In the Galloway Hoard there are balls of dirt. The hoard itself dates from around 900AD, and is notable on several fronts for having items from much further east, all the way to Central Asia. It's something of a clue. The shaped dirt is in the base of the lidded silver vessel, which contains the most precious items. Fissures in the surfaces of the balls allow some ability to see beneath the surface, but it seems to be just...dirt. Yet the surface is different, with traces of bone and gold. It would all be puzzling if there weren't also some balls of dirt in the Vatican collections, dating from 700-900AD. These are ambiguously labeled, but seem to be dirt from a place of pilgrimage. Yet pilgrimages were not quite so much directed at places, but at relics. It was one reason that the Eastern Church was puzzled at the Western fascination with going to the Holy Land, and caring who controlled the place. Constantinople and other places in Asia Minor had all the important relics you could want, including pieces of the True Cross and bones of many saints. What was the point in walking around on dirt that had not necessarily come in contact with our Lord? But bones of saints, now, that was something you had some guarantee about.
There is strong speculation that the dirt was rolled around in the relics, providing a light covering, as they were in the similar Vatican articles, the only other place something like this exists. As many people brought gifts on pilgrimage to the Holy Sepulchre or other key places, gold and bones were likely to be in the mix. Local dirt, rubbed in the area around the relics would become in itself a precious relic now, to be greatly protected and treasured back home. That's the guess what the shaped dirt in Scotland is all about.
If this seems odd to you, remember how many people waited hours to get close to the piano that John Lennon used to compose "Imagine" when it went on display. I also note how often historians assign some mystical connection to people in the past if they encounter a shared object. They picture the artist who made the brooch or illuminated the manuscript and feel that they know and understand them somehow. In fact, such experiences often figure prominently in their desire to take up history at all as an area of study, as well as directing them to a particular era or specialty.
I tend not to be so magical about objects, but I'll bet there has been something in my life that has been an exception, though I have now forgotten it.
IIRC that lecture from Gresham, and something from Jackson Crawford, mentioning that very often the pre-Christian Germanics considered land features to be religiously significant rather than simply being a spot where a religious structure was built.
ReplyDeleteWell, kurgan mounds and barrows would fit that, wouldn't they? It sounds plausible.
ReplyDeleteNaaman?
ReplyDelete