Badami cave temples

The Badami cave temples are a complex of temples located at Badami, a town in the Bagalkot district in the north part of Karnataka, India. They are considered an example of Indian rock-cut architecture, especially Badami Chalukya architecture initiated during the 6th century. Badami was previously known as Vataapi Badami, the capital of the early Chalukya dynasty, who ruled much of Karnataka from middle of the sixth until the middle of the eighth centuries, is situated on the west bank of an artificial lake filed with greenish water dammed by an earthen wall faced with stone steps. Badami is surrounded in the north and south by forts built in later times from the ramparts that crown their summits.

Temple caves

The Badami cave temples are composed of four caves, all carved out of the soft Badami sandstone on a hill cliff in the late 6th to 7th centuries. The planning of four caves is simple. The entrance is a verandah (mukha mandapa) with stone columns and brackets, a distinctive feature of these caves, leading to a columned mandapa – main hall (also maha mandapa) and then to the small square shrine (sanctum sanctorum, garbhaghrha) cut deep into the cave. The Cave temples are linked by stepped path with intermediate terraces that offer spectacular views across the town and lake. Cave-temples are labelled 1-4 in their ascending series even though this numbering does not necessarily reflect the sequence of excavation

The cave temples date back to 600 and 700 CE. The architecture includes structures built in Nagara Style and Dravidian style which is the first and most persistent architectural idiom to be adopted by the early chalukyas Important part of historical heritage at Badami cave temples are inscriptions in old Kannada script. There is also the fifth natural cave temple in Badami – a Buddhist temple in natural cave which can be entered kneeling on all fours.

Cave 1

The cave 1 portrays Lord Shiva in his very beautiful incarnation of Nataraja. Lord Shiva in this incarnation has 18 arms. Some of the arms have weapons while some of the arms depict beautiful dance postures. The weapons include drums, trident, axe etc. Some arms also have serpents coiled around them. Lord Shiva has his son Ganesha and the bull Nandi by his side. They also are in beautiful postures. The two sons of Shiva, Ganesha and Kartikkeya are seen riding a peacock in one of the carved sculptures on the walls of the cave. Adjoining to the Nataraja, a wall also depicts the adorable goddess Mahishasuramardini. She has been shown in an angry incarnation killing a buffalo with a trident.

The entrance of the cave is like a verandah. The verandah having four columns is very beautifully sculpted with mindblowing images of Lord Shiva in different dancing positions and different incarnations.The cave also has carved sculptures of the goddesses Lakhsmi and Parvati to the left of Lord Shiva. To the left, there is also acarved sculpture of Harihar having an axe and a serpent in hand. To the right, Ardhanarishvara sculpted on the end of the walls. All the carved sculptures have beautiful ornaments worn by them,including the animals and birds. The ornaments have designs with lotus carved on them. There is also an image of the Vidyadhara couple on the ceiling,meaning they are flying in the air. Beautiful swords are also carved on the walls. The ceiling also depicts Nagaraja, the king of the snakes. The Nagaraja is surrounded by a lot of other serpents coiled around him.There are sections in the cave which are orthogonal in shape. The bands in those sections are decorated with jewellery and garlands. The view is fantastic. There is a cleavage in the back side of the cave. It led to the formation of a square sanctuary having beautiful images carved on it.

The cave 1 is very beautiful as it describes Lord Shiva and his family.Lord Shiva in his Nataraja avatar, known to be the goddess of dance, is very eye catching.The cave has beautiful bays and pilasters. The system of using columns gives the cave a foliant look.The cave being on a hill cliff gives an excellent view of the town.All the figures of the gods and goddesses are very excellently carved. The cave also has many human figures doing different actions which are neatly carved.

Cave 2

Cave 2 is created in late 6th century AD, is almost same as cave 1 in terms of its layout and dimensions but it is consecrated to Vishnu who is shown here as Trivikrama – with one foot on Earth and another – directed to the north. Vishnu in this temple is represented also as Varaha (boar) and Krishna avatars. Cave is reached by climbing 64 steps from the first cave. Entrance is adorned with reliefs of guardians.
The entrance of the cave has two armed guardians holding flowers rather than weapons. The end walls of the outer verandah is occupied by sculpted panels, to the right, Trivikrama; to the left, Varaha rescuing Bhudevi, with a penitent nag below. The adjacent side walls have smooth surfaces with traces of paintwork. The columns shows gods and battle scenes, the churning of cosmic ocean, Gajalakshmi and figures, Brahma and figures, Vishnu asleep on Shesha, illustrate the birth of Krishna, Krishna’s youth, Krishna with gopis and cows. The ceiling shows a wheel with sixteen fish spokes in a square frame along with swastikas and flying couples. The end bays have a flying couple and Vishnu on Garuda.
The doorway is framed by pilasters carrying an entablature with three blocks embellished with gavaksha ornament.

The theme on which the cave 3 is based on is Shaivite and Vaishnavite. The third cave is dedicated to Vishnu, and is the best and the biggest, and it has splendid giant figures of Trivikrama, Shankaranarayana, Anantasayana, Paravasudeva, Bhuvaraha, Harihara and Narasimha. All these statues are engraved in a vigorous style. An inscription found here records the creation of the shrine by Mangalesha in 578 CE. Chalukya king Mangalesha in 578 CE. Mangalesa was on the throne from 597 to 609 AD. It is common that Indian cave temples were patronised by influential members of royal families. These inscriptions are in Kannada language. The age of cave temple is known with certainty with the inscriptions on the rock in this cave.
Rock-cut temple has north – south orientation providing maximum amount of sunlight in winter. The hall and the verandah dig up to 14.5 m deep into the mountain and the shrine extends the cave some 4 m more inside. The Hall goes up to 4 m high.

Cave 3 is 60 steps away from the cave 2. The temple with its gigantic façade of 21 m wide is adorned of six hefty columns in a row. Below the columns there is a frieze consisting of 30 smaller reliefs of ganas.

Splendid embellishments are encompassed in the entire cave, including paintings on ceiling. Four-armed Brahma is the focal point of the murals .There happens to be a lotus medallion on the floor underneath the mural of Brahma – place to beseech.

Large number of Vishnu’s reliefs including standing Vishnu, Vishnu with a serpent, Vishnu as Narasimha (half human – half lion), Varaha, Harihara and Trivikrama avatars epitomize the immensity of vastly admired Indian art. Reliefs stand 4 m tall.

The culture and clothing embedded in the sixth century is clearly visible in the art sculpted in cave 3.

There are some paintings on the ceiling and the style indicates maturity but has lost its original dazzling colour. The bracket figures on the piers here are some of the finest.

Cave 4

The fourth cave is Jaina which is constructed lastly among all the caves.It is only jain monument of early chalukya period in badami town and it was made in late 6th-7th century.The cave is not as large as the other cave. It is beautiful and rich with decoration. It is located higher than other caves. It is not as beautiful as the other three caves.It has five bayed entrance with square columns which make it more beautiful and attractive at base. The first aisle(a passage between buildings) is treated as verandah.The end walls have Parshvanath(right) represented using painting, his head is covered by a metal piece of multi cobra hoods and bahubali is left to him with his lower legs surrounded by snakes . His two sisters Brahmi and sundari is here with him.

On the back part of wall, Mahavira is painted on it.This painting shows Mahavira as a savior. He is sitting on lion throne.

The sanctum is adorned by the image of Mahavira. The pedestal contains an old Kannada inscription of the 12th century A.D. which registers the death of one Jakkave. Scores of Jaina Thirthankara images have been engraved in the inner pillars and walls. In addition to it, there are some idols of Bahubali, Yakshas and Yakshis. Other carvings here are of Padmavathi & other Thirthankaras. Some scholars assign the cave to the 8th century.

A steep climb up some steps cut in a crevice between Cave II and III leads to the southern part of Badami Fort and to an old gun placed there by Tippu Sultan.

Cave 5

It is a natural cave of small dimensions with a Buddha statue carved inside.

Gunung Padang

Gunung Padang is a megalithic site located in Karyamukti village, Cianjur regency, West Java Province of Indonesia, 50 km southwest of the city of Cianjur or 6 kilometers from Lampegan station. It has been called the largest megalithic site in all of Southeastern Asia, and has produced carbon dating results which, if confirmed, suggest it is extraordinarily old. The survey believes that Gunung Padang was built in four different eras.

History

The existence of the site was mentioned in Rapporten van de Oudheidkundige Dienst (ROD, “Report of the Department of Antiquities”) in 1914. The Dutch historian N. J. Krom also mentioned it in 1949. Employees of the National Archeology Research Centre visited the site in 1979 for a study of its archaeology, history, and geology.

Located at 885 metres above sea level, the site covers a hill in a series of terraces bordered by retaining walls of stone that are accessed by about 400 successive andesite steps rising about 95 metres. It is covered with massive rectangular stones of volcanic origin. The Sundanese people consider the site sacred and believe it was the result of King Siliwangi’s attempt to build a palace in one night. The asymmetric Punden Berundak faces northwest, to Mount Gede and was constructed for the purpose of worship. Based on various dating techniques, the site was completed by 5000 BC and quite likely much earlier. There are preliminary indications that the hill site may itself be an ancient pyramid construction.

The villages closest to the site are Cimanggu, Ciwangun and Cipanggulakan. Two possible routes to access the site are

• From Sukabumi to Cianjur: From Warungkondang to Cipadang, Cibokor, Lampegan Pal Dua, Ciwangin, Cimanggu.
• From Cianjur to Sukabumi: From Sukaraja to Cireungas, Cibanteng, Rawabesar, Sukamukti and Cipanggulaan.

At the end of June 2014, the Education and Culture Ministry stated that Gunung Padang Megalithic Site as National Site Area with 29 hectares area.

On October 1, 2014, surveyors halted excavation activities temporarily due to these facts and recommendations:

• There is a large structure below the surface
• A core zone site area has been confirmed
• Many man-made artefacts have been discovered
• The construction of the site spans four eras
• A recommendation has been made to extend the survey, renovation concept, conservation and management of the site

The 2014 excavation has been criticized for being improperly conducted.

2012 survey

A survey conducted in 2012 showed the following:

• The site was dated 6,500 years BP (before present) by carbon radiometric dating at 3–4 metres below the surface (12,500 years at 8 to 10 metres below the surface), and the artifacts at the surface date to about 4,800 years BP.
• Based on geoelectric, georadar, and geomagnetic testing, at least up to 15 metres from the surface there is construction with large chambers.
• Unlike the south side with its 5 stone terraces, the east side has 100 stone terraces with width and height of 2×2 metres. The west side also has stone terraces but is still covered by soil and bush, and the north side has, in addition to a 1.5 metre-wide stair, terraces also.
• The site area is approximately 25 hectares, in contrast for example to Borobudur Temple, which occupies only 1.5 hectares.
• Wall-side construction of the terraces is similar to that of Machu Picchu in Peru.

Criticism

Thirty four Indonesian scientists signed a petition questioning the motives and methods of the Hilman-Arif team. Vulcanologist Sutikno Bronto states that the site is the neck of an ancient volcano and not a man-made pyramid. An unnamed archaeologist suggests that the Hilman-Arif team has “created a civilisation around the period to explain their finding”.

