. The question of “why” the Votadini received this special treatment is hardly ever asked. When the megaliths of the Lothians are occasionally looked into, those who are studying them never release them from their territorial isolation and place them within the framework of the British Megalithic Era as a whole.
In 1947, Cairnpapple, the most important megalithic site of the Lothians, was researched by archaeologist Stuart Piggott. He had also done research at Stonehenge, thus linking the two sites. Furthermore, both sites belonged to the same category of monument: a henge. But despite all of this, neither Piggott nor anyone else has placed Cairnpapple within the “Henge tradition” – or Hengeworld as one archaeologist has recently labelled it. These researchers have pointed out how the henge phenomenon was typically British, that it was found in Northern Scotland, and in Wiltshire. Anyone...