Bombadil's brooch - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Lalwendë · 11-03-2006, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Why don't we just imagine that Tom's first wife is kept hidden away in an upstairs room somewhere, unbeknownst to Goldberry?

And of course this gives the opportunity for a fan-fic entitled The Wide Sargasso Withywindle...

The finding of the brooch and what Tom says is one of those small, yet incredibly touching moments in the story - the brooch is in effect a tangible reminder of a dim and distant past, a reminder of mortality and long faded beauty. Having puzzled over who may have owned the brooch and why Tom may have taken it, I have come to the conclusion that what Tom does and says is simply out there by Tolkien as an intensely poetic moment. Maybe it is even a metaphor for story - that many years later a fragment of a life may be found in just a few words and then be taken up and passed on...

Of course, Merry does have his dream while in the Barrow that he was one of the people killed there - at night, a spear in his heart. The Barrow-downs seem to be a place which is liminal, outside normal concepts of time (as is Lothlorien) judging by Merry's experience (and so do all the Hobbits when they fall asleep in the lee of the Megalith), so when Tom finds the brooch he could quite literally be remembering a woman he did just 'see'.

Anyway, onward to the solid topic of hiding out in tombs.

Reading the new Companion and Guide I was delighted to find out that Tolkien did indeed have an interest in archaeology and ancient history. So he wrote with some knowledge and it is true that in reality people did use passage tombs as hideouts and for other purposes such as for hiding loot and storing food. Fogous are quite enigmatic in this respect as evidence of storage has been found in them, however they also appear to have been built for ritual purposes; passage tombs were not just used as sombre burial places, the people would hold feasts on the threshold to honour their ancestors - many cultures are not at all squeamish about sharing living space with the dead, in fact it is an honour (and Gondorians certainly spend a lot of time thinking about tombs and they have them in their city, too, close to them).

Passage Tombs and creeps and the like were also built to exacting standards and were (are) not often damp, nor prone to flooding. And owing to general superstitions surrounding tombs and graves (no matter how old they are, tales linger on) people might assume, rightly or wrongly, that a graveyard would be a perfect place to hide out as their enemies would never consider they would be so desperate as to choose such a frightening and possibly gruesome place to seek refuge.

It's annoying me now, as there is a well known legend of someone hiding out in a passage tomb (as distinct from ordinary Barrows, which do not have open entrances - or do not now, anyway!). That's in addition to all the tales of Arthur and Merlin living in tombs, waiting for the day they are needed again.

Raynor · 11-03-2006, 02:06 PM

I believe that the whole history of Numenor, Gondor and Arnor shows a huge respect for the burrial grounds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letter #154

In their way the Men of Gondor were similar: a withering people whose only 'hallows' were their tombs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letter #156

But in a kind of Noachian situation the small party of the Faithful in Numenor, under the leadership of Elendil, Isildur and Anarion ... established a kind of diminished memory of Numenor in Exile on the coasts of Middle-earth – inheriting ... the yearning for longevity, and the habit of embalming and the building of splendid tombs – their only 'hallows': or almost so.

Seeing that these lasting dunedain are called "faithful", I believe that they remain true to the core values of their kin.
Also, even if some tombs are not prone to floodings, that can be easily accomplished with some engineering efforts - cannals, small dams around the barrows or whatever. Also, I don't think that the orcs would have excluded the barrows from their suspicion list, seeing how they demonise their opponents. I found your refference to the barrows being closed constructions very interesting. From what I saw around the internet, it does seem that at least nowadays they are so, perhaps they were so from the begining, so as to avoid looting or profanation from animals.

Lalwendë · 11-03-2006, 03:37 PM

Indeed, there is huge respect for burial grounds in Middle-earth, in most of the cultures. I think that this sense of respect might in fact have led to feelings of superstition, even suspicion in cultures further down the line, and in other less respectful cultures, so this may have contributed to why these people thought the Downs would be a good place to hide. Even Orcs have their beliefs which would lead to superstition and an unwillingness not only to search the Downs for people but to even consider them as a likely hiding place!

Barrows (back in the real world now) were built over many thousands of years and by various cultures (as indeed they were in Middle-earth, as the Rohirrim still used them), by Iron Age and older cultures, but also by the Saxons and Vikings. So they had a lot of differences; there is also evidence that some very old ones could have bee re-used thousands of years later. Anyway...there are Barrows that seemed to be simple burials underneath mounds of earth, others that had openings which were sealed at a later date, and still more that remained open always - open in the sense that the way in could be seen, though it would be closed with stones or earth. Some 'Barrows' were not just burial places but also were used for other purposes.

Most of the looting would have taken place in later years sadly, by antiquarians, on whom the old tales of demons, witches and spooks would have no effect in scaring them off! Not all of them were as careful as archaeologists are today.

