Contested Heritage: Relations between contemporary Pagan groups and the archaeological and heritage professions in Britain in the early 21st century 9781407356969, 9781407355528

Table of contents :
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Of Related Interest
Contents
List of figures
List of Abbreviations
Abstract
1. Introduction
1.1. Foreword
1.2. Defining Terms
Subcultures and Counter-Cultures
1.2.1. Contemporary Pagans
Unifying Characteristics in Contemporary Paganism:-
Branches or Traditions of Contemporary Paganism
Misconceptions Regarding Pagans
Oppression and Discrimination
Pagan Ethics
Origins of Contemporary Paganism
Pagan Community Leaders
1.2.2. Defining Heritage Professionals
Defining the Heritage Sector
Origins of Heritage Attractions
Heritage Aims and Ethics
Who Shapes Policy in the Heritage Sector?
1.2.3. Defining Archaeologists
Types of Archaeologist
Archaeological Ethics and Codes of Practice
Contesting Archaeology
1.2.4. Pagan Archaeologists and Heritage Professionals
1.3. Situating the Researcher
1.4. The Structure of the Book
2. Research Design and Implementation
2.1. Introduction
2.2. Planning
2.3. Choosing a Methodology
2.3.1. Aims and Objectives
2.3.2. Situation
2.3.3. Methodological Courses
2.3.4. Factors Affecting Choice of Methodology
2.3.5. The Methodological Plan
2.4. Ethical Standards and Considerations
2.4.1. Ethical Sources
2.4.2. Ethical Concerns with the Research
2.4.3. Ethical Research Implementation
2.5. Reflexivity
2.6. Research Method Selection
2.6.1. Research Method Courses
2.6.2. Research Method Factors
2.6.3. Research plan
2.6.4. Execution – Data Collection
2.6.5. Execution – Data Analysis and Interpretation
2.6.6. Execution – Dissemination of Results
2.7. Lessons from the Field
2.7.1. Hostility and Hospitality at Stonehenge
2.7.2. Complaint at Nevern
2.7.3. Museum Refusal
2.8. Trust
2.8.1. Challenging Ideas
2.9. Insiders, Outsiders and ‘Going Native’
2.10. Conclusions
3. Sites – Access
3.1. Introduction
3.1.1. Defining Access
3.1.2. Which Sites Have Been Contested for Access?
3.1.3. What Were Contested Sites in the Past?
3.1.4. How Did They Become Significant to Contemporary Pagans?
3.2. Differing Aims and Requirements
3.2.1. Pagan Expectations
3.2.2. Archaeologists’ Agendas
3.2.3. Policies and Agendas of Heritage Organisations
3.3. Case Study 1: Stonehenge and the Free Festival
3.3.1. Stonehenge on the Ground
3.3.2. Stonehenge Explanations
3.3.3. The Protection and Management of Stonehenge
3.3.4. Stonehenge as a Sacred Site
3.3.5. Stonehenge as a Contested Site
Early Contestation (Before 1970)
The Stonehenge Free Festival
How Pagan was the Festival?
Problems with the Festival
Suppression of the Festival and Exclusion at the Solstice
Reaction and Justification
The Stonehenge Exclusion Zone and its Challengers
Modes of contestation
A Solution: Managed Open Access
Other Issues at Stonehenge
Consequences of Stonehenge
3.4. Case Study 2: Avebury
3.4.1. The Significance of Avebury
3.4.2. Protecting and Managing Avebury
3.4.3. Pagan Use of the Site
3.4.4. Contesting the Site
Locals Versus Visitors
Pagans Versus Pagans
The Role of Heritage Managers in Contesting Avebury
3.4.5. Avebury Solutions
3.5. Theorising Contestation of Access
3.5.1. Why Demand Access
Spiritual Reasons
Political Reasons
3.5.2. Why Oppose Access?
3.5.3. Why Are Other Sites Not Contested In This Way?
3.5.4. Assessing the Claims
3.5.5. Options for the Future
3.6. Conclusions
4. Sites – Preservation and Protection
4.1. Introduction
4.1.1. Defining Protection and Preservation
4.1.2. State Protection and Preservation of Ancient Sites in the UK
4.2. Protection from Development
4.2.1. Case Study 1: Nine Ladies Stone Circle
Threats to Nine Ladies
Protection Campaign
Outcome
4.2.2 Case Study 2: Thornborough Henges
Threats to Thornborough
Campaign to Protect Thornborough
The Outcome of the Protests
4.2.3 Case Study 3: Crossbones Graveyard
Campaign to Preserve Crossbones
Understanding Contestation at Crossbones
4.2.4 Understanding Pagan Protection of Sites from Development
4.3 Protecting Sites from Archaeological Excavation
4.3.1 Case Study 4: Seahenge or Holme-next-the-Sea Timber Circle
Initial Analysis
Preservation In-Situ or Excavation and Removal?
Community Involvement
Protest
Detailed Analysis, Storage and Preservation
Display at King’s Lynn
The Legacy of Seahenge
4.3.2. Case Study 5: Nevern Castle
Excavation
Brithdir Mawr and Tir Ysprydol
Protest at Nevern
Engaging with the Protests
Theorising Nevern
4.4. Theorising Preservation and Protection
4.5 Options for the Future
5. Sites – Representation and Ownership
5.1. Introduction
5.1.1. Ownership, Stakeholdership and Representation
5.1.2. Defining Earth Mysteries