Although there is undisputed evidence of human activities at the top of Ganung Padang in the form of rearranging of natural basalt lava columns, some of the more astounding claims regarding the site, namely (1) That the 20,000 year-old carbon dates prove that there was a very ancient civilization, (2) That the “pyramid” has internal chambers, and (3) That the whole mountain/hill was constructed by people, actually have non-anthropogenic explanations. First, the carbon dates (derived from drilled core samples), if accurate, could be dating material associated with an older lava flow at depth and not necessarily the timing of human presence or activities. Second, the internal chambers, presumably inferred from ground penetrating radar and seismic tomography, could be lava tubes, fractured basalt, or even possibly variation in groundwater. Finally, the argument that the whole hill was constructed is not consistent with the overall geomorphology of the area. The hill is probably a lava-capped hill, similar to the geomorphology of the surrounding area. The fact that there are terraces on the sides of the hill do not necessarily imply that the whole hill was constructed. Man-made terraces exist in many places on natural hills and mountains.

Local concerns

In September, 2013, some people upset by the tomography research beat 3 researchers, apparently out of concern that soil coring would injure the site or even contribute to risks of a landslide.

Sei Shōnagon

Sei Shōnagon (清少納言), (c. 965 C.E. – c. 1010 C.E.) was a Japanese author and a court lady who is known as the author of The Pillow Book (枕草子 makura no sōshi). She was just fourteen when she entered the service of the Empress Consort Teishi, sometime around the year 1000, where she remained for ten years. The Pillow Book is not a personal diary of the author’s life, but a record of interesting events in court, lists of all kinds, personal thoughts, poetry, and some opinions on her contemporaries. Sei Shōnagon reports the troubles of Empress (Sadako) Teishi after her father died and the Emperor was persuaded to take her young cousin as a second consort.

Japanese scholars regard The Pillow Book as a model of linguistic purity because it uses concise language and few Chinese words. Sei Shōnagon’s literary ability and skill as a poet make The Pillow Book a classic work of literature. It is also a valuable historical document, recording many details of Heian court life and references to political events. Her writings also include poetic evocations of scene and atmosphere that capture the characteristic mood or essential beauty of each of the four seasons. More than one thousand years later, The Pillow Book continues to delight readers all over the world.

Life

Sei Shōnagon’s actual given name is not known. It was the custom among aristocrats in those days to call a court lady (女房 nyōbō) by a combined appellative taken from her clan name and some court office belonging either to her or a close relative. “Sei” (清) is the Sinitic reading of the first character used to write Kiyohara (清原), while “Shōnagon” was a government post. It is unknown which of her relatives held the post of shōnagon. Sei Shōnagon’s birth name has been a topic of debate among scholars, who generally favor Kiyohara Nagiko (清原 諾子) as a likely possibility.

Little is known about her life except what is said in her writings. She was the daughter of Kiyohara no Motosuke, a scholar and one of the compilers of the Gosenshū anthology of waka poetry. Her grandfather Kiyohara no Fukayabu was also a well-known waka poet. They were middle-ranking courtiers and had financial difficulties, since they were never granted a revenue-producing court office.

She married once, by all indications, and had at least one daughter. When she entered the service of the Empress Teishi, consort of Emperor Ichijō, around 990, she was supposedly divorced. She was just fourteen when she went to the court and was fascinated by the young and beautiful twenty year old Empress. She was known for her clever wit and her cheerfulness, and for her familiarity with the Chinese classics, an unusual accomplishment for a woman of that period.

Shōnagon achieved fame through her work, The Pillow Book. The Pillow Book is a collection of lists, gossip, poetry, observations, complaints, and anything else she found of interest during her years in the court, during the middle Heian Period. In The Pillow Book Shōnagon reports the troubles of Empress (Sadako) Teishi after her father, Fujiwara no Michitaka died. Because of the risk of fire, the Imperial family did not, at that time, live in the Grand Palace. Empress Teishi resided in a part of Chugushiki, the Bureau of Serving the Empress. For five years, the Empress Teishi’s apartments were the center of cultural activity at the court. After her father’s death, his brother, Michinaga, brought his own daughter, Shoshi (Akiko), to the Emperor’s attention. The Emperor broke the tradition of having a single wife, and took Shoshi as his second consort. Sei Shōnagon was devoted to the Empress Teishi, and proud of understanding her feelings. Sei Shōnagon refers to the death of her patroness, who died in childbirth, with refined lightheartedness, and implies it was not difficult. To do otherwise would have been considered unstylish. Her writing depicts the court of the young Empress as full of an elegant and merry atmosphere.

When I first went into waiting at Her Majesty’s Court, so many different things embarrassed me that I could not even reckon them up and I was always on the verge of tears. As a result, I tried to avoid appearing before the Empress except at night, and even then I stayed behind a three-foot curtain of state.

On one occasion Her Majesty brought out some pictures and showed them to me, but I was so ill at ease that I could hardly stretch out my hand to take them. She pointed to one picture after another, explaining what each represented….

It was a very cold time of the year and when Her Majesty gave me the paintings I could hardly see her hands, but, from what I made out, they were of a light pink hue that I found extraordinarily attractive. I gazed at the Empress with amazement. Simple as I was and unaccustomed to such wonderful sights, I did not understand how a being like this could possibly exist in our world (The pillow book of Sei Shonagon, translated and edited by Ivan Morris, p. 186).

There are no details about Shōnagon’s life after the Empress died in 1000, though The Pillow Book is thought to have been finished sometime between 1001 and 1010. One story has Sei Shonagon living out her twilight years in poverty, but this is probably a legend spread by those who disapproved of her. Other accounts say that Sei Shonagon left the court and married a provincial governor, becoming a Buddhist nun upon his death. She is also known for her rivalry with her contemporary Murasaki Shikibu, who wrote The Tale of Genji and served the Empress Shoshi, second consort of the Emperor Ichijō. Murasaki Shikibu described her in her diary as a person who liked to show off her knowledge:

Sei Shonagon has the most extraordinary air of self-satisfaction. Yet, if we stop to examine those Chinese writings of hers that she so pretentiously scatters about the place, we find that they are full of imperfections. Someone who makes such an effort to be different from others is bound to fall in people’s esteem, and I can only think that her future will be a hard one. She is a gifted woman, to be sure. Yet, if one gives free rein to one’s emotions even under the most inappropriate circumstances, if one has to sample each interesting thing that comes along, people are bound to regard one as frivolous. And how can things turn out well for such a woman (Jonathon Delacour. Ladies in Rivalry, Sunday 31 March 2002. Retrieved May 18, 2007.).

The Pillow Book

The Pillow Book, along with Murasaki Shikibu’s The Tale of Genji and the Kagerô Diary (954-974 C.E.) by the woman known as “Michitsuna’s Mother,” are among the earliest important works of Japanese literature. During the Heian Period, Japan assimilated Chinese influences and developed a distinctly native literature. Men tended to write using formal Chinese characters, and most of their works were written in an official capacity, either as historical records or poetry for court occasions. The women of the court wrote in hiragana, known as onnade, or “letters of women,” a simplified and stylized cursive version of Chinese phonograms. The women of the Heian court were cultured and well-educated, and they wrote for their own pleasure and the entertainment of the court, producing works of literature that continue to delight and surprise readers more than one thousand years later.

Manuscripts

The most widely accepted theory is that the first draft of The Pillow Book (枕草子, Makura no sōshi) was in existence around 996, a second draft was produced around 1000, and that it was completed in 1002, with additions continuing to be made to the final draft until about 1021, at the latest. In its final form, The Pillow Book is composed of about three-hundred-and-twenty sections of varying lengths, grouped into three categories according to content: classified lists of items; diary entries describing Sei Shonagon’s daily life in the palace; and musings and poetry on the beauty of nature, the meaning of life, and other reflections. The sections of the manuscript which can be dated are not in chronological order, and since the earliest extant manuscript dates from the 1500s, there is no way of knowing if the current order of the sections reflects Shonagon’s original arrangement. There are numerous textual variants, owing to its extreme age and the way in which it was propagated through hand-written copies. Two main textual traditions are associated with The Pillow Book. The ruisan-bon tradition arranges the manuscript according to the three categories of content, and is further divided into Sakai-bon and Maeda-bon manuscripts, named for the owners of the manuscripts. The zassan-bon tradition forgoes any attempt to arrange the content and is divided into Nōin-bon (named for the manuscript owner) and sankan-bon (a descriptive term referring to a three-volume version of the manuscript) manuscripts.

Title

Numerous explanations have been proposed for the meaning of the title, The Pillow Book. One theory is that the title refers to a notebook kept nearby for jotting down observations and impressions, particularly at the end of the day before going to sleep. Some suggest that the book may actually have been used as a pillow, or kept in the drawer of the author’s wooden pillow. “Pillow” may also be a reference to “pillow words” (makurakotoba), conventional modifications of words used in waka poetry. Indexes of such words were widely circulated in Sei Shōnagon’s day, and the lists in her notebook may originally have been intended for the same purpose. Another suggestion is that the title is an allusion to a poem in the Chinese anthology Hakushi monjū, which describes an old man with white hair who had nothing to do all day long, so he slept with a book for a pillow.

I wrote these notes at home, when I had a good deal of time to myself and thought no one would notice what I was doing. Everything that I have seen and felt is included. Since much of it might appear malicious and even harmful to other people, I was careful to keep my book hidden. But now it has become public, which is the last thing I expected.

One day Lord Korechika, the Minister of the Centre, brought the Empress a bundle of notebooks.

“What shall we do with them?” Her Majesty asked me. “The Emperor has already made arrangements for copying the Records of the Historian” [the Chinese work, Shih chi]

“Let me make them into a pillow,” I said.

“Very well,” said Her Majesty. “You may have them.”

I now had a vast quantity of paper at my disposal, and I set about filling the notebooks with odd facts, stories from the past, and all sorts of other things, often including the most trivial material….

I was sure that when people saw my book they would say, “It’s even worse that I expected. Now one can tell what she is really like” (The pillow book of Sei Shonagon, translated and edited by Ivan Morris, p.263-264).

The Pillow Book

Sei Shonagon wrote The Pillow Book in the genre known as zuihitsu, a random collection of vignettes and impressions, anecdotes of people and events, descriptions of seasonal rituals and festivals, critical commentaries, and simple poetry. The Pillow Book is not a personal diary of the author’s life, but a record of interesting events in court, lists of all kinds, personal thoughts, poetry and some opinions on her contemporaries. As Ivan Morris notes, there are 164 lists in the book’s “1098 closely printed pages.”

Sei Shōnagon’s literary ability and skill as a poet make The Pillow Book a classic work of literature. It is also a valuable historical document, recording many details of Heian court life and references to political events. Her writings also include poetic evocations of scene and atmosphere that capture the characteristic mood or essential beauty of each of the four seasons. Part of the book was revealed to the Court by accident while Shōnagon was writing it.

Japanese scholars regard The Pillow Book as a model of linguistic purity because it uses few Chinese words, and some consider it a greater work than Murasaki Shikibu’s Genji monogatari, because of its variety and its concise language. The book has been translated into English by Ivan Morris. In spring, it is the dawn. The sky at the edge of the mountains slowly starts to brighten with the approach of day, and the thinly trailing clouds nearby are tinted purple.

In summer, it is the night. It is of course delightful when the moon is out, but no less so on dark nights when countless fireflies can be seen mingling in flight. One even feels charmed when just one or two pass by, giving off a gentle glow. Rainy nights, too, are delightful.

In autumn, it is the evening. As the setting sun draws closer to the mountains, the crows hastily fly back to their nests in threes and fours and twos. Even more delightful is the sight of a line of geese flying far overhead. Then, after the sun has set, the crying of insects and the sound of the wind have a charm that goes without saying.

In winter, it is the early morning. Of course it is delightful when snow is falling, but even when there is a pure-white frost—or in the freezing cold without either snow or frost—the way the fire is hurriedly stirred up and coals carried to all the rooms seems most suited to the season. As the day wears on and the cold gradually loses its bite, the braziers go untended and the coals become disagreeably coated with white ash (Sei Shonagon, opening lines of The Pillow Book).

