Gogmagog
The Buried Gods
Routledge & Kegan Paul
London, 1957
Gogmagog - The Buried Gods is Lethbridge’s account of his discovery of hill figures on the banks of an Iron Age encampment known as Wandlebury, south of Cambridge. By re-interpreting a piece of local folklore and undertaking painstaking fieldwork, he believed that he had located three lost chalk-cut figures. Lethbridge’s study commenced with the dissection of a local, mediaeval tale once told by Gervase of Tilbury. He was able to decipher the myth utilising a philosophy that he shared with his great friend Sir William Ridgeway, who also believed; that if you wanted to find out anything, you must first ‘strip off the layers’.
Lethbridge’s discovery of the Wandlebury giants was frowned upon by the academics of the archaeological world. Many believed that they were figments of his over-active imagination and refused to believe in their existence. It was the negative and aggressive reaction to this work by his peers that caused Lethbridge to leave Cambridge in disgust and establish a new life away from the ‘trade unionism’ of his profession.
Lethbridge began his Gogmagog study by analysing the Gervase of Tilbury story. If taken literally, it had to be pure fiction, but he realised, that if it was not pure fantasy, it possibly concealed a hidden message. Lethbridge’s observations of the origins of myth and folklore were very perceptive, unlike the 20th century archaeologists Heinrich Schlieman and Sir Arthur Evans, who utilised ancient Mythology to seek the lost city of Troy and the Knossos labyrinth respectively. Lethbridge did not take the Wandlebury fairy-story literally and was able to decipher the words meaningfully and logically. It is important here to highlight Lethbridge’s unconventional but perceptive method of detection, for by utilising the fairy-tale as a research tool, he had added yet another string to his academic bow.
Evans’ interpretation of the Minotaur myth at Knossos is a fine example of modern man’s attempt to rationalise an ancient myth with a literal explanation. Like Schliemann at Troy and so many other twentieth century scholars, Evans failed to understand the muse and the fact that perhaps the words of the poets were intended, as true poetry surely is, a patronage to the Great Goddess herself. However hard Evans tried to fit the myth with his findings through ‘Classical’ eyes, how could he possibly explain the zoological improbability of the Minotaur, a beast that had the body of a man and the head of a bull, that had once lurked in the chambers of the Knossos labyrinth?
The early Greek philosophers were opposed to ‘magical sorcery’, for it posed a threat to their new religion - logic. This ‘Classical’ ideology perceived myth as irrational. In The White Goddess, the poet Robert Graves suggested that the Greeks viewed mythical animals such as the Chimaera as zoological improbabilities, and Socrates, by turning his back on myth, was in fact highlighting his rejection of the Great Goddess. We know from his associations with Dr. Margaret Murray, that Lethbridge had already embraced the muse and that his future writing projects would distance himself even further from his friends and colleagues back in Cambridge.
The writing of Gogmagog proved to be a watershed in his life and marked a commitment to a cause that many of his peers at Cambridge frowned upon, although it is unlikely that Lethbridge saw it this way. In Lethbridge’s eyes, ‘Gogmagog’ and his future works were purely a logical evolution built upon the observations made in the field over the previous forty years. In his study, Lethbridge championed Murray, who in her book The Witch Cult in Western Europe had suggested that modern day witch cults were evidence of the survival of a prehistoric religion. To Lethbridge, the theory appeared plausible and was not a million miles away from his own conjecture.
However, in her latter work, The God of the Witches, Murray suggests that a number of historical figures including William Rufus, Thomas a’ Becket and Joan of Arc were in fact ‘Divine Victims’ and whose deaths were intended and planned as scapegoats for the death of the sacred king, a philosophy and practice which dated back to the pagan religions of prehistory. It was these latter unsubstantiated claims that caused most academics to scorn Murray’s work.
By nailing his colours to the Margaret Murray bandwagon, he had disturbed many of his peers at Cambridge. It must be added however, that Lethbridge’s own theories and ideas are substantiated by thorough primary research, unlike Murray's latter, often eccentric and uncorroborated claims. It was wrong therefore, to tar him with the same brush, but many critics, unfortunately did.
Lethbridge’s ideas, however fanciful or thought provoking, were always presented with unabridged evidence and always presented as possibilities rather than facts. In his unpublished autobiography The Ivory Tower, he waxes lyrical with his usual enthusiasm and good humour about his life and times at Cambridge and demonstrates a fondness and affection for his fellows. It is sad to think that so many were afraid of tarnishing their own reputations by discontinuing their associations with a colleague ‘who had strayed from the fold’. It was however this humour and natural spirit that was an endearing feature of all of his work, even in the most driest of his early archaeological reports.
“The story really begins with a fairy tale”. is the opening line to Gogmagog - The Buried Gods and from these introductory words you can almost hear his peers groaning with disdain. He threw caution to the wind when publishing his theories and almost always ignored the advice from his colleagues, who warned him that he might damage his reputation. Having no interest in his reputation - he took no notice.
Up until the publication of Gogmagog, Lethbridge’s previous publications had reflected his work in the field of archaeology. Although serious studies, they display a good-natured, pragmatic knowledge and an understanding of the subject far beyond that of the academic. They demonstrated the observational powers of a man who saw beyond the literal, by employing an ‘X-ray specs’ approach that saw through the conundrums he encountered. This enabled him to present rationalised, commonsense solutions without boundaries or affiliations.
I have read many criticisms of Gogmagog that question whether his discovery of the Wandlebury figures was sound. Many critics appear ignorant of the detail of the work and appear to have not even read the publication, often appearing to have based their condemnation on second-hand research and hearsay. I am certain that it was this prejudiced and vitriolic criticism that caused Lethbridge to turn his back on his profession. Most of the criticisms regarding the archaeological, geological and topographical aspects of the Wandlebury site are addressed and dealt with in the study, if only his critics had taken the time to read them!
Text © 2003 Welbourn Tekh
|
|