5.1.3. Earth Mysteries in Contemporary Paganism
5.1.4. Community
5.1.5. Public Archaeology and Heritage
Paying for heritage
5.1.6. Public Driven Archaeology and Heritage
5.1.7. Outreach in Archaeology and Heritage
5.2. Case Studies
5.2.1. Case Study 1: Glastonbury
Landscape and Character
Cultural History
Archaeology
Glastonbury Earth Mysteries
Christian Glastonbury
Pagan Glastonbury
Contested Glastonbury
Archaeologists and Earth Mysteries
5.2.2. Case Study 2: The Rollright Stones
Archaeology of the Rollright Stones
Folklore of the Rollright Stones
Ownership
Pagan Activity at the Rollright Stones
Vandalism at the Rollright Stones
5.2.3 Case Study 3: Interpreting Stonehenge
5.3. Contesting Interpretations and Ownership
5.4. Theorising Contestation of Ownership and Interpretation
5.4.1. Why demand Ownership/Stakeholdership
Spiritual Reasons
Political Reasons
5.4.2. Theorising Community Involvement and Stakeholdership
5.4.3. Suggested Solutions
5.5. Conclusions
6. Archaeologists, Museum professionals and
Human Remains
6.1. Introduction
6.2. The Importance of Human Remains in Archaeology and Heritage
6.2.1. What Human Remains Reveal About the Past
6.2.2. Displaying Human Remains
6.2.3. Why Are Remains Not on Display Retained in Storage?
6.3. How Are Remains Treated?
6.3.1. Law, Ethical Guidelines and Organisation Policies
Legal Requirements
Ethical Guidelines and Professional Codes of Conduct
Organisational Policies on Human Remains
Implications of Laws, Codes and Policies
6.3.2. How Human Remains Are Treated in Practice
Excavating Human Remains
Analysis of Human Remains
Storage
Display
De-accessioning, Disposal and Reburial
6.4. Conclusion
7. Contemporary Pagans and Ancestors
7.1. Introduction
7.2. British Pagans and the Concept of Ancestors
7.2.1. Who Are the Ancestors?
7.2.2. Origins of Ancestor Veneration in Contemporary Paganism
7.2.3. Why Are They the Ancestors?
7.2.4. Implications of Pagan Ancestor ‘Worship’
7.3. Contestation Overseas
7.3.1. Australian Aboriginal Contestation
Truganini and William Lanne
Legal Changes
7.3.2. American Indians and NAGPRA
Kennewick Man
7.3.3. Critiques of Repatriation and Reburial Claims for Remains from Abroad
Identity Based Reasons
Spiritual Reasons
Political Reasons
7.4. Contesting Human Remains in the UK
7.4.1. Origins of Contestation in the UK
7.5. Case Studies
7.5.1. Case Study 1: Charlie at Avebury
7.5.2. Case Study 2: Stonehenge Human Remains
7.5.3. Case Study 3: The Red Lady of Paviland
7.5.4 Case Study 4: Lindow Man
7.6. Modes of Contestation by Pagans
7.6.1. CoBDO West
7.6.2. HAD
7.6.3. LAW, Stonehenge Druids and CoBDO
7.6.4. Dead to Rights
7.6.5. Pagans for Archaeology
7.7. Reasons and Arguments For and Against Reburial
7.7.1. Spiritual Arguments
Affecting a Dualist Afterlife
Disturbing the Monist Soul
Sacred Sites and the Dead
Pagan Values and Aspirations
Spiritual Authority
7.7.2. Identity Based Reasons
7.7.3. Ethical
Equality with Other Religions
Respect and Honour, Dignity and Decency
Ownership
Exclusive and Inclusive Rights
7.8. Non-Reburial Challenges
7.8.1. Objectification Versus Personhood
7.8.2. Case Studies
Case Study 1: Dublin Museum
Case Study 2: Bristol Museum
7.8.3. Access to remains for ritual
7.8.4. Respectful Storage
7.9. Conclusions
8. Understanding and Addressing Contestion
8.1. Introduction
8.2. Explaining Contestation
8.2.1. Pagan Assumptions, Attitudes and Agendas
Underlying Motivations for Pagan Contestation of Remains
Archaeological Complicity in Suppression
Asserting Equal Rights
Anti-Intellectualism and Conflicting Worldviews
Control of Identity
A Pagan Absolutism?
8.2.2. Archaeological and Heritage Assumptions, Attitudes and Agendas
Underlying Attitudes of Archaeologists and Heritage Professionals
Low Value Attribution to Contemporary Paganism
Archaeological and Heritage Agendas
8.2.3. Common Ground
Preservation and Stewardship
Increasing Understanding and Valuing the Past
8.2.4. Consequences of Assumptions, Attitudes and Agendas
Complicating Factors
Different Epistemologies
Divergent Aims, Divergent Priorities
8.3. Addressing Contestation
8.3.1. Ignoring Campaigners
8.3.2. Challenging Assumptions and Respecting Identity
8.3.3. Addressing Contestation of Sites
Stakeholdership
Polyvocality in Archaeological interpretations
8.3.4. Addressing Contestation of Human Remains
What Archaeologists and Museum Professionals Can Do
What Pagans Can Do
8.3.5. Finding a Balance
8.3.6. Negotiation, Truth and Reconciliation
8.3.7. Opposition to Contestation Within the Pagan Community
Divergent Druidries
Addressing Religious Extremism
8.3.8. Continuous Negotiation
8.4. Conclusions
8.5. Final Words
Bibliography
Personal Communications
Back Cover