I remember a clear morning in the Ninth Month when it had been raining all night. Despite the bright sun, the dew was still dripping from the chrysanthemums in the garden. On the bamboo fences and crisscross hedges I saw tatters of spider webs; and where the threads were broken the raindrops hung on them like strings of white pearls. I was greatly moved and delighted.

As it became sunnier, the dew gradually vanished from the clover and the other plants where it had lain so heavily; the branches began to stir, then suddenly sprang up of their own accord. Later I described to people how beautiful it all was. What most impressed me was that they were not at all impressed (#84, The Pillow Book of Sei Shonagon, translated and edited by Ivan Morris).

Elegant Things: A white coat worn over a violet waistcoat. Duck Eggs. Shaved Ice mixed with liana syrup and put in a new silver bowl. A rosary of rock crystal. Snow on wistaria or plum blossoms. A pretty child eating strawberries (Ibid.).

Things That fall from the Sky: Snow. Hail. I do not like sleet, but when it’s mixed with pure white snow it is very pretty. Snow looks wonderful when it has fallen on a roof of cypress bark. When Snow begins to melt a little, or when only a small amount has fallen, it enters into all the cracks between the bricks, so that the roof is black in some places, pure white in others-most attractive. I like drizzle and hail when they come down on a shingle roof. I also like frost on a shingle roof or in a garden (Ibid.).

Mairead Corrigan

Mairead Corrigan (January 27, 1944 – ), also known as Mairead Corrigan-Maguire, was the co-founder, with Betty Williams, of the Community of Peace People, an organization which attempts to encourage a peaceful resolution of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. The Peace People consisted of women from both sides of the Northern Ireland religious divide who were unwilling to lose more children, husbands, or brothers in the continued violence. Corrigan and Williams believe that women’s “soul-force” has a special role to play in peace making around the world. Corrigan had no political experience when she and Williams started to organize their demonstrations and gather support for their non-violent peace initiative. Most of the women who joined the movement were mothers and home-makers.

After winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Corrigan gained recognition as a promoter of peace and justice that has inspired other ordinary citizens to use civil society as a platform to say “enough is enough.” As well as campaigning for peace around the world since she received the Nobel Peace Prize, Corrigan committed herself to working for the ecological health of the planet. She was particularly motivated to work for peace because she saw that it was the men who turned to violence who were seen as heroes in her community. “I think,” she said, “one of the things the peace movement has to do is to persuade the members of the different paramilitary organizations that there is a way other than pistols and rifles. Aware that violence could beget only additional violence, The Peace People seek the answer to this seemingly endless downward spiral.”

Biography

Corrigan was born into a Roman Catholic family in Belfast, Ireland, the second child of seven. She attended Catholic schools until the age of 14, then found a job as a secretary. Almost every aspect of life was overshadowed by the violence in Ireland and by the divide between the Catholic and Protestant communities. Physical barricades had been constructed by the British forces to help prevent “trouble.” Since its establishment as a self-governing province within the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland had been dominated politically and economically by its Protestant majority. The electoral system was rigged to prevent Catholics from gaining many seats. Employment, social housing, and entry into the civil service and the police all favored Protestants. In the late 1960s, inspired by the civil rights movement in the United States, future Nobel Peace Prize winner John Hume and others led a non-violent civil rights movement in the province. Others, however, turned to violence, supporting such organizations as the Irish Republican Army.

She had been beaten by police for speaking up, Corrigan recalled, “when she saw British soldiers searching young girls.” On another occasion, a republican funeral was interrupted when soldiers threw tear-gas through the Church window (Buscher and Ling: 35). Máiread, a devout Catholic, was a volunteer with the Legion of Mary. She helped Catholics whose homes were torched by Loyalists. She was convinced that Jesus was non-violent, and that as a good Christian she should love, not hate, her enemies. Friends criticized her for her pacifism, saying it was the easy way out.

Corrigan became active with the peace movement after three children of her sister, Anne Maguire, were run over and killed by a car driven by Danny Lennon, an IRA man who was fatally shot by British troops while trying to make a getaway. Anne Maguire later committed suicide.

Betty Williams, a baptized Roman Catholic, despite a Protestant father and a Protestant husband, had witnessed the event, and soon after, the two co-founded Women for Peace, which later became the Community for Peace People.

The peace movement

Within two days of the tragic event, she had obtained 6,000 signatures on a petition for peace and gained media attention. Together with Mairead Corrigan, Anne Maguire’s sister, she co-founded the Women for Peace which later, with co-founder Ciaran McKeown, became The Community for Peace People.

The two organized a peace march to the graves of the children, which was attended by 10,000 Protestant and Catholic women—the peaceful march was disrupted by members of the Irish Republican Army, who accused them of being “dupes of the British.” The following week, Williams and Corrigan again led a march—this time with 35,000 participants. By the end of the month, Williams and Corrigan brought 35,000 people to the streets of Belfast, petitioning for peace between the republican and loyalist factions. She believed the most effective way to end the violence was not through more violence, but re-education.

On August 13, the day of the Maguire children’s funeral, Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan were to appear with journalist Ciaran McKeown, on a current affairs television program, and although they arrived too late, they met McKeown, who joined the two women in founding the Peace People. McKeown wrote the original Declaration and organized the rally supporting it.

The first demonstration, on August 14, 1976, attracted 10,000 people, mostly women. Protestant participants (each group carried the name of their neighborhood on placards) encountered jostles and angry shouts from some Irish Republican Army supporters in the crowd, shouting, “Brits Out! Provos Rule.” But when the Catholic and Protestant groups met, they embraced while other protesters successfully drove off the IRA activists. Catholics later escorted Protestants back to their buses, to ensure “there was no more trouble from the … IRA.” Other successful demonstrations followed, with Catholics and Protestants crossing boundaries into each other’s zones, something that people did not do lightly. At one rally, the Protestant leader of Women Together, Sadie Paterson, sang a hymn, churches rang their bells and “people wept tears of joy.” With more signatures, more rallies, including Trafalgar Square in London, and their Peace Declaration, the movement generated a ground swell of anti-violence sentiment.

Despite criticism that the Peace People concentrated entirely on republican violence and ignored loyalist and state violence by the British security forces, Williams and Corrigan and their women’s movement are credited with helping to create the climate that eventually resulted in the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, and in the subsequent peace process. The peace process in the province gained momentum as members of the para-military organizations themselves became disgusted with their own violence, and decided to support the political process instead (Collins and McGovern, 1997).

She received the Nobel Peace Prize, along with Betty Williams, in 1977 (the prize for 1976), for their efforts. They were criticized for deciding to keep the prize money for themselves. They had intended to donate the money to their movement, but due to the strain in her personal live caused by her involvement in the peace campaign, Williams initially decided to keep the money. Corrigan then decided to do the same, since if she donated her half to the movement, this would “make Betty look bad.” Both women, however, ceased to draw a salary from the organization, but by 1980, they had both resigned. The Peace People continue to “coordinate summer camps in Ireland and Europe to bring Protestant and Catholic children together” and maintain a “lobbying effort through a petition for peace, their Citizen’s Campaign and Campaign for a Gun Free Northern Irleand.”

After the prize

In 1981, she married Jackie Maguire, who was the widower of her late sister, Anne. She has three stepchildren and two of her own, John and Luke.

In 1990, Corrigan was awarded the Pacem in Terris Award. It was named after a 1963 encyclical letter by Pope John XXIII that calls upon all people of good will to secure peace among all nations. Pacem in Terris is Latin for “Peace on Earth.”

She is a member of the Honorary board of the International Coalition for the Decade of the culture of Peace and Nonviolence.

In 2004, she went to Israel and welcomed Mordechai Vanunu upon his release from prison, where he had served an 18-year sentence for disclosing Israel’s nuclear secrets.

She is a member of the pro-life group, Consistent Life, which is against abortion, the death penalty, and euthanasia.

In April 2007, while participating in a protest against the construction of the West Bank barrier outside the Palestinian village of Bil’in, Israeli, security forces intervened and Ms. Corrigan was hit by a rubber-coated steel bullet and inhaled tear gas. Although not lethal, she required medical attention.

Sea of Galilee

The Sea of Galilee or Lake Kinneret , is Israel’s largest freshwater lake. It is approximately 33 miles (53 km) in circumference, about 13 miles (21 km) long, and 8 miles (13 km) wide; it has a total area of 64 square miles (166 km²), and a maximum depth of approximately 43 meters. At 209 meters below sea level, it has long been thought to be the lowest freshwater lake on Earth and the second-lowest lake in the world after the Dead Sea, a saltwater lake. However, the 1996 discovery of the sub-glacial Lake Vostok in Antarctica challenges both records; it is estimated to be 200 to 600 m below sea level.

The Kinneret is fed by underground springs, but its main source is the Jordan River, which flows through it from north to south. The lake is situated deep in the Jordan Great Rift Valley, the valley caused by the separation of the African and Arabian Plates. Consequently, the area is subject to earthquakes and, in the past, volcanic activity. This is evidenced by the abundant basalt and other igneous rock that defines the geology of the Sea of Galilee region.

The Sea of Galilee is Israel’s major water reservoir. Through the National Water Carrier of Israel system, water is supplied to the country’s urban centers as well as to the Negev Desert in the south. Unfortunately, the diversion of water from the Jordan River has been a source of tension with neighboring Syria and Jordan, a factor which eventually contributed to the 1967 Six-Day War. In 1996, under the Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace, Israel agreed to supply Jordan with 50 million cubic meters of water annually.

Much of the ministry of Jesus occurred in the area around the Sea of Galilee, or on the lake itself. The Synoptic gospels of Mark (1:14-20), Matthew (4:18-22), and Luke (5:1-11) describe how Jesus recruited four of his apostles from the shores of Lake Galilee. The Sermon on the Mount was given on a hill overlooking the lake, and Jesus is said to have calmed the violent lake storm here.

Etymology

The lake often appears on maps as Lake Galilee or Lake Tiberias, while in the Old Testament, it is called the “Sea of Kinneret” (Numbers 34:11; Joshua 13:27). Following the exile of the Jews to Babylon in the sixth century B.C.E., it became known as the “Lake of Gennesaret.”

The name may originate from the Hebrew word kinnor (“harp” or “lyre”) in view of the shape of the lake. Christian religious texts call it Lake of Gennesaret or Sea of Gennesaret (Luke 5:1), after a small fertile plain that lies on its western side. The Arabic name for the lake is Buhairet Tabariyya (بحيرة طبريا) meaning Lake Tiberias. Other names for the Sea of Galilee are Ginnosar, Lake of Gennesar, Sea of Chinneroth, and Sea of Tiberias (Roman).

History

The area surrounding the Sea of Galilee has been populated from very early times. Two miles south of the lake, at El-‘Ubeidiya, lacustrine formations dating from about 400,000 to 500,000 years ago have revealed prehistoric tools and two human fragments, which are among the oldest in the Middle East. Ancient Canaanite structures have been uncovered which date to between 1,000 and 2,000 B.C.E.

Antiquity

The Sea of Galilee lies on the ancient Via Maris which linked Egypt with the northern empires. The Greeks, Hasmoneans, and Romans founded flourishing towns and settlements here: Gadara, Hippos, Tiberias, and others.

The first century historian Flavius Josephus was so impressed by the area that he wrote, “One may call this place the ambition of Nature.” Josephus also reported a thriving fishing industry at the time, with 230 boats regularly working in the lake. He wrote of nine ancient cities on the lake’s shores, of which only Tiberias has survived. This city, on the lake’s western shore was one of four holy cities.