As for animals eating the flesh of the deceased, one of the old ways of burial was excarnation - whereby the corpse would be laid out where the elements might eat away the flesh from the bones; in some cases consumption by animals was avoided by enclosing bodies (like the Zoroastrian Towers of Silence in Iran and Tibetan Sky Burials - though birds would be allowed access), but in other cultures and times (e.g. in Britain in some periods), consumption by animals would be viewed as proper. I believe some saints' bones were also preserved.

Anyway I digress now I'm onto my hobbyhorse...the main point I suppose is that burial practices of other cultures can often be quite stomach churning which leads inevitably to suspicion and superstition, and that may have been why these Men took the chance to hide out in the Downs, which may have been a comforting place to them, being the 'home' to their ancestors.

Alcuin · 11-03-2006, 05:45 PM

Hiding in tombs is a last-ditch, desperate act. It definitely isn’t a desecration by Christian standards: the during the persecutions of the Roman emperors before Constantine, Christians were famous for hiding in the catacombs of Rome; in Paris, they also hid in the catacombs. The people who do this are not to disturb the bodies except as a last resort: but the idea is that the souls are gone, the bodies are empty, and if necessary, corpses may even be destroyed at the utmost effort if the living can thereby survive. Friar Lawrence did not believe it a desecration for Juliet to “hide” in her family tomb – Count Paris thought that Romeo had come to desecrate the tomb by disturbing the bodies and so opposed him to his grievous loss. Hiding in a tomb or mausoleum in Christian tradition is little different from hiding in a church – except that there are dead bodies about, and it is better not to disturb them. (Of course, those who disturb the dead, particularly the freshly dead (like the Barrow-Down’s “Newly Deceased”?) risk infection if disease was the cause of death.) I think that Tolkien is drawing on that tradition.

Consider, too, how the deceased would argue the case were the living under such duress that they hid amongst the dead. Would the departed Dúnedain and the Edain forebears prefer that their descendents die, or hide in their tombs to seek refuge from rapine and death?

Again, I don’t think this was a long-term solution: a few days or weeks at the very most. You are correct, Raynor, that the refugees would soon run short of victuals and perhaps of potable water, and concealing their entry and exit would be an important and possibly delicate task But I think that the army of Angmar did not long remain in any one place in Cardolan: if this invasion followed real-world historical examples, its mission after the fall of Amon Sûl was probably to kill everyone found outside fortified places, reduce each fortification as rapidly as possible and massacre their defenders, and then move on to the next place. Finding hideouts and eliminating those overlooked in the initial assault is a separate “mopping-up” operation that must be delayed until primary objectives are achieved. After the rape of Cardolan, the next objective seems to have been Fornost, to which I suspect the Army of Angmar proceeded with all speed. Stopped to hunt down, find, and clear out the hiding places (interestingly, “caves” are not mentioned as hiding places in this case) would give the remaining Arthedain army and survivors of the forces of Rhudaur, Cardolan more time to regroup and possibly repulse an attack on Fornost, giving up the critical advantages of speed and momentum.

Finally, the text strongly implies that few of the Dúnedain of Cardolan survived, only “a remnant,” whether they hid in the Forest, in the tombs, or any strongholds not overrun by the soldiery of Angmar.

Raynor · 11-04-2006, 02:42 AM

There are more than 200 years between the retreating of the Cardolan dunedain to the barrow downs (1409) and their noted dissappearance, at the time of the coming of the plague (1636).
It also seems that the phrasing:
A remnant of the faithful among the Dunedain of Cardolan also held out in Tyrn Gorthad (the Barrowdowns)
as opposed to
or took refuge in the Forest behind
means that those who were in the BD were not as much hiding, as resisting in that position. I would also note that in the Tale of years it is stated that Tyrn Gorthad is "defended" in 1409; this reinforces the idea that it was a position held in strength, about which the enemy knew there was an active opposition (the last successful one in Cardolan actually), not a hopefuly unknown hiding place.
Tom referrs to the tombs being "stirred" only at the coming of the wights, a referrence which I think remains unadressed.