Citation preview

210mm WIDTH

2021

This book examines the sometimes-fraught interactions and relationships between contemporary Pagan groups and archaeological heritage managers in the first decade and a half of the 21st century. It uses ethnographic field research, conducted by the author between 2008 and 2013, and literature analysis to analyse those interactions. The two key areas examined are access to, interpretation of and preservation of ancient sites, and the archaeological examination, storage and display or reburial of ancient human remains. The book includes a detailed analysis of the reasons presented in the discourse of contestation and the underlying attitudes behind the issues. It concludes with some thoughts on how heritage managers and archaeologists may better manage their interactions with the Pagan community in the future. ‘The particular contribution of this work is in synthesising and collating the varying attitudes of Pagans and archaeologists to present an overarching perspective that nonetheless avoids the (often dismissive) perspective of the archaeological profession and Pagan hostility to archaeology. The detailed coverage of Paganism and the diversity of its nature is especially important’.

‘The work offers an original and well researched examination of the relations between Pagan groups, archaeologists and heritage professionals in the UK, and the implications of these engagements for the interest groups. … Rathouse highlights diversity of thinking and the middle ground around which the interest groups might discuss and move forward’. Dr Robert J. Wallis, The Open University ‘There is no doubt that the relationship between Pagans on the one side and archaeologists and heritage managers on the other, has long been a vexed one which has produced considerable difficulty for all. It is equally undoubted that the three groups also have a lot in common, that none of them are personal and ideological monoliths, and that they contain many individuals with a good understanding of, and sympathy for, the other groups ... A better sense of why there have been tensions between them, which have regularly erupted into direct conflict, is therefore something which would be valuable to achieve. This work systematically provides that sense, with an analysis of the cultural and ideological underpinnings of each group, and of the spectra of opinions and instincts within each. In so doing, it also furnishes a series of exact case studies to show how and why conflict has occurred over individual sites and causes, and how in some cases this has been ameliorated. It concludes with some general suggestions for better relations in future’. Professor Ronald E. Hutton, University of Bristol Will Rathouse is a community engagement archaeologist for MOLA (Museum of London Archaeology) working on the Thames Discovery programme. His responsibilities include outreach to older Londoners and bringing in new groups to benefit from the project, including people with mental health problems and forces veterans. Previously, he was a support officer for Mind Aberystwyth and led archaeology projects to promote mental health. He has also volunteered with Operation Nightingale. His PhD research investigated contestation of prehistoric monuments and ancient human remains by contemporary Pagan groups in the UK.

BAR BRITISH SERIES 661

2021

297mm HIGH

Dr John Carman, Ironbridge International Institute for Cultural Heritage, University of Birmingham

210mm WIDTH

BAR  B661  2021  RATHOUSE  Contested Heritage

BAR BRITISH SERIES 661

11mm

Contested Heritage Relations between contemporary Pagan groups and the archaeological and heritage professions in Britain in the early 21st century

W I L L R AT H O U S E

Printed in England

210 x 297mm_BAR Rathouse CPI 11mm ARTWORK.indd 3

29/1/21 2:59 PM

BAR BRITISH SERIES 661

Contested Heritage Relations between contemporary Pagan groups and the archaeological and heritage professions in Britain in the early 21st century

W I L L R AT H O U S E

2021

Published in 2021 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 661 Contested Heritage isbn  

978 1 4073 5696 9 paperback isbn   978 1 4073 5552 8 e-format doi  https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407356969

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library © Will Rathouse 2021 cov er i m age

by the author.