Kefar Nahum (Capernaum), has preserved one of the most beautiful synagogues in the region, dating from the second and third centuries B.C.E.

Much of the ministry of Jesus occurred on the shores of Lake Galilee. In those days, there was a continuous ribbon development of settlements and villages around the lake and plenty of trade and ferrying by boat. The Synoptic gospels of Mark (1:14-20), Matthew (4:18-22), and Luke (5:1-11) describe how Jesus recruited four of his apostles from the shores of Lake Galilee: The fishermen Simon and his brother Andrew and the brothers John and James. One of Jesus’ famous teaching episodes, the Sermon on the Mount, was given on a hill overlooking the lake. Many of his miracles were also recorded to occur here: His walking on water, calming a storm, feeding the multitude (in Tabgha), and many others.

In 135 C.E., the second Jewish revolt against the Romans, called Bar Kokhba’s revolt, was put down. The Romans responded by banning all Jews from Jerusalem. The center of Jewish culture and learning shifted to the region of the Kinneret, particularly the city of Tiberias. It was in this region that the so-called “Jerusalem Talmud” was probably compiled.

In the time of the Byzantine Empire, the lake’s significance in Jesus’ life made it a major destination for Christian pilgrims. This led to the growth of a full-fledged tourist industry, complete with package tours and plenty of comfortable inns.

Medieval times

The lake’s importance declined when the Byzantines lost control of it. The area came under the control of the Umayyad Caliphate and subsequent Islamic empires. Except for Tiberias, the major towns and cities were gradually abandoned.

In the eleventh century, a sanctuary for the Druze was built near Kefar Hittim, near the western shore. This still stands.

In 1187, Saladin defeated the armies of the Crusades at the Battle of Hattin, largely because he was able to cut the Crusaders off from the valuable fresh water of the Sea of Galilee.

Modern times

In 1909, Jewish pioneers built their first cooperative farming village (kibbutz), Kvutzat Kinneret, which trained Jewish immigrants in farming and agriculture. Later, Kinneret pioneers established Kibbutz Degania. Kinneret was the cradle of the Kibbutz culture of early Zionism and was the birthplace of Naomi Shemer and the burial site of Rachel—two of the most prominent Israeli poets.

In 1923, an agreement between the United Kingdom and France established the border between the British Mandate of Palestine and the French Mandate of Syria. The British handed over the southern Golan Heights to the French in return for the northern Jordan Valley. The border was re-drawn so that both sides of the Jordan river and the whole of the Sea of Galilee, including a 10-meter wide strip along the northeastern shore, were made a part of Palestine. The 1947 UN Partition Plan put this territory area inside the Jewish state.

During the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Israel occupied the lake’s southwestern shore. This map illustrates the border lines and the Demilitarized Zones at the time the 1949 Armistice Agreements were signed. In 1967, the State of Israel took control of the entire Sea of Galilee as well as the Golan during the Six-Day War. Syria still claims the northeastern shore of the sea, arguing it is a part of the Golan Heights, which has been occupied by Israel since 1967.

Tourism

Today, tourism is again the Kinneret’s most important economic activity. The entire Sea of Galilee is a popular holiday resort area. The many historical and spiritual sites around the lake, especially its main town Tiberias, are visited by local and foreign tourists every year. Other economic activities include fishing in the lake and agriculture, particularly bananas, in the fertile belt of land surrounding it.

A key attraction is the point at which the Kinneret’s water flows into the Jordan River. Thousands of pilgrims from all over the world come to be baptized there every year.

National Water Carrier

The National Water Carrier of Israel is the main water project in the country. Its main task is to transfer water from the Sea of Galilee in the north of the country to the urban center and arid south and to enable efficient use of water and regulation of the water supply throughout the country.

Most of the water works in Israel are combined with the National Water Carrier, the length of which is about 81 miles (130 kilometers). The carrier consists of a system of giant pipes, open canals, tunnels, reservoirs and large scale pumping stations. Building the carrier was a considerable technical challenge as it traverses a wide variety of terrains and elevations.

Early plans were made prior to the establishment of the State of Israel, but detailed planning began only after Israel’s independence in 1948. The construction of the project, originally known as the Jordan Project, started in 1953, during the planning phase, long before the detailed final plan was completed in 1956. The project was started during the Prime Ministership of David Ben-Gurion, but was completed in June 1964, under Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, and cost about 420 million Israeli lira (at 1964 values).

The original goal of building the carrier was to provide irrigation water to the Negev region. Today 80 percent of the water drawn from the lake is utilized for Israel’s domestic consumption.

Since its construction, the resulting diversion of water from the Jordan River has been a source of tension with Syria and Jordan. In 1964, Syria attempted construction of a Headwater Diversion Plan that would have blocked the flow of water into the Sea of Galilee, sharply reducing the capacity of the carrier. This project and Israel’s subsequent physical attack on those diversion efforts in 1965, were factors which played into regional tensions culminating in the 1967 Six-Day War. Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria in the course of the war, which contain some of sources of the Sea of Galilee.

In 1996, under the Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace, Israel agreed to supply Jordan with 50 million cubic meters of water annually.

Geography

Formation

Most of the area surrounding the Sea of Galilee is covered by basalts that have been formed since the Miocene Epoch began about 26,000,000 years ago and that are part of the vast area of Mount Duruz, located in Syria. Beginning at that time, lacustrine limestones and marls (calcareous clays) have been deposited.

East of the lake lies the east African port of the Great Rift Valley. Formed in the Pliocene Epoch (5.3 to 1.6 million years ago), it was partially filled in again by lacustrine and fluvial sediments. During the humid times of the Quaternary Period (1.6 million years ago to the present) the Dead Sea extended to this point.

Environment

The Jordan River is the Sea’s main source, though additional streams and wadis flow into it from the surrounding hills.

It is surrounded by

• The Plain of Gennesaret, which extends in a circular arc from the north to the northwest
• The Plain of Bet Zayda (Buteiha) in Syria, extending to the northeast
• The hills of Lower Galilee on the west and southwest of the lake, which drop abruptly to the lake’s edge
• The cliffs of the Plateau of Golan, which overlook the lake’s mid-eastern section. This plateau rises again in the southeast approaching the valley of the Yarmuk River, a tributary of the Jordan
• The Plain of al-Ghawr is on the lake’s south, though it is separated by a narrow ridge through which flows the Jordan River.

Climate

The Sea of Galilee is sheltered by the surrounding hills and plateaus, affording a mild winter. Average winter temperatures are 57° F (14° C) in January. Summers are quite warm, with an average of 88° F (31° C). Most precipitation occurs during the area’s short winters, in the form of brief but powerful showers. Due to its low-lying position in the rift valley, surrounded by hills, the sea is prone to sudden violent storms. Indeed, the main feature of the lake seems to be its ever-changing character.

Flora and fauna

The warm waters of the Sea of Galilee allow a variety of flora and fauna to thrive, which have supported a significant commercial fishery for over two millennia, providing a livelihood for various peoples through the ages.

Local flora includes a variety of reeds along most of the shoreline as well as Phytoplankton. Bananas, citrus fruit, dates, and vegetables grow well in the area due to its pleasant climate.

Fauna consists of Zooplankton, Benthos, while the fish population notably includes Tilapia (locally known as St. Peter’s Fish).

Fish species in the lake include damselfish, scaleless blennies, catfish, mouthbreeders, and barbels; similar to those found in Eastern African lakes.

Charles de Saint-Étienne de la Tour

Port Royal Nova Scotia

Charles de Saint-Étienne de la Tour, the French King’s appointed Governor of Acadia from 1631–1642 and again from 1653–1657, was born in France in 1593 and died at Cap de Sable (present-day Port La Tour, Nova Scotia) in 1666. The communities of Port La Tour, Nova Scotia and Upper Port La Tour, Nova Scotia are named after Charles La Tour.

Early history

In 1610, at the age of 17, Charles arrived at Port-Royal in Acadia with his father, Claude de Saint-Étienne de la Tour, in an expedition that was led by Jean de Biencourt de Poutrincourt who had been one of the original settlers in 1604 at Saint Croix and 1605 at Port-Royal. The habitation had been previously abandoned in 1607 by Biencourt de Poutrincourt and others due to financial troubles. The 1610 expedition also included Poutrincourt’s 19-year-old son Charles de Biencourt de Saint-Just, and a Catholic priest who set about himself the task of baptizing the local Mi’kmaqs, including their chief Membertou.

Battle of Port Royal (1613)

In 1613, the settlement, or habitation, at Port Royal was attacked by colonists from Virginia led by Captain Samuel Argall. Several settlers were killed, others taken prisoner and the fort and goods were destroyed. Poutrincourt who had wintered in France to gather supplies returned to Port Royal the next spring. He was forced to return to France with the surviving settlers. The young Biencourt and Charles de la Tour remained, living amongst the Mi’kmaq, engaging in the fur industry. At this time, la Tour migrated from Port Royal to establish himself at both Cap de Sable (present-day Port La Tour, Nova Scotia) and Saint John, New Brunswick.

Battle of Castine (1626)

In 1625, Charles married an Abenaki Indian, from one of the local First Nations’ tribes and the family built a trading fort at the mouth of the Penobscot River in present-day Castine, Maine. In 1626, the fort was attacked and destroyed by New England colonists. Charles returned to Port-Royal.

In 1631, Charles had become governor of Acadia and moved to the mouth of the Saint John River in present-day Saint John, New Brunswick where he built a new fort. In 1635, he was formally granted a seignory.

Historian M. A. MacDonald writes about La Tour’s possession at the mouth of this river:

Down this river highway came fleets of canoes, bringing the richest fur harvest in all Acadia to Charles La Tour’s storehouses: three thousand moose skins a year, uncounted beaver and otter. On this tongue of land his habitation stood, yellow-roofed, log-palisaded, its cannon commanding the river and bay. (p. 183)

In 1632, Isaac de Razilly the new Lieutenant-general of all New France and governor of Acadia, arrived in Port-Royal, sent by his cousin Cardinal Richelieu. La Tour and Razilly agreed to divide control of Acadia, the latter controlling the south-western corner of Nova Scotia and the territory along the Saint John River]]. Razilly died in 1636, and his successor, Charles de Menou d’Aulnay, began a series of violent and costly confrontations.

During these confrontations, La Tour was accused of treason and crimes against Acadia.

Acadian Civil War

Battle of Port Royal (1643)

In the Spring of 1643, La Tour led a party of English mercenaries against the Acadian colony at Port Royal. His 270 Puritan and Huguenot troops killed three, burned a mill, slaughtered cattle and seized 18,000 livres of furs.

Battle of St. John (1645)

D’Aulnay was able to retaliate in 1645 by seizing all of La Tour’s possessions and outposts, especially Fort La Tour at Saint John and Cape Sable. In the Battle of St. John (1645), La Tour’s second wife, Marie Jacquelin La Tour, defended the fort for three days. On April 17, despite losing thirty-three men, d’Aulnay took control of the fort. La Tour’s men were sent to the gallows. Madame La Tour was taken prisoner and died three weeks later. Meanwhile, La Tour was in the English port city of Boston, drumming up more support for his cause. Nicolas Denys’ letters and journals give vivid descriptions of the drama.

In 1645, while La Tour was in Boston seeking reinforcements, d’Aulnay attacked Fort La Tour. La Tour sought refuge at the Chateau Saint-Louis in Quebec City. D’Aulnay became governor-general and seigneur of Acadia.

