Papa Clement wrote: Jason2 wrote:Nessie is a bit of a difficult one. After his/her encounter with St Columba in 6th Century, it's not really until 1933 that we get "reliable" sightings (for a given value of "reliable"). For myself I discount the Mackenzie sighting of the 1870s as that only gets reported in 1934. There has been a bit of a tendency in recent times to promote claims of sightings between the 6th C and 1933 but, for myself, I'm not convinced and put them down to wishful thinking of faked records, misunderstandings of historical records, etc.
However there is the legends of the Selkie, perhaps he could be sent off to investigate those? It might be a bit too obvious though? Have you heard of the legend of St Bernard's Island? Could send him off to find that? Or even send him off to find out if the Darien colony has survived?
Never heard of the Selkie or legend of St.Bernard's Island, so you'll have to educate me on them. I think if I tried to send him to the Darien colony he'd refuse to go - he might be ego driven and of limited ability, but that doesn't mean he was completely stupid!
On Nessie I thought there would have been lots of hidden Scottish myths you'd have come across, the missing history type of thing. Relying on tales from the 6th century might be pushing it as the writings were supposed to be inspirational rather than historically accurate. I don't necessarily believe the dinosaur theory, but a giant eel or large fish like a shark or sturgeon could be more plausible? There would have been a fishing industry in Loch Ness and you know how big fish get when fishermen talk about them; I imagine a 'monster' could be any fish large enough to be blamed for them not catching many fish. How else could a legend persist for 1500 years without fresh sightings?
Opps, mistyped, should have said St Brendan's Island, which you might have heard of? Basically it's a phantom island somewhere west of Northern Africa, named after a Irish saint who is supposed to have visited it. Even the early 18th Century people claimed to have gone there, including a Scottish monk. I suppose you could argue if it could be found it would be a useful strategic base.
As to Nessie, the Selkie and I ought to menton the Kelpie...
Let's start with the Selkie, the wiki article on them is a good summary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selkie Basically they are a spirit people of the northern isles and northern coastal areas of Scotland who change between seals and humans. There are lots of complications over whether Selkie are just female or both male and female, and there are plenty of legends fo human males taking Selkie wives. They might be fallen angels from the original rebellion who might not have been fallen enough to join Lucifer in Hell...or they might eb humans who committed sins but in such a way that Hell wasn't appropriate and so they end up being this strange being. The stories about them vary slightly depending on what bits of Scotland they are in, there is a version in Iceland plus there is even a suggestion there is a connection between the legends and the stories of Inuit in 18th Century Scotland.
Interestingly, Selkie is now a common name for dogs in northern Scotland, particularly for Cockers of various breeds if the dog in question is a bit naughty or high spirited
Now, then there are the Kelpie. They are shape shifters and seem to inhabit just about any body of water in Scotland bigger than a puddle. You might have heard of the sculptures of Kelpies in Fife, quite a tourist attraction. Again wiki gives a good overview
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelpie They are water spirits that take the form of a horse that appear beside a body of water, humans ride them and end up being drowned (and even eaten) when the Selkie jumps back into the water for various reasons and situations that aren't always logical, even in folklore terms. There are odd quirks of the legends, depending on where you are in Scotland, such as shouting out "Kelpie" will make them bolt for water outwith any rider, their hoof prints will be backwards, and also a version in which they are attractive women (with hooves) who lure young (presumably horny) men to a watery death; or they are men (with hooves) after a human wife. It might say something that the legends in which the Kelpie are women, they tend to lure the men through the offer of a one night stand, when the Kelpie are men they want a human female for a wife.
Now oddly this all ties into Nessie and this is where everything get messy. Apols in advance if any of this comes across as patronising.
The first written record we have of a Nessie legend is the Life of St Columba written in the late 6th Century, perhaps 100 years after the events it claims to record. St Columba and his following are wandering across what we now call northern Scotland when they find a group of locals burying a man beside Loch Ness. They are told the man had been in the River Ness swimming when he was attacked and killed by the river's resident monster. The Saint decides to deal with the monster, goes to the river, orders one of his party to swim across the river, the monster appears, goes to attack the swimmer, at which point the Saint makes the sign of the Cross and orders the monster to stop being a naughty monster and leave people alone, at which it does.
Some take this as the first record of Nessie, problem is a lot have issues with it
1) Its written a long time after the life of the Saint. Ok that's common but it does make it a bit unreliable
2) Just about every saint of the "Celtic Church" dealt with a river or water monster. If you want to be generous that might be down to the coastal nature of a lot of Wales, Scotland, Ireland, etc but still
3) The record is quite distinct on the burial being beside Loch Ness and the monster being in River Ness. This might seem minor but Nessie doesn't really seem to be seen in the River Ness, which is to the north of Loch Ness. In addition the northern bit of what you might call "Loch Ness" is actually a separate Loch, Loch Dochfour. That might seem minor but the distinction does seem to be present since quite early on. So it's a question, did the Life use "Loch" and "River" interchangeably (unlikely in a Scottish context) or was it recording a man being buried by the loch, because that's where he lived after being killed in the nearby river (which actually seems more likely). Now if the locations are distinct, and with the lack of records (relatively speaking) of Nessie in River Ness, is it a record of Nessie?
Now lets jump forward to 1933 and 1934 when we get reports of a "monster" at loch Ness. They are reported in the press, people believe them, the old Life story is dragged out and some assume its one and the same. Things get really confused. Initially this seems a "new" monster but in an interview done in the late 1980s with the first modern person to see the monster, she claimed she knew of an oral tradition of a monster in the lake and a lot of records now say there was such a tradition. Problem is, prior to that interview there is no real record of oral history claims of a "monster" in the Loch prior to 1933, given the 50 year gap between the sighting and the interview, well lets just say there is a good chance the person being interview mis-remembered.
But...and there is always a but...there are reports of monsters in lochs in the 19th Century...but not at Loch Ness. There is Morag in Loch Morar and Muc-a-Sheilche in Loch Maree. These are distinctly "monsters" and still are sighted now on occasion.
To really confuse things, there are reports of Kelpies and Selkie at Loch Ness in the 18th and 19th Centuries.
The issue is in Scottish folklore Kelpies and Selkie are "known" and as I said earlier, every body of water has Kelpie, so having them at Loch Ness isn't anything unusual. Nessie however is a monster and not a "known" supernatural creature, indeed given the shape changing natures of both Kelpies and Selkies, and their relative intelligence and desire to interact (and kill) humans, they don't really sound like Nessie. Some do try and argue that the Kelpie and Selkie legends of Loch Ness led to Nessie but it just doesn't hold up...however monster legends at Loch Morar and Loch Maree perhaps leading to a copycat legend in Loch Ness?
Home
Portal
Search
Latest images
Register
Log in