Stonehenge Open Access Summer Solstice 2010. Photograph

The Author’s moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. Links to third party websites are provided by BAR Publishing in good faith and for information only. BAR Publishing disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

BAR titles are available from: BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, em a i l [email protected] phon e +44 (0)1865 310431 fa x +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

ox 2

7bp,

uk

Of Related Interest Egypt’s Christian Heritage Cultural Heritage Management and Egypt’s Coptic Monuments Dan Heale Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2020

BAR International Series 2983

Conservation Practices at Foreign-run Archaeological Excavations in Turkey A critical review B. Nilgün Öz Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2019

BAR International Series 2954

Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain) Juan Antonio Mira Rico Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2017

BAR International Series 2868

Conservation of Classical Monuments in the Mediterranean Region A Study of Anastylosis with Case Studies from Greece and Turkey Kalliopi Vacharopoulou Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2016

BAR International Series 2800

Dispute Management in Heritage Conservation: The Case of in situ Museums Kalliopi Fouseki Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2015

BAR International Series 2774

Stewards and Stakeholders of the Archaeological Record: Archaeologists, Folklore and Burial Mounds in Agder, Southern Norway Atle Omland Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2010

BAR International Series 2153

Competitive Advantage Strategy in Cultural Heritage Management Konstantina Liwieratos Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2009

BAR International Series 1989

A Critical Exploration of Frameworks for Assessing the Significance of New Zealand’s Historic Heritage Sara Donaghey Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2008

BAR International Series 1836

Management of Archaeological Sites and the Public in Argentina María Luz Endere Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2007

BAR International Series 1708

World Heritage: Global Challenges, Local Solutions Proceedings of a conference at Coalbrookdale, 4-7th May 2006 Edited by Roger White and John Carman Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2007 For more information, or to purchase these titles, please visit www.barpublishing.com

BAR International Series 1698

Dedication and Acknowledgements This book is dedicated to my family especially my parents who made it possible and to my daughter, Alexandria, who has always inspired and delighted me. To thank all those who helped and inspired this book would be a whole chapter in itself. Above all I am indebted to my parents who supported me financially and emotionally. I am very grateful to Dr Penny Dransart and Dr Nick Campion who have supervised my work and never failed to provide encouragement and support whilst holding me to the highest academic standards. A special mention should also be paid to Francis Pryor for inspiring the research. This work would have been impossible without a great many interviewees who generously gave their time. I am grateful to Paul Davies, Yvonne Aburrow, Sebastian Payne, Emma Restall Orr, Angela Grant, Kris Hughes, Cheryl Headford, Wayne Danewood, Chris Park, Bryan Ayers, Phil Bennett, Peter Carson, Jody Joy, Emma Orbach, Margaret Clegg, Eddie Daughton, Lee Davies, Chris Caple, Philip Shallcrass, Kit Warwick, Mike Webber, Arthur Pendragon, Kim Payne and Frank Somers to name but a few. I would especially like to thank my friends who offered guidance, advice, discussion, and assisted in locating particularly hard to access resources. Among these I would especially like to thank Prof. Ronald Hutton, Dr Rachel Casiday, Dr Suzanne Owen, Dr Jenny Blain, Dr Rob Wallis, Dr Sam Hurn, Dr Angels Trias I Valls, Dr Katie Smith, Ian Morgan, Martin Locock, Luci Attala, Emily Porth, Adrian Davis, Pauline Bambrey, Dave Sables, Eloise Govier, Tom Pitwood, Rachael Barnwell, Ross Cook, Gaby Bamana, Hannah Epicheff, Norrie Parmar, Elaine Forde, Carole Reid, Helidth Ravenholm, Nimue Brown, Nicolette Butler, Emily-Jane Smith, Abi Kirk, Alison Wood, Terri Neimann, Olwyn Pritchard, Erin Kavanagh, Paul Rousselle, Geoff Lee, Annie-Leigh Campbell, Stephen Scale and Steve Turner.

v

Fig. 1. Open access at Stonehenge Winter Solstice 2008 (Author’s photograph)

vi

Contents List of Figures................................................................................................................................................................... xiii List of Abbreviations......................................................................................................................................................... xv Abstract............................................................................................................................................................................ xvii 1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Foreword................................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2. Defining Terms....................................................................................................................................................... 1 Subcultures and Counter-Cultures.......................................................................................................................... 2 1.2.1. Contemporary Pagans..................................................................................................................................... 3 Unifying Characteristics in Contemporary Paganism............................................................................................ 3 Branches or Traditions of Contemporary Paganism............................................................................................... 4 Misconceptions Regarding Pagans......................................................................................................................... 5 Oppression and Discrimination.............................................................................................................................. 6 Pagan Ethics........................................................................................................................................................... 6 Origins of Contemporary Paganism....................................................................................................................... 6 Pagan Community Leaders..................................................................................................................................... 7 1.2.2. Defining Heritage Professionals..................................................................................................................... 8 Defining the Heritage Sector.................................................................................................................................. 8 Origins of Heritage Attractions.............................................................................................................................. 8 Heritage Aims and Ethics....................................................................................................................................... 9 Who Shapes Policy in the Heritage Sector?........................................................................................................... 9 1.2.3. Defining Archaeologists................................................................................................................................ 10 Types of Archaeologist......................................................................................................................................... 10 Archaeological Ethics and Codes of Practice....................................................................................................... 11 Contesting Archaeology....................................................................................................................................... 11 1.2.4. Pagan Archaeologists and Heritage Professionals........................................................................................ 11 1.3. Situating the Researcher....................................................................................................................................... 11 1.4. The Structure of the Book.................................................................................................................................... 11 2. Research Design and Implementation..................................................................................................................... 13 2.1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................... 13 2.2. Planning................................................................................................................................................................ 13 2.3. Choosing a Methodology..................................................................................................................................... 13 2.3.1. Aims and Objectives..................................................................................................................................... 13 2.3.2. Situation........................................................................................................................................................ 13 2.3.3. Methodological Courses............................................................................................................................... 14 2.3.4. Factors Affecting Choice of Methodology................................................................................................... 14 2.3.5. The Methodological Plan.............................................................................................................................. 15 2.4. Ethical Standards and Considerations.................................................................................................................. 15 2.4.1. Ethical Sources............................................................................................................................................. 15 2.4.2. Ethical Concerns with the Research............................................................................................................. 15 2.4.3. Ethical Research Implementation................................................................................................................. 16 2.5. Reflexivity............................................................................................................................................................ 16 2.6. Research Method Selection.................................................................................................................................. 17 2.6.1. Research Method Courses............................................................................................................................ 17 2.6.2. Research Method Factors............................................................................................................................. 18 2.6.3. Research plan................................................................................................................................................ 19 2.6.4. Execution – Data Collection......................................................................................................................... 19 2.6.5. Execution – Data Analysis and Interpretation.............................................................................................. 19 2.6.6. Execution – Dissemination of Results.......................................................................................................... 20 vii

Contested Heritage 2.7. Lessons from the Field......................................................................................................................................... 20 2.7.1. Hostility and Hospitality at Stonehenge....................................................................................................... 20 2.7.2. Complaint at Nevern..................................................................................................................................... 21 2.7.3. Museum Refusal........................................................................................................................................... 21 2.8. Trust...................................................................................................................................................................... 21 2.8.1. Challenging Ideas......................................................................................................................................... 21 2.9. Insiders, Outsiders and ‘Going Native’................................................................................................................ 22 2.10. Conclusions........................................................................................................................................................ 22 3. Sites – Access.............................................................................................................................................................. 23 3.1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................... 23 3.1.1. Defining Access............................................................................................................................................ 23 3.1.2. Which Sites Have Been Contested for Access?............................................................................................ 23 3.1.3. What Were Contested Sites in the Past?....................................................................................................... 24 3.1.4. How Did They Become Significant to Contemporary Pagans?.................................................................... 24 3.2. Differing Aims and Requirements........................................................................................................................ 24 3.2.1. Pagan Expectations....................................................................................................................................... 24 3.2.2. Archaeologists’ Agendas............................................................................................................................... 24 3.2.3. Policies and Agendas of Heritage Organisations ......................................................................................... 25 3.3. Case Study 1: Stonehenge and the Free Festival.................................................................................................. 25 3.3.1. Stonehenge on the Ground............................................................................................................................ 25 3.3.2. Stonehenge Explanations.............................................................................................................................. 26 3.3.3. The Protection and Management of Stonehenge.......................................................................................... 27 3.3.4. Stonehenge as a Sacred Site......................................................................................................................... 28 3.3.5. Stonehenge as a Contested Site.................................................................................................................... 28 Early Contestation (Before 1970)......................................................................................................................... 29 The Stonehenge Free Festival.............................................................................................................................. 29 How Pagan was the Festival?............................................................................................................................... 30 Problems with the Festival................................................................................................................................... 30 Suppression of the Festival and Exclusion at the Solstice................................................................................... 31 Reaction and Justification..................................................................................................................................... 32 The Stonehenge Exclusion Zone and its Challengers.......................................................................................... 33 Modes of contestation........................................................................................................................................... 34 A Solution: Managed Open Access...................................................................................................................... 34 Other Issues at Stonehenge................................................................................................................................... 37 Consequences of Stonehenge............................................................................................................................... 37 3.4. Case Study 2: Avebury......................................................................................................................................... 37 3.4.1. The Significance of Avebury......................................................................................................................... 38 3.4.2. Protecting and Managing Avebury............................................................................................................... 38 3.4.3. Pagan Use of the Site ................................................................................................................................... 38 3.4.4. Contesting the Site........................................................................................................................................ 39 Locals Versus Visitors.......................................................................................................................................... 39 Pagans Versus Pagans........................................................................................................................................... 40 The Role of Heritage Managers in Contesting Avebury....................................................................................... 40 3.4.5. Avebury Solutions......................................................................................................................................... 41 3.5. Theorising Contestation of Access....................................................................................................................... 42 3.5.1. Why Demand Access.................................................................................................................................... 42 Spiritual Reasons.................................................................................................................................................. 42 Political Reasons.................................................................................................................................................. 42 3.5.2. Why Oppose Access?.................................................................................................................................... 42 3.5.3. Why Are Other Sites Not Contested In This Way?....................................................................................... 43 3.5.4. Assessing the Claims.................................................................................................................................... 43 3.5.5. Options for the Future................................................................................................................................... 43 3.6. Conclusions.......................................................................................................................................................... 44