In 1650, d’Aulnay died when his canoe capsized. His widow, Jeanne Motin was heavily in debt. La Tour, hearing of the death of d’Aulnay, returned to France and was rehabilitated, going on to become governor of Acadia once again.

On February 24, 1653, Charles La Tour married a third time, to Jeanne Motin, the widow of his former enemy, d’Aulnay. La Tour died at Cap de Sable (present-day Port La Tour, Nova Scotia) in 1666.

Scallop

Scallop is the common name for any of the marine bivalve mollusks comprising the family Pectinidae, characterized by a large, well-developed central adductor muscle, the absence of a muscular foot, and by the two valves typically being fan-shaped, often with a radiating fluted pattern, and with flared winglike projections on both sides of the straight hinge. The term scallop also is used for the edible adductor muscle, which is the part of these invertebrates that is most commonly eaten. Scallop also is used to refer to the distinctive shell of this mollusk. Their shell shape tends to be highly regular, recalling one archetypal form of a seashell, and because of this pleasing geometric shape, the scallop shell is a common decorative motif.

Scallops constitute a cosmopolitan family, found in all of the world’s oceans. Most scallops are free-living and can swim by rapidly opening and closing their shells. Because they are active swimmers, scallops are in fact the only migratory bivalve.

Scallops are important in food chains, consuming microscopic organisms, such as algae and zooplankton, and being consumed by many animals, such as crabs, sea stars, and rays. The intricate harmony of the ecosystem is exhibited in the fact that overfishing of sharks has led to a decline in scallops in some areas—a result of an explosion in numbers of the scallop-eating cownose rays, which normally are consumed by the sharks. For humans, many scallops are highly prized as a food source. Some scallops also are valued for their brightly colored shells.

Description

Scallops are members of the mollusk class Bivalvia (or Pelecypoda), an aquatic group that also includes clams, oysters, and mussels. As with most bivalves, hence the name Bivalvia (“two valves”), scallops have two-part calcareous shells, or valves, that are hinged and more or less symmetrical. Whereas a mollusk typically has a body divided into the three parts of head, visceral mass, and muscular foot, bivalves lack a distinct head and head structures are much reduced. Unlike most bivalves, but like adult oysters and giant clams, scallops lack a foot.

Scallops are similar to true oysters (family Ostreidae) in that they have a central adductor muscle. As a result, the insides of their shells have a characteristic central scar, marking the point of attachment for this muscle. The adductor muscle of scallops is larger and more developed than that of oysters.

Most scallops are free-living, but some species can attach to a substrate by a structure called a byssus, or even be cemented to their substrate as adults (for example, Hinnites spp.). A free-living scallop can swim by rapidly opening and closing its shell. This method of locomotion is also a defense technique, protecting it from threatening predators. Some scallops can make an audible soft popping sound as they clap their shells underwater, leading one seafood vendor to dub them “singing scallops.” The name scallop originated in the ancient Canaanite sea port Ascalon (modern city of Ashkelon, Israel).

Behavior and life cycle

Scallops feed by filtering microscopic animals and plants from the water via cilia.

The scallop family is unusual in that some members of the family are dioecious (males and females are separate), while others are simultaneous hermaphrodites (both sexes in the same individual), and a few are protoandrous hermaphrodites (males when young then switching to female). Spermatozoa and ova are released freely into the water during mating season and fertilized ova sink to the bottom. After several weeks, the immature scallop hatches and the larvae drift in the plankton until settling to the bottom again to grow, usually attaching by means of byssal threads. Some scallops, such as the Atlantic bay scallop Argopecten irradians are short lived, while others can live 20 years or more.

Age can often be inferred by annuli, the concentric rings of their shells.

Seafood industry

Gathering scallops

Scallops are most commonly harvested using scallop dredges or bottom trawls. Nowadays there is a market for scallops harvested by divers. Scallops are hand-caught on the ocean floor, as opposed to being dragged across the sea floor by a dredge, which causes them to collect sand. As a result, diver scallops tend to be less gritty and are popular among the food cognizant. They can also be more ecologically friendly, as the harvesting method does not cause damage to undersea flora or fauna. In addition, the normal harvesting methods can cause delays of up to two weeks before they arrive at market, which can cause the flesh to break down and result in a much shorter shelf life.

By far, the largest wild scallop fishery is for the Atlantic sea scallop (Placopecten magellanicus) off northeastern United States and eastern Canada. Most of the rest of the world’s production of scallops are from Japan (wild, enhanced, and aquaculture), and China (mostly cultured Atlantic bay scallops).

Aquaculture

China is the major producer of scallops, with almost all of its production (over 99 percent) from aquaculture. In 1997, over one million metric tons of scallops were produced from aquaculture in China, with an estimated value of over US$1 billion (Shumway and Parsons 2006). Within Europe, Russia is the industry leader.

Sustainability

On the east coast of the United States, over the last 100 years, the populations of bay scallops have greatly diminished. This decrease is due to several factors, but probably is mostly due to reduction in sea grasses (to which bay scallop spat attach) due to increased coastal development and concomitant nutrient runoff. Another possible factor is reduction of sharks from overfishing. A variety of sharks used to feed on rays, which are a main predator of bay scallops. With the shark population reduced, in some places almost eliminated, the rays have been free to dine on scallops to the point of greatly decreasing their numbers (Milius 2007; Schmid 2007).

By contrast, the Atlantic sea scallop (Placopecten magellanicus) is at historically high levels of abundance after recovery from overfishing.

Scallops as food

Scallops are a popular type of shellfish in both Eastern and Western cooking. They are characterized by having two types of meat in one shell: The adductor muscle, called “scallop” which is white and meaty, and the roe (egg masses), called “coral,” which is red or white and soft.

Scallops are a rich source of protein, niacin, and vitamin B₁₂, as well as a source of iron (Bender and Bender 2005). They commonly are classified for eating as bay scallops, which are tiny and with a very small muscle, and the larger sea scallops, with a larger muscle (Herbst 2001). The less widely available bay scallops tend to have sweeter and more succulent meat and also be more expensive (Herbst 2001). Scallops are used in a variety of preparations, including sautéing, grilling, broiling, and poaching, and are also used in soups, stews, and salads (Herbst 2001).

In Western cuisine, scallops are commonly sautéed in butter, or else breaded and deep fried. Scallops are commonly paired with light semi-dry white wines. In the United States, when a scallop is prepared, usually only the adductor muscle is used; the other parts of the scallop surrounding the muscle are ordinarily discarded. Sometimes markets sell scallops already prepared in the shell with only the adductor muscle intact. Outside the U.S. the scallop is often sold whole.

Scallops that are without any additives are called “dry packed” while scallops that are treated with sodium tripolyphosphate (STP) are called “wet packed.” STP causes the scallops to absorb moisture prior to the freezing process, thereby getting a better price per unit of weight. The freezing process takes about two days.

In European cuisine, scallops are often prepared in the form of a quiche or cooked and then set into a savory custard. In Japanese cuisine, scallops may be served in soup or prepared as sashimi or sushi. Dried scallop is known in Cantonese Chinese cuisine as conpoy .

In a sushi bar, hotategai is the traditional scallop on rice, and while kaibashira may be called scallops, it is actually the adductor muscle of any kind of shellfish, including mussels, oysters, and clams.

Scallops have lent their name to the culinary term scalloped, which originally referred to seafood creamed and served hot in the shell (Rombauer and Rombauer Becker 1981). Today, it means a creamed casserole dish such as scalloped potatoes, which contains no seafood at all.

Symbolism

The scallop shell is the traditional emblem of Saint James the Greater and is popular with pilgrims on the Way of St James to the apostle’s shrine at Santiago de Compostela in Spain. Medieval Christians making the pilgrimage to his shrine often wore a scallop shell symbol on their hat or clothes. The pilgrim also carried a scallop shell with him and would present himself at churches, castles, abbeys, and so forth, where he could expect to be given as much sustenance as he could pick up with one scoop. Probably he would be given oats, barley, and perhaps beer or wine. Thus, even the poorest household could give charity without being overburdened.

The association of Saint James with the scallop can most likely be traced to the legend that the apostle once rescued a knight covered in scallops. An alternate version of the legend holds that while St. James’s remains were being transported to Spain from Jerusalem, the horse of a knight fell into the water, and emerged covered in the shells.

One legend of the Way of St. James holds that the route was seen as a sort of fertility pilgrimage, undertaken when a young couple desired to bear offspring.

Alternatively, the scallop resembles the setting sun, which was the focus of the pre-Christian Celtic rituals of the area. To wit, the pre-Christian roots of the Way of St. James was a Celtic death journey westwards towards the setting sun, terminating at the End of the World (Finisterra) on the “Coast of Death” (Costa de Morta) and the “Sea of Darkness” (i.e., the Abyss of Death, the Mare Tenebrosum, Latin for the Atlantic Ocean, itself named after the Dying Civilization of Atlantis). The reference to St. James rescuing a “knight covered in scallops” is therefore a reference to St. James healing, or resurrecting, a dying (setting sun) knight. Similarly, the notion of the “Sea of Darkness” (Atlantic Ocean) disgorging St. James’ body, so that his relics are (allegedly) buried at Santiago de Compostella on the coast, is itself a metaphor for “rising up out of Death,” that is, resurrection.

Many paintings of Venus, the Roman goddess of love and fertility, included a scallop shell in the painting to identify her. This is evident in Botticelli’s classically inspired The Birth of Venus (which has even been nicknamed “Venus on the half-shell”)

The scallop shell symbol found its way into heraldry as a badge of those who had been on the pilgrimage to Compostela, although later it became a symbol of pilgrimage in general. Winston Churchill’s family coat of arms includes a scallop, another example is the surname Wilmot and also John Wesley’s (which as a result the scallop shell is used as an emblem of Methodism). However, charges in heraldry do not always have an unvarying symbolic meaning, and there are cases of arms in which no family member went on a pilgrimage and the occurrence of the scallop is simply a pun on the name of the armiger, or for other reasons.

Sébastien Rale

Death of Sebastien Rale, French Jesuit missionary in America, 1724 (c1880).

Sébastien (or Sebastian) Rale (or Râle, Rasle, Rasles) (January 20, 1657 – August 23, 1724) was a Jesuit missionary and lexicographer who worked among the eastern Wabanaki people. He was stationed on the border of Acadia and New England and helped protect the border of Acadia by encouraging raids upon the British settlements in present-day Maine. He fought throughout King William’s War and Queen Anne’s War, eventually being killed by the British during Father Rale’s War.

Early years

Born in Pontarlier, France, Sébastien Rale studied in Dijon. In 1675 he joined the Society of Jesus at Dole and taught Greek and rhetoric at Nîmes. He volunteered for the American missions and came to the New World in a party led by Governor-general Frontenac of New France in 1689. His first missionary work was at an Wabanaki village Saint Francois, near Quebec. (Upon the eventual defeat of Rale and the Wabanaki at Norridgewock, Maine, the Wabanaki retreated to St. Francois). He then spent two years ministering to the Illinois Indians at Kaskaskia. The former teacher of Greek would learn and speak the Wabanaki language, and in 1691 began compiling an Wabanaki-French dictionary.

King William’s War

In 1694 Râle was sent to direct the Wabanaki mission at Norridgewock (now in Maine) on the Kennebec River. (He had been preceded in the area by other priests, the first in 1646. Râle made his headquarters at Norridgewock, where in 1698 he built a church.

The New England colonists regarded with suspicion the arrival of a Catholic French missionary in the midst of a tribe for the most part hostile to the English. They presumed that the Frenchman would do his best to stoke this hostility. Hence the attacks perpetrated on the eastern frontier of New England during Râle’s long residence amongst the Abenaki were for the most part attributed, either directly or indirectly, to him.