11-03-2006, 03:37 PM	#3
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	Indeed, there is huge respect for burial grounds in Middle-earth, in most of the cultures. I think that this sense of respect might in fact have led to feelings of superstition, even suspicion in cultures further down the line, and in other less respectful cultures, so this may have contributed to why these people thought the Downs would be a good place to hide. Even Orcs have their beliefs which would lead to superstition and an unwillingness not only to search the Downs for people but to even consider them as a likely hiding place! Barrows (back in the real world now) were built over many thousands of years and by various cultures (as indeed they were in Middle-earth, as the Rohirrim still used them), by Iron Age and older cultures, but also by the Saxons and Vikings. So they had a lot of differences; there is also evidence that some very old ones could have bee re-used thousands of years later. Anyway...there are Barrows that seemed to be simple burials underneath mounds of earth, others that had openings which were sealed at a later date, and still more that remained open always - open in the sense that the way in could be seen, though it would be closed with stones or earth. Some 'Barrows' were not just burial places but also were used for other purposes. Most of the looting would have taken place in later years sadly, by antiquarians, on whom the old tales of demons, witches and spooks would have no effect in scaring them off! Not all of them were as careful as archaeologists are today. As for animals eating the flesh of the deceased, one of the old ways of burial was excarnation - whereby the corpse would be laid out where the elements might eat away the flesh from the bones; in some cases consumption by animals was avoided by enclosing bodies (like the Zoroastrian Towers of Silence in Iran and Tibetan Sky Burials - though birds would be allowed access), but in other cultures and times (e.g. in Britain in some periods), consumption by animals would be viewed as proper. I believe some saints' bones were also preserved. Anyway I digress now I'm onto my hobbyhorse...the main point I suppose is that burial practices of other cultures can often be quite stomach churning which leads inevitably to suspicion and superstition, and that may have been why these Men took the chance to hide out in the Downs, which may have been a comforting place to them, being the 'home' to their ancestors. __________________ Gordon's alive!

11-03-2006, 05:45 PM	#4
Alcuin Haunting Spirit Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Nurn Posts: 73	Hiding in tombs is a last-ditch, desperate act. It definitely isn’t a desecration by Christian standards: the during the persecutions of the Roman emperors before Constantine, Christians were famous for hiding in the catacombs of Rome; in Paris, they also hid in the catacombs. The people who do this are not to disturb the bodies except as a last resort: but the idea is that the souls are gone, the bodies are empty, and if necessary, corpses may even be destroyed at the utmost effort if the living can thereby survive. Friar Lawrence did not believe it a desecration for Juliet to “hide” in her family tomb – Count Paris thought that Romeo had come to desecrate the tomb by disturbing the bodies and so opposed him to his grievous loss. Hiding in a tomb or mausoleum in Christian tradition is little different from hiding in a church – except that there are dead bodies about, and it is better not to disturb them. (Of course, those who disturb the dead, particularly the freshly dead (like the Barrow-Down’s “Newly Deceased”?) risk infection if disease was the cause of death.) I think that Tolkien is drawing on that tradition. Consider, too, how the deceased would argue the case were the living under such duress that they hid amongst the dead. Would the departed Dúnedain and the Edain forebears prefer that their descendents die, or hide in their tombs to seek refuge from rapine and death? Again, I don’t think this was a long-term solution: a few days or weeks at the very most. You are correct, Raynor, that the refugees would soon run short of victuals and perhaps of potable water, and concealing their entry and exit would be an important and possibly delicate task But I think that the army of Angmar did not long remain in any one place in Cardolan: if this invasion followed real-world historical examples, its mission after the fall of Amon Sûl was probably to kill everyone found outside fortified places, reduce each fortification as rapidly as possible and massacre their defenders, and then move on to the next place. Finding hideouts and eliminating those overlooked in the initial assault is a separate “mopping-up” operation that must be delayed until primary objectives are achieved. After the rape of Cardolan, the next objective seems to have been Fornost, to which I suspect the Army of Angmar proceeded with all speed. Stopped to hunt down, find, and clear out the hiding places (interestingly, “caves” are not mentioned as hiding places in this case) would give the remaining Arthedain army and survivors of the forces of Rhudaur, Cardolan more time to regroup and possibly repulse an attack on Fornost, giving up the critical advantages of speed and momentum. Finally, the text strongly implies that few of the Dúnedain of Cardolan survived, only “a remnant,” whether they hid in the Forest, in the tombs, or any strongholds not overrun by the soldiery of Angmar.

11-04-2006, 02:42 AM	#5
Raynor Eagle of the Star Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Sarmisegethuza Posts: 1,058	There are more than 200 years between the retreating of the Cardolan dunedain to the barrow downs (1409) and their noted dissappearance, at the time of the coming of the plague (1636). It also seems that the phrasing: A remnant of the faithful among the Dunedain of Cardolan also held out* in Tyrn Gorthad (the Barrowdowns)* as opposed to or took refuge* in the Forest behind* means that those who were in the BD were not as much hiding, as resisting in that position. I would also note that in the Tale of years it is stated that Tyrn Gorthad is "defended" in 1409; this reinforces the idea that it was a position held in strength, about which the enemy knew there was an active opposition (the last successful one in Cardolan actually), not a hopefuly unknown hiding place. Tom referrs to the tombs being "stirred" only at the coming of the wights, a referrence which I think remains unadressed.