viii

Contents 4. Sites – Preservation and Protection......................................................................................................................... 45 4.1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................... 45 4.1.1. Defining Protection and Preservation........................................................................................................... 45 4.1.2. State Protection and Preservation of Ancient Sites in the UK...................................................................... 45 4.2. Protection from Development.............................................................................................................................. 46 4.2.1. Case Study 1: Nine Ladies Stone Circle ...................................................................................................... 46 Threats to Nine Ladies.......................................................................................................................................... 46 Protection Campaign............................................................................................................................................ 46 Outcome............................................................................................................................................................... 46 4.2.2. Case Study 2: Thornborough Henges .......................................................................................................... 47 Threats to Thornborough...................................................................................................................................... 48 Campaign to Protect Thornborough..................................................................................................................... 48 The Outcome of the Protests................................................................................................................................ 49 4.2.3. Case Study 3: Crossbones Graveyard........................................................................................................... 49 Campaign to Preserve Crossbones....................................................................................................................... 50 Understanding Contestation at Crossbones.......................................................................................................... 50 4.2.4. Understanding Pagan Protection of Sites from Development...................................................................... 51 4.3. Protecting Sites from Archaeological Excavation................................................................................................ 52 4.3.1. Case Study 4: Seahenge or Holme-next-the-Sea Timber Circle................................................................... 52 Initial Analysis...................................................................................................................................................... 52 Preservation In-Situ or Excavation and Removal?............................................................................................... 52 Community Involvement...................................................................................................................................... 53 Protest................................................................................................................................................................... 53 Detailed Analysis, Storage and Preservation........................................................................................................ 54 Display at King’s Lynn......................................................................................................................................... 54 The Legacy of Seahenge...................................................................................................................................... 56 4.3.2. Case Study 5: Nevern Castle........................................................................................................................ 56 Excavation............................................................................................................................................................ 56 Brithdir Mawr and Tir Ysprydol........................................................................................................................... 56 Protest at Nevern.................................................................................................................................................. 57 Engaging with the Protests................................................................................................................................... 57 Theorising Nevern................................................................................................................................................ 57 4.4. Theorising Preservation and Protection................................................................................................................ 58 4.5. Options for the Future.......................................................................................................................................... 58 5. Sites – Representation and Ownership.................................................................................................................... 59 5.1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................... 59 5.1.1. Ownership, Stakeholdership and Representation......................................................................................... 59 5.1.2. Defining Earth Mysteries.............................................................................................................................. 59 5.1.3. Earth Mysteries in Contemporary Paganism................................................................................................ 60 5.1.4. Community................................................................................................................................................... 60 5.1.5. Public Archaeology and Heritage................................................................................................................. 60 Paying for heritage............................................................................................................................................... 61 5.1.6. Public Driven Archaeology and Heritage..................................................................................................... 61 5.1.7. Outreach in Archaeology and Heritage......................................................................................................... 61 5.2. Case Studies.......................................................................................................................................................... 62 5.2.1. Case Study 1: Glastonbury........................................................................................................................... 62 Landscape and Character...................................................................................................................................... 62 Cultural History.................................................................................................................................................... 62 Archaeology......................................................................................................................................................... 62 Glastonbury Earth Mysteries................................................................................................................................ 63 Christian Glastonbury........................................................................................................................................... 63 Pagan Glastonbury................................................................................................................................................ 63 Contested Glastonbury......................................................................................................................................... 63 Archaeologists and Earth Mysteries..................................................................................................................... 64