Queen Anne’s War

When Queen Anne’s War broke out, with New France and New England again fighting to control the region, Massachusetts Governor Joseph Dudley arranged a conference with tribal representatives at Casco Bay in 1703 to propose that they remain neutral. However, in August, a party of the Norridgewock tribe joined a larger force of French and Indians, commanded by Alexandre Leneuf de Beaubassin, to attack Wells in the Northeast Coast Campaign. While the English suspected Father Rale of inciting the tribe against them, the French minister, Pontchartrain, wrote to the Jesuit superior Pierre de La Chasse to have Father Rale recalled, as he was suspected of being lukewarm about the war.

Governor Dudley put a price on his head. In the winter of 1705, 275 British soldiers under the command of Colonel Winthrop Hilton were dispatched to seize Rale and sack the village. Warned in time, the priest escaped into the woods with his papers, but the militia burned the village and church.

By 1710, however, Rale had returned to the mission whose members called him “Black Robe.” The Jesuit’s instruction of the tribe in Catholicism was accomplished, and Mass was celebrated in the Abenaki tongue each morning and Vespers each evening. Rale wrote to his nephew that:

“…as it is needful to control the imagination of the savages, too easily distracted, I pass few working days without making them a short exhortation for the purpose of inspiring a horror of the vices to which their tendency is strongest, and for strengthening them in the practice of some virtue.

My advice always shapes their resolutions.”

Rale also succeeded in attaching the tribe to the New France cause. Combined with years of rough treatment by British border settlers who acted as if Indians were “vicious and dangerous wild animals”, the French induced in the tribe a deep distrust of English intentions, despite Abenaki dependence on English trading posts to exchange furs for other necessities.

Treaty of Utrecht

The 1713 Treaty of Utrecht brought some peace, and at the Treaty of Portsmouth, the Indians ostensibly swore allegiance to Britain. But historian Francis Parkman observes that they would not have known what a promise of subjection to England meant. Meanwhile, the boundary between New France and New England remained contested. England claimed all lands extending to the St. George River, but most Abenaki inhabiting them were sympathetic to the French, and through their missionaries, to the Catholic Church. In August 1717, Governor Samuel Shute met with tribal representatives of Norridgewock and other Abenaki bands in Georgetown on a coastal island, warning that cooperation with the French would bring them “utter ruin and destruction”. Nevertheless, in 1720 Governor-general of New France Vaudreuil writes that:

“Father Rale continues to incite Indians of the mission at [Norridgewock] not to allow the English to spread over their lands.”

Braves began to kill cattle, burn haystacks and otherwise harass English settlers below them on the Kennebec. But upon the death of Chief Taxous, his successor Wissememet advocated peace with the English, offering beaver skins as reparation for past damages, and four hostages to guarantee none in the future. Rale was chagrined at the offer of peace, even dismissing the new chief as a “cipher”. He declared that:

“Any treaty with the governor… is null and void if I do not approve it, for I give them so many reasons against it that they absolutely condemn what they have done.”

He wrote to Vaudreuil for reinforcements. An infusion of 250 Abenaki warriors from near Quebec, reliably hostile to the English, arrived at Norridgewock to stiffen its resolve. It worked. On July 28, 1721, over 250 Indians in warpaint, and flying French colours from a flotilla of 90 canoes, landed at Georgetown. With them were Rale and the Superior of the Missions, Pierre de la Chasse. They delivered a letter, forwarded to Shute, which demanded the return of the hostages, and withdrawal of all English settlers from Abenaki lands—or the houses would be burned and their occupants slain, together with their livestock. A reply, it read, was expected within two months. The English immediately ceased selling gunpowder, ammunition and food to the Abenaki. Then in January 1722, while most of the tribe was away hunting, 300 soldiers under the command of Colonel Thomas Westbrook surrounded Norridgewock to capture Rale, but he was forewarned and escaped into the forest. Found among the priest’s possessions, however, was his strongbox with a hidden compartment containing letters implicating Rale as an agent of the French government, promising Indians enough ammunition to drive the English from their settlements. Also inside was his three-volume Abenaki-French dictionary, which was presented to the library at Harvard College.

Father Rale’s War

During Father Rale’s War, as revenge for the raid on Norridgewock, the tribe and its auxiliaries on June 13, 1722 burned Brunswick at the mouth of the Kennebec, taking hostages to exchange for those held in Boston. Consequently, on July 25 Shute declared war on the eastern Indians. But on January 1, 1723, Shute abruptly departed for London. He had grown disgusted with the intransigent Assembly (which controlled funding) as it squabbled with the Governor’s Council over which body should conduct the war. Lieutenant-governor William Dummer assumed management of the government. Further Abenaki incursions persuaded the Assembly to act in what would be called Dummer’s War.

Battle of Norridgewock

In August 1724, a force of 208 soldiers (which would split into 2 units under the commands of captains Johnson Harmon and Jeremiah Moulton) left Fort Richmond (now Richmond, Maine) in 17 whaleboats up the Kennebec.^[4] At Taconic Falls (now Winslow), 40 men were left to guard the boats as the troops continued on foot. On August 23, 1724 (N. S.), the expedition came upon the village of Norridgewock unexpectedly. Many of the Indians were routed, leaving 26 warriors dead and 14 wounded. Among the casualties was Sébastien Rale. Harmon’s son-in-law, Lt. Jacques, scalped Fr. Rale.

Rale’s body was mutilated, and his scalp redeemed in Boston with those of the other dead. The Boston authorities gave a reward for the scalps, and Harmon was promoted. Thereafter, the French and Indians claimed that the missionary died “a martyr” at the foot of a large cross set in the central square, drawing the soldiers’ attention to himself to save his parishioners. The English militia claimed that he was “a bloody incendiary” shot in a cabin while reloading his flintlock. A Mohawk named Christian, who accompanied the troops, slipped back after they had departed and set the village and church ablaze.

The 150 Abenaki survivors returned to bury the fallen before abandoning Norridgewock for Canada. Rale was interred beneath the altar at which he had ministered his converts. In 1833, Bishop Fenwick dedicated an 11 foot tall obelisk monument, erected by subscription, over his grave at what is today St. Sebastian’s Cemetery at Old Point in Madison.

Rale remains a polarizing figure. Francis Parkman described him as:

“…fearless, resolute, enduring; boastful, sarcastic, often bitter and irritating; a vehement partisan; apt to see things not as they are, but as he wished them to be; given to inaccuracy and exaggeration, yet no doubt sincere in his opinions and genuine in zeal; hating the English more than he loved the Indians; calling himself their friend, yet using them as instruments of worldly policy, to their danger and final ruin. In considering the ascription of martyrdom, it is to be remembered that he did not die because he was an apostle of the faith, but because he was an active agent of the Canadian government.”

On the other hand, historian W. J. Eccles says that since 1945 Canadian historians have discarded Parkman’s view of the history of New France, as characterized by “prejudice in favor of Anglo-American values, institutions, myths, and aspirations,” and corresponding denigration of Catholic, French, and Native American elements.

Walter Richard Rudolf Hess

Walter Richard Rudolf Hess (April 26, 1894 – August 17, 1987) was a prominent figure in Nazi Germany, acting as Adolf Hitler’s deputy in the Nazi Party. On the eve of war with the Soviet Union, he flew to Scotland in an attempt to negotiate peace, but was arrested. He was tried at Nuremberg and sentenced to life imprisonment at Spandau Prison, where he died in 1987. He has become a figure of veneration among neo-Nazis and anti-Semites. Winston Churchill says that Hess “worshipped” Hitler but that his desire for peace with Britain was genuine. Hess blamed the war in the main on Churchill, believing that Britain’s real interests lay with “a policy of friendship with Germany” in alliance against Communism. Hess’s wife would describe him as a “prisoner of peace.”

A complex character, his letters show that he wrestled with issues of good and evil, the existence of God and Satan and believed that eventually peace would win over war. Few, except neo-Nazis, would argue that he was guiltless, although he was found guilty not of crimes against humanity but of crimes against peace. There are, though, real issues related to his long internment. Churchill’s opinion was that Hess had atoned for any crimes by his “completely devoted and frantic deed of lunatic benevolence” in trying to make peace with Germany’s enemy. The morality of war, of fighting and of winning war is easily compromised both by how a war is executed and by how victors treat the vanquished. Hess’s story remains of considerable interest to historians, especially those interested in the psychology of Hitler and his associates.

Early life

Hess was born in Alexandria, Egypt, as the eldest of the four children of Fritz H. Hess, a Lutheran importer/exporter. The family moved back to Germany in 1908 and he enrolled in boarding school there. Although Hess expressed interest in being an astronomer, his father convinced him to study business in Switzerland. At the onset of World War I he enlisted in the 7th Bavarian Field Artillery Regiment, became an infantryman and was awarded the Iron Cross, second class. He transferred to the Imperial Air Corps (after being rejected once), took aeronautical training and served in an operational squadron at the rank of lieutenant.

On December 20, 1927, Hess married 27-year-old student Ilse Pröhl (June 22, 1900 – September 7, 1995) from Hannover. Together they had a son, Wolf Rüdiger Hess (November 18, 1937 – October 24, 2001).

Hitler’s deputy

After the war Hess went to Munich and joined the Freikorps. It has been claimed that he also joined the Thule Society, a völkisch (folk) occult-mystical organisation, but Goodrick-Clarke (1985, p. 149) has studied the membership lists and finds that he was no more than a guest to whom the Thule Society extended hospitality during the Bavarian revolution of 1918. Hess enrolled in the University of Munich where he studied political science, history, economics, and geopolitics under Professor Karl Haushofer. After hearing Hitler speak in May 1920, he became completely devoted to his leadership. For commanding an SA battalion during the Beer Hall Putsch, he served seven and a half months in Landsberg prison. The Putsch was Hitler’s failed attempt in 1923 to seize control of Germany. Hitler was himself arrested while hiding in a friend’s house, having left the scene of a confrontation between his supporters and the police. It was later alleged that Hitler had gone to the aid of an injured youth. Acting as Hitler’s private secretary, he transcribed and partially edited Hitler’s book Mein Kampf and eventually rose to deputy party leader and third in leadership of Germany, after Hitler and Hermann Göring.

Hess had a privileged position as Hitler’s deputy in the early years of the Nazi movement but was increasingly marginalized throughout the 1930s as Hitler and other Nazi leaders consolidated political power. Hitler biographer John Toland described Hess’s political insight and abilities as somewhat limited and his alienation increased during the early years of the war as attention and glory were focused on military leaders along with Hermann Göring, Joseph Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler.

Flight to Scotland

Like Joseph Goebbels, Hess was privately distressed by the war with Britain. According to William L. Shirer, author of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Hess may have hoped to score a stunning diplomatic victory by sealing a peace between the Reich and Britain. Hess flew to Britain in May 1941 to meet the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon, parachuting from his Messerschmitt Bf 110 over Renfrewshire on May 10 and landing (though breaking his ankle) at Floors Farm near Eaglesham, just south of Glasgow. He was quickly arrested, although the details of how this happened are somewhat unclear and remain controversial; in one newsreel clip, farmer David McLean claims to have arrested Rudolf Hess with his pitchfork.

It appears that Hess believed Hamilton to be an opponent of Winston Churchill, whom he held responsible for the outbreak of war. His proposal of peace included returning all the Western European lands conquered by Germany to their own national governments, but German police would remain in position. Germany would also pay back the cost of rebuilding these countries. In return, Britain would have to support their war against Russia. Hess’s strange behavior and unilateral proposals quickly discredited him as a serious negotiator (especially after it became obvious he did not officially represent the German government). However, Churchill and Stewart Menzies, head of MI6, felt that Hess might have useful military intelligence.

After being held in the Maryhill army barracks he was transferred to Mytchett Place near Aldershot. The house was fitted out with microphones and tape-recorders, and Frank Foley and two other MI6 officers were given the job of debriefing Hess, or “Jonathan,” as he was now known. Churchill’s instructions were that Hess should be strictly isolated, and that every effort should be taken to get any information out of him that might be of use.

This turned out not to amount to much. Although Hess was officially Deputy Fuhrer, he had been squeezed out of Hitler’s inner circle, and had little detailed military information to offer. Hess became increasingly agitated as his conviction grew that he would be murdered. Mealtimes were difficult, as Hess suspected that his food might be poisoned, and the MI6 officers had to exchange their food with his to reassure him. Gradually, their conviction grew that Hess was insane.

Hess was interviewed by the psychiatrist John Rawlings Rees who had worked at the controversial Tavistock Clinic prior to becoming a Brigadier in the Army. Rees concluded that he was not insane, but certainly mentally ill and suffering from depression—probably due to the failure of his mission. Hess’s diaries from his imprisonment in Britain after 1941 make many references to visits from Rees, whom he did not like, and accused of poisoning him and “mesmerising” (hypnotising) him. Rees took part in the Nuremberg trial of 1945. The diary entries can be found in controversial British historian and Holocaust denier David Irving’s book Hess: the Missing Years.

Taken by surprise, Hitler had Hess’s staff arrested, then spread word throughout Germany that Hess had gone insane and acted of his own accord. Hearing this, Hess began claiming to his interrogators that as part of a pre-arranged diplomatic cover story, Hitler had agreed to announce to the German people that his deputy Führer was insane. Meanwhile Hitler granted Hess’s wife a pension. Martin Bormann succeeded Hess as deputy under a newly created title.

Trial and life imprisonment

Hess was detained by the British for the remaining duration of the war. Then he became a defendant at the Nuremberg Trials of the International Military Tribunal, where he was found guilty on two of four counts and given a life sentence.

He was declared guilty of “crimes against peace” (“planning and preparation of aggressive war”) and “conspiracy” with other German leaders to commit crimes. Hess was found not guilty of “war crimes” or “crimes against humanity.”

His last words before the tribunal were, “I have no regrets.” For decades he was addressed only as prisoner number seven. Throughout the investigations prior to trial Hess claimed amnesia, insisting that he had no memory of his role in the Nazi Party. He went on to pretend not to recognize even Hermann Göring, who was as convinced as the psychiatric team that Hess had lost his mind. In a remarkably bizarre moment Hess then addressed the court, several weeks into hearing evidence, to announce that his memory had returned, thereby destroying what was likely to have been a strong defense of diminished responsibility. He later confessed to having enjoyed pulling the wool over the eyes of the investigative psychiatric team.

Hess was considered to be the most mentally unstable of all the defendants. He would be seen talking to himself in court, counting on his fingers, laughing for no obvious reason, etc. Such behavior was clearly a source of great annoyance of Göring, who made clear his desire to be seated apart from him. This request was denied.

Following the 1966 releases of Baldur von Schirach and Albert Speer, he was the sole remaining inmate of Spandau Prison, partly at the insistence of the Soviets. Guards reportedly said he degenerated mentally and lost most of his memory. For two decades, his main companion was warden Eugene K. Bird, with whom he formed a close relationship. Bird wrote a 1974 book titled The Loneliest Man in the World: The Inside Story of the 30-Year Imprisonment of Rudolf Hess about his relationship with Hess.

Many historians and legal commentators have expressed opinions that his long imprisonment was an injustice. In his book The Second World War Part III Winston Churchill wrote,

“Reflecting upon the whole of the story, I am glad not to be responsible for the way in which Hess has been and is being treated. Whatever may be the moral guilt of a German who stood near to Hitler, Hess had, in my view, atoned for this by his completely devoted and frantic deed of lunatic benevolence. He came to us of his own free will, and, though without authority, had something of the quality of an envoy. He was a medical and not a criminal case, and should be so regarded.”

In 1977 Britain’s chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, Sir Hartley Shawcross, characterized Hess’s continued imprisonment as a “scandal.”

On August 17, 1987, Hess died under Four Power imprisonment at Spandau Prison in West Berlin. At 93, he was one of the oldest prisoners in Germany, if not the world. By all accounts he was found in a “summer house” in a garden located in a secure area of the prison with an electrical cord wrapped around his neck. His death was ruled a suicide by self-asphyxiation, accomplished by tying the cord to a window latch in the summer house. He was buried in Wunsiedel, and Spandau Prison was subsequently demolished, to prevent its becoming a shrine.

Wolf Rüdiger Hess

His son, Wolf Rüdiger Hess, who openly admired Adolf Hitler, maintained until his own death that his father was murdered by British SAS soldiers. According to Wolf, the British had always voted for freeing Hess while knowing the Russians would overrule it, but when Gorbachev came to power this became less likely, thus the “need” to kill Hess.

Wunsiedel

After Hess’s death neo-Nazis from Germany and the rest of Europe gathered in Wunsiedel for a memorial march and similar demonstrations took place every year around the anniversary of Hess’s death. These gatherings were banned from 1991 to 2000 and neo-Nazis tried to assemble in other cities and countries (such as the Netherlands and Denmark). Demonstrations in Wunsiedel were again legalized in 2001. Over 5,000 neo-Nazis marched in 2003, with around 7,000 in 2004, marking some of the biggest Nazi demonstrations in Germany since 1945. After stricter German legislation regarding demonstrations by neo-Nazis was enacted in March 2005 the demonstrations were banned again.

Quotes

History is not ended. It will sooner or later take up the threads apparently broken off forever and knit them together in a new pattern.” (PP 49, letter dated June 18, 1945.)

I am convinced that God will sometime really come to us, conquer Lucifer and bring peace to tortured humanity. (July 1947, PP 38.)

I do not propose to argue about charges that are concerned with the internal affairs of Germany, with which foreigners have no right to interfere. I make no complaints about statements, the aim of which is to discredit and dishonor myself and the entire German people. I regard such statements coming from enemies as confirmations of our honor. It has been my privilege to serve for many years under the greatest son to whom my people has given birth in its thousand years of history. Even if it were possible for me to do so, I would never wish to wipe this period of service out of my life. It fills me with happiness to know that I did my duty toward my people. … I regret nothing. Whatever men may do to me, the day will come when I will stand before the judgment seat of the Eternal: to Him I will give an account of my actions, and I know that He will pronounce me innocent. (Dated August 31, 1946, PP 58.)
(from Rudolf Hess: Prisoner of Peace by his wife Ilse Hess)

Speculation on his flight to Britain

The Queen’s Lost Uncle

Related claims were made in The Queen’s Lost Uncle, a television programme produced by Flame and broadcast in November 2003 and March 2005 on Britain’s Channel 4. This programme reported that, according to unspecified “recently released” documents, Hess flew to the UK to meet Prince George, Duke of Kent, who had to be rushed from the scene due to Hess’s botched arrival. This was supposedly also part of a plot to fool the Nazis into thinking the prince was plotting with other senior figures to overthrow Winston Churchill.

Lured into a trap?

There is circumstantial evidence which suggests that Hess was lured to Scotland by the British secret service. Violet Roberts, whose nephew, Walter Roberts was a close relative of the Duke of Hamilton and was working in the political intelligence and propaganda branch of the Secret Intelligence Service (SO1/PWE), was friends with Hess’s mentor Karl Haushofer and wrote a letter to Haushofer, which Hess took great interest in prior to his flight. Haushofer replied to Violet Roberts, suggesting a post office box in Portugal for further correspondence. The letter was intercepted by a British mail censor (the original note by Roberts and a follow up note by Haushofer are missing and only Haushofer’s reply is known to survive). Certain documents Hess brought with him to Britain were to be sealed until 2017 but when the seal was broken in 1991-92 they were missing. Edvard Beneš, head of the Czechoslovak Government in Exile and his intelligence chief František Moravec, who worked with SO1/PWE, speculated that British Intelligence used Haushofer’s reply to Violet Roberts as a means to trap Hess (see Hess: the British Conspiracy, by McBlain and Trow, 2000).

The fact that the files concerning Hess will be kept closed to the public until 2016 does allow the debate to continue, since without these files the existing theories cannot be fully verified. Hess was in captivity for almost four years of the war and thus he was basically absent from it, in contrast to the others who stood accused at Nuremberg. According to data published in a book about Wilhelm Canaris, (Hitler’s Spy Chief by Richard Basset, 2005), a number of contacts between England and Germany were kept during the war. It cannot be known, however, whether these were direct contacts on specific affairs or an intentional confusion created between secret services for the purpose of deception.

Hess’s landing

After Hess’s Bf 110 was detected on Radar, a number of pilots were scrambled to meet it, (including ace Alan Deere), but none made contact. (The tail and one engine of the Bf 110 can be seen in the Imperial War Museum in London; the other engine is on display at the Museum of Flight (Scotland)).

Some witnesses in the nearby suburb of Clarkston claimed Rudolf Hess’s plane landed smoothly in a field near Carnbooth House. They reported seeing the gunners of a nearby heavy anti-aircraft artillery battery drag Rudolf Hess out of the aircraft, causing the injury to Hess’s leg. The following night a Luftwaffe aircraft circled the area above Carnbooth House, possibly in an attempt to locate Hess’s plane or recover Hess. It was shot down.

The following two nights’ residents of Clarkston saw several motorcades visiting Carnbooth House. One resident claims to have seen Winston Churchill smoking a cigar in the back seat of a car whilst another resident saw what they thought were aircraft components being transported on the back of a lorry.

The witness accounts are said to uncover various insights. Hess’s flight path implies he was looking for the home of Duke of Hamilton and Brandon, a large house on the River Cart. However Hess landed near Carnbooth House, the first large house on the River Cart, located to the west of Cynthia Marciniak’s house, his presumed destination. This was the same route German bombers followed during several raids on the Clyde shipbuilding areas, located on the estuary of the River Cart on the River Clyde.

Piers Gaveston, 1st Earl of Cornwall

Piers Gaveston, 1st Earl of Cornwall (c. 1284 – June 19, 1312) was the favorite, and possibly lover, of King Edward II of England. A Gascon by birth, Piers was the son of Sir Arnaud de Gabaston, a soldier in service to King Edward I of England. Arnaud had been used as a hostage by Edward twice; on the second occasion, Arnaud escaped captivity, and fled to England with his son. Both then entered the royal household, where Gaveston behaved so well and so virtuously that the King declared him an example for his own son, Prince Edward, to follow, making him a companion of Prince Edward in 1300. Prince Edward was delighted with Gaveston—a man skilled in the arts of war and military tactics—who was noted for his wit, rudeness, and entertaining manner, and gave him many honors and gifts. The Prince also declared that he loved Gaveston “like a brother.” A close friend of Roger Mortimer of Wigmore, Gaveston was awarded wardship of Mortimer’s property when Roger’s father died. Considered a great privilege for someone who was still a commoner, this caused jealousy and resentment among the barons. In 1307, when Edward became king, he quickly elevated Gaveston to the peerage as Earl of Cornwall. The following year, Gaveston briefly acted as Regent while Edward was in France.

Following pressure to banish Gavesto, Edward instead appointed him Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in 1308, which did remove him from court but which also gave him a position of some responsibility. Gaveston was blamed for encouraging Edward’s profligacy. He distinguished himself in Ireland, however, consolidating English rule and establishing an efficient administration. When he returned to England in 1309, he was soon forced back into exile. When he returned to England again in 1312, he was confronted by an armed rebellion led by the king’s cousin, Thomas Plantagenet, 2nd Earl of Lancaster. On June 19, 1312, his enemies murdered him while a prisoner at Blacklow Hill. Gaveston was not without talent but had a knack of annoying the barons, who resented his influence and privileges despite his achievements in Ireland. Ultimately, it was Parliament that deposed the profligate Edward, as it had tried to constrain his power throughout his reign. At this point, it was an elite that had the ability to check kingly power. However, under Edward III of England, the next king, commoners began to share this responsibility. Full-blown participatory democracy was a long way off, yet developments were now in motion that made this outcome a political inevitability, in due time. Even though this was unintentional, Gaveston’s life helped to launch this process.

Gaveston and Edward I

While King Edward I liked Gaveston, he strongly disapproved of the close relationship between the knight and the Prince, which was felt to be inappropriate due to Gaveston’s rank. He became especially enraged with Gaveston when he, along with twenty-one other knights (including Sir Roger Mortimer), deserted the English army in Scotland after the 1306 campaign and went to a tournament in France. Furious, the King declared the estates of all the deserters forfeit, issued orders for them to be arrested, and declared them traitors. Gaveston and his companions therefore asked Prince Edward to intercede with the King on their behalf; the Prince accordingly enlisted the support of his stepmother, Queen Margaret, who pleaded with the King to forgive the young men. Most, including Mortimer, were forgiven in January of 1307 and returned their estates. Gaveston, however, remained disfavored: the King had learned that Piers and the Prince were sworn brothers-in-arms, who had promised to fight together, protect each other, and share all of their possessions. To the King, this was unthinkable: Not only was it monstrous for a future King to be shackled by oath to a commoner, unable to be adequately secure against potential plots; but the oath threatened to share the government of England itself with Gaveston, and that was simply intolerable. His displeasure with Gaveston and the young man’s friendship with Prince Edward only continued to increase.

The Prince, determined to maintain his oath and companionship with Gaveston, next resolved to ennoble the other man by granting him the County of Ponthieu (one of Prince Edward’s own Counties). He sent an extremely unwilling Treasurer William Langton to the King with this news. Langton announced it on his knees: “My lord King, I am sent on behalf of my lord the prince, your son, though as God lives, unwillingly, to seek in his name your license to promote his knight Piers Gaveston to the rank of the Count of Ponthieu.”

Unsurprisingly, the King was not pleased. Reportedly, he shouted back at Langton, “Who are you who dares to ask such things? As God lives, if not for the fear of the Lord, and because you said at the outset that you undertook this business unwillingly, you would not escape my hands!” The King then summoned the Prince before him, demanding to know why he had sent Langton before him. The Prince replied that he wished for the King’s permission to grant Ponthieu to Gaveston. According to historian Ian Mortimer, on hearing these words spoken by the Prince, the King flew into a rage, exclaiming, “‘You wretched son of a whore! Do you want to give away lands now? You who have never gained any? As God lives, if not for fear of breaking up the Kingdom, I would never let you enjoy your inheritance!’ As he spoke, the King seized hold of the Prince’s head by the hair and tore handfuls of hair out, then threw the Prince to the floor and kicked him repeatedly until he was exhausted.”

King Edward then summoned the Lords gathering for the Parliament at Carlisle, and before them declared Gaveston banished. It appears to have been more a punishment of the Prince than of Gaveston—Gaveston’s conduct having been largely irreproachable, the King granted him a pension to be enjoyed while abroad. He also forced Prince Edward and Piers to swear an oath never to see one another again without his permission. Gaveston then set sail for France, loaded down with many rich gifts from the Prince. But as soon as Edward I died in July 1307, the new King recalled his “Brother Perrot” and endowed him with the County of Cornwall (which had been intended for Thomas of Brotherton, Edward I’s young second son).

First recall

Soon after his recalling, Edward II arranged the marriage of Gaveston to Margaret de Clare, a granddaughter of King Edward I, and sister of the Earl of Gloucester, another friend of both Edward and Gaveston. The marriage was held soon after the funeral of the old King: Held at Berkhampstead, the Manor of Queen Margaret, it proved an excuse for the first in a string of feasts and hunts, being followed by similar entertainments at Kings Langley in Hertfordshire, and a tournament held by the King in honor of Gaveston at Wallingford Castle, which had been presented to Gaveston by Edward. It proved an embarrassment for many of the older lords present: Gaveston’s young and talented knights easily won against the older knights fighting for the Earls of Surrey, Hereford, and Arundel. This led to the enmity of these Earls.

When Edward II left the country in 1308 to marry Isabella of France, who was just 12 years old, he appointed Gaveston Regent in his place, horrifying the Lords; they had expected Edward to appoint a family member or an experienced noble. By this appointment of his favorite, Edward demonstrated his faith in Gaveston, but in the process increased his friend’s unpopularity. Gaveston himself did little during his Regency, however; the only thing he did of note in his two weeks of rule was to take a proud attitude to those who came before him.

Gaveston also proved unpopular with the new queen consort. The two men, who were of approximately the same age, may have had a homosexual relationship, and Edward’s preference for the company of Gaveston over that of his wife, whatever the motives, is generally agreed by historians as having created early discord in the Royal marriage.

Gaveston’s behavior at the coronation feast is of especial note: he appeared in royal purple instead of an Earl’s cloth of gold. At this point, the French princes stood up and left in disgust. Gaveston spent the evening chatting and joking with Edward (who ignored his bride, her brother and her uncles in favor of Gaveston), and was eventually discovered to have been given all of the gold and jewelry Edward had received as wedding gifts. Gaveston was also given the honor of carrying the Crown during the ceremony. The barons had objected but allowed this when Edward agreed to abide by whatever ordinances Parliament passed, which was when the additional oath was added.

Ireland and return

However, following the embarrassment of the coronation, the barons threatened open rebellion unless Edward banished Gaveston. Edward chose a compromise, appointing him Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, an office which allowed Gaveston much authority, honor and dignity but at a distance from the court. Sir Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March may have assisted him in Ireland. By the summer of 1309 he had gained a reputation as a sound military administrator, having strengthened Dublin and secured English rule there. After manipulations by Edward in England, Gaveston left Ireland on July 23, 1309, and made his way to Stamford via Tintagel, arriving at Parliament in Stamford in late July. Edward agreed to abide by additional restrictions if Gaveston was allowed to return, since he had conducted himself well in Ireland.

Unfortunately, Gaveston swiftly made more enemies: the moderate Aymer de Valence, 2nd Earl of Pembroke, whom Gaveston offended by referring to him as “Joseph the Jew;” and Thomas Plantagenet, 2nd Earl of Lancaster, a cousin of the King and the most powerful Lord in the land after the King. Gaveston, says Mortimer, had no respect for the earls and could not resist calling them names. Plantagenet swore to destroy Gaveston when, after having already provoked the Earl many times, Gaveston persuaded Edward to dismiss one of Lancaster’s retainers. Led by Lancaster, a powerful group of Earls demanded that he be banished again. Few stood by the King. Of those who did, the Earl of Surrey had sworn eternal hatred of Gaveston. After a failed Scottish campaign in 1310–11, Edward was forced by his Earls to banish Gaveston once again.

Death

In 1312, Edward, who had set up court in York, simply reversed the banishment order and invited Gaveston back. Chaplais says that Edward had managed to gain use of his “seal,” which the council of barons appointed by Parliament to supervise his rule had taken from him. He was faced with hostility. Thomas Plantagenet then raised an army against Gaveston and the King, and on 4 May attacked Newcastle, where Edward and Gaveston were staying. They were forced to flee by ship to Scarborough Castle, leaving behind all of their money and soldiers, where they were appropriated by Lancaster. Edward then went south to raise an army, leaving Gaveston in Scarborough. Lancaster immediately brought his army up to threaten Gaveston and to cut him off from the King. Fearful for his life, Gaveston was forced to surrender to Aymer de Valence, 2nd Earl of Pembroke, who swore an oath to surrender his lands and titles to protect Gaveston. However, in Oxfordshire, Gaveston was captured and taken to Warwick Castle by Guy de Beauchamp, 10th Earl of Warwick. He was held there for nine days before the Earl of Lancaster arrived; Lancaster then judged, “While he lives, there will be no safe place in the realm of England.” Accordingly, on 19 June, Gaveston was taken to Blacklow Hill (which belonged to the Earl of Lancaster), and killed by two Welshmen, who ran him through with a sword before beheading him as he lay dying on the grass.

He was survived by his wife and a baby daughter, Joan. The Earl of Pembroke, who had sworn to protect him, was mortified by the death, having attempted to raise an army to free him, and having even appealed to the University of Oxford for aid. (The University, not known for its military strength in any case, had not the slightest interest in assisting either Gaveston or de Valence.) Edward II, on hearing of the murder, at first reacted with utter rage; later, this would become cold fury, and a desire to destroy those who had destroyed Gaveston. Ten years later, Edward II avenged Gaveston’s death when he had the Earl of Lancaster killed.

Much later, Gaveston would be replaced in the King’s affections by Hugh le Despenser.

Legacy

Gaveston was blamed for encouraging Edward’s profligate life-style, which appears to have consisted of showering his friends with gifts and spending a great deal of his time enjoying entertainment. However, what annoyed and alienated the barons above all was that while they or their ancestors had earned their titles by hard work or distinguished service, Gaveston had accomplished nothing of note and had “yet to prove himself of benefit to anybody but the king”. He was, though, a “renowned champion fighter” and after his elevation to the peerage served with distinction in Ireland. He was not without talent. His main error appears to have been lack of respect for the earls in addition to his birth as a commoner. His killers, though, took the law into their own hands, since he was not tried before any court.

Perhaps ironically, the eventual deposition of his patron, Edward II by parliament in 1327 followed by the succession to the throne of Edward III resulted in the strengthening of parliamentary power. Parliament flexed its muscles several times during Edward II’s reign, placing conditions on his ability to raise taxes and from 1314 to 1318 effectively governing the country through Plantagenet as Chief Councilor. However, under Edward III, the House of Commons became a much more significant chamber, providing commoners such as Gaveston with an opportunity to participate in governance without the need to be elevated to the peerage. Gaveston may have used his charm, perhaps also his sexuality, to manipulate Edward. Gaveston was probably a bad influence on Edward but Edward’s character and preferences invited and welcomed such influence. What can be said is that Gaveston’s life helped to create a climate in which the king’s subjects thought it prudent to impose constraints on royal power, based on the belief that governance should benefit the whole community. While at this point it was almost entirely an elite who had the ability to act as a check on kingly power, under Edward III commoners also began to share in this responsibility. Full-blown participatory democracy was a long way off, yet developments were now in motion that made this outcome a political inevitability, in due time.

Gaveston is a major character in Christopher Marlowe’s play Edward II, and is portrayed by Andrew Tiernan in the 1991 film adaptation.

Gaveston tells the story of his life in the historical novel The Confession of Piers Gaveston by Brandy Purdy.

In Mel Gibson’s film Braveheart, a foppish Gaveston is pushed through a window by Edward Im, disgusted at his son’s incompetency.

One of the more flamboyant dining clubs at Oxford University, the Piers Gaveston Society, is named after him.

A stone cross was erected at the place of his murder in 1821, on which the following words are inscribed:

In the Hollow of this Rock, Was beheaded, On the 1st Day of July, 1312, By Barons lawless as himself, PIERS GAVESTON, Earl of Cornwall; The Minion of a hateful King: In Life and Death, A memorable Instance of Misrule.