ix

Contested Heritage 5.2.2. Case Study 2: The Rollright Stones.............................................................................................................. 64 Archaeology of the Rollright Stones.................................................................................................................... 64 Folklore of the Rollright Stones........................................................................................................................... 65 Ownership............................................................................................................................................................. 65 Pagan Activity at the Rollright Stones.................................................................................................................. 67 Vandalism at the Rollright Stones........................................................................................................................ 67 5.2.3. Case Study 3: Interpreting Stonehenge......................................................................................................... 67 5.3. Contesting Interpretations and Ownership........................................................................................................... 69 5.4. Theorising Contestation of Ownership and Interpretation.................................................................................. 69 5.4.1. Why demand Ownership/Stakeholdership.................................................................................................... 69 Spiritual Reasons.................................................................................................................................................. 69 Political Reasons.................................................................................................................................................. 70 5.4.2. Theorising Community Involvement and Stakeholdership.......................................................................... 70 5.4.3. Suggested Solutions...................................................................................................................................... 70 5.5. Conclusions.......................................................................................................................................................... 71 6. Archaeologists, Museum professionals and Human Remains............................................................................... 73 6.1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................... 73 6.2. The Importance of Human Remains in Archaeology and Heritage...................................................................... 73 6.2.1. What Human Remains Reveal About the Past ............................................................................................. 74 6.2.2. Displaying Human Remains ........................................................................................................................ 75 6.2.3. Why Are Remains Not on Display Retained in Storage?............................................................................. 75 6.3. How Are Remains Treated?.................................................................................................................................. 75 6.3.1. Law, Ethical Guidelines and Organisation Policies...................................................................................... 75 Legal Requirements.............................................................................................................................................. 75 Ethical Guidelines and Professional Codes of Conduct....................................................................................... 76 Organisational Policies on Human Remains........................................................................................................ 79 Implications of Laws, Codes and Policies............................................................................................................ 79 6.3.2. How Human Remains Are Treated in Practice............................................................................................. 80 Excavating Human Remains................................................................................................................................ 80 Analysis of Human Remains................................................................................................................................ 81 Storage.................................................................................................................................................................. 82 Display.................................................................................................................................................................. 82 De-accessioning, Disposal and Reburial.............................................................................................................. 84 6.4. Conclusion............................................................................................................................................................ 85 7. Contemporary Pagans and Ancestors..................................................................................................................... 87 7.1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................... 87 7.2. British Pagans and the Concept of Ancestors....................................................................................................... 87 7.2.1. Who Are the Ancestors?............................................................................................................................... 87 7.2.2. Origins of Ancestor Veneration in Contemporary Paganism........................................................................ 87 7.2.3. Why Are They the Ancestors?...................................................................................................................... 88 7.2.4. Implications of Pagan Ancestor ‘Worship’................................................................................................... 88 7.3. Contestation Overseas.......................................................................................................................................... 88 7.3.1. Australian Aboriginal Contestation............................................................................................................... 89 Truganini and William Lanne............................................................................................................................... 89 Legal Changes...................................................................................................................................................... 90 7.3.2. American Indians and NAGPRA.................................................................................................................. 90 Kennewick Man.................................................................................................................................................... 90 7.3.3. Critiques of Repatriation and Reburial Claims for Remains from Abroad.................................................. 90 Identity Based Reasons......................................................................................................................................... 91 Spiritual Reasons.................................................................................................................................................. 91 Political Reasons.................................................................................................................................................. 91 7.4. Contesting Human Remains in the UK................................................................................................................ 91 7.4.1. Origins of Contestation in the UK................................................................................................................ 91

x

Contents 7.5. Case Studies.......................................................................................................................................................... 92 7.5.1. Case Study 1: Charlie at Avebury................................................................................................................. 92 7.5.2. Case Study 2: Stonehenge Human Remains................................................................................................. 94 7.5.3. Case Study 3: The Red Lady of Paviland..................................................................................................... 97 7.5.4. Case Study 4: Lindow Man........................................................................................................................ 100 7.6. Modes of Contestation by Pagans...................................................................................................................... 104 7.6.1. CoBDO West.............................................................................................................................................. 104 7.6.2. HAD............................................................................................................................................................ 104 7.6.3. LAW, Stonehenge Druids and CoBDO...................................................................................................... 105 7.6.4. Dead to Rights............................................................................................................................................ 106 7.6.5. Pagans for Archaeology.............................................................................................................................. 106 7.7. Reasons and Arguments For and Against Reburial............................................................................................ 106 7.7.1. Spiritual Arguments.................................................................................................................................... 106 Affecting a Dualist Afterlife .............................................................................................................................. 106 Disturbing the Monist Soul................................................................................................................................ 107 Sacred Sites and the Dead.................................................................................................................................. 107 Pagan Values and Aspirations............................................................................................................................. 107 Spiritual Authority.............................................................................................................................................. 108 7.7.2. Identity Based Reasons............................................................................................................................... 109 7.7.3. Ethical......................................................................................................................................................... 110 Equality with Other Religions.............................................................................................................................111 Respect and Honour, Dignity and Decency........................................................................................................ 113 Ownership........................................................................................................................................................... 115 Exclusive and Inclusive Rights.......................................................................................................................... 115 7.8. Non-Reburial Challenges................................................................................................................................... 116 7.8.1. Objectification Versus Personhood............................................................................................................. 116 7.8.2. Case Studies................................................................................................................................................ 116 Case Study 1: Dublin Museum........................................................................................................................... 116 Case Study 2: Bristol Museum........................................................................................................................... 117 7.8.3. Access to remains for ritual........................................................................................................................ 117 7.8.4. Respectful Storage...................................................................................................................................... 117 7.9. Conclusions........................................................................................................................................................ 117 8. Understanding and Addressing Contestion............................................................................................................119 8.1. Introduction........................................................................................................................................................ 119 8.2. Explaining Contestation..................................................................................................................................... 119 8.2.1. Pagan Assumptions, Attitudes and Agendas............................................................................................... 120 Underlying Motivations for Pagan Contestation of Remains............................................................................. 120 Archaeological Complicity in Suppression........................................................................................................ 120 Asserting Equal Rights....................................................................................................................................... 121 Anti-Intellectualism and Conflicting Worldviews ............................................................................................. 121 Control of Identity.............................................................................................................................................. 121 A Pagan Absolutism?.......................................................................................................................................... 121 8.2.2. Archaeological and Heritage Assumptions, Attitudes and Agendas........................................................... 122 Underlying Attitudes of Archaeologists and Heritage Professionals................................................................. 122 Low Value Attribution to Contemporary Paganism........................................................................................... 122 Archaeological and Heritage Agendas............................................................................................................... 123 8.2.3. Common Ground........................................................................................................................................ 123 Preservation and Stewardship............................................................................................................................. 123 Increasing Understanding and Valuing the Past................................................................................................. 123 8.2.4. Consequences of Assumptions, Attitudes and Agendas............................................................................. 123 Complicating Factors.......................................................................................................................................... 123 Different Epistemologies.................................................................................................................................... 123 Divergent Aims, Divergent Priorities................................................................................................................. 124

xi

Contested Heritage 8.3. Addressing Contestation..................................................................................................................................... 124 8.3.1. Ignoring Campaigners................................................................................................................................ 124 8.3.2. Challenging Assumptions and Respecting Identity ................................................................................... 124 8.3.3. Addressing Contestation of Sites................................................................................................................ 125 Stakeholdership.................................................................................................................................................. 125 Polyvocality in Archaeological interpretations.................................................................................................. 125 8.3.4. Addressing Contestation of Human Remains............................................................................................. 125 What Archaeologists and Museum Professionals Can Do................................................................................. 125 What Pagans Can Do.......................................................................................................................................... 126 8.3.5. Finding a Balance....................................................................................................................................... 126 8.3.6. Negotiation, Truth and Reconciliation........................................................................................................ 126 8.3.7. Opposition to Contestation Within the Pagan Community......................................................................... 127 Divergent Druidries............................................................................................................................................ 127 Addressing Religious Extremism....................................................................................................................... 128 8.3.8. Continuous Negotiation.............................................................................................................................. 128 8.4. Conclusions........................................................................................................................................................ 128 8.5. Final Words......................................................................................................................................................... 129 Bibliography.................................................................................................................................................................... 131 Personal Communications............................................................................................................................................. 151

xii

List of Figures Fig. 1. Open access at Stonehenge Winter Solstice 2008.................................................................................................... vi Figs. 2 & 3. The author dressed as at Stonehenge Winter Solstice 2008; and at the Rollright Stones 2010...................... 20 Fig. 4. Pagan Solstice attendees at Stonehenge, June 2010................................................................................................ 23 Fig. 5. New Stonehenge Visitors Centre............................................................................................................................. 27 Fig. 6. Rubbish left behind by Solstice revellers, 21st Jun 2010......................................................................................... 31 Fig. 7. Crowds gather the evening before the Solstice 20th Jun 2010................................................................................. 35 Fig. 8. The Sun rises over the Heel Stone 21 Jun 2010...................................................................................................... 36 Fig. 9. Security searches at the entrance to the Stonehenge field....................................................................................... 36 Fig. 10. Devil’s Chair stone at Avebury.............................................................................................................................. 39 Fig. 11. Tea light candles and flowers left in West Kennett Long Barrow. Examples of ritual rubbish left behind........................................................................................................................................................................... 41 Fig. 12. Sign at Avebury Stones.......................................................................................................................................... 41 Fig. 13. Nine Ladies Stone circle........................................................................................................................................ 47 Fig. 14. Quarried area viewed from the henge bank, now a car park................................................................................. 48 Fig. 15. Beltane festival at Thornborough Henges. Craft market overseen by a man clad as an Iron Age warrior................................................................................................................................................................................. 49 Fig. 16. Memorial Plaque at Crossbones graveyard........................................................................................................... 50 Fig. 17. Gates to the Crossbones cemetery site from Redcross Way.................................................................................. 51 Fig. 18. Votive witch doll tied to the gates of Crossbones Cemetery................................................................................. 51 Fig. 19. Reconstruction of Seahenge at the Kings Lynn Museum...................................................................................... 55 Fig. 20. Seahenge timbers on display at Kings Lynn Museum........................................................................................... 55 Fig. 21. The Kings Men April 2009.................................................................................................................................... 64 Fig. 22. The King Stone seen from the north...................................................................................................................... 65 Fig. 23. Whispering Knights viewed from the north. Note vandalised remains of interpretation board............................ 66 Fig. 24. The Kings Men June 2010..................................................................................................................................... 66 Fig. 25. Defaced interpretive board at the Kings Men........................................................................................................ 67 Fig. 26. The author’s daughter contemplates a Bronze Age skeleton in the British Museum............................................ 73 Fig. 27. Osteological specimen boxes in the UWL labs 2009............................................................................................ 82 Fig. 28. Bone chapel at Evora in Portugal.......................................................................................................................... 83 Fig. 29. Charlie at the Alexander Keiller Museum 2009.................................................................................................... 92 Fig. 30. The Alexander Keiller Museum at Avebury.......................................................................................................... 93 Fig. 31. Facsimile of the bones of the Red Lady on display at the National Museum Wales Cardiff................................ 98 Fig. 32. Red Lady of Paviland skeleton on display in Oxford............................................................................................ 99 Fig. 33. Lindow Man on display in the British Museum.................................................................................................. 101

xiii

Contested Heritage Fig. 34. Lindow Man display at the British Museum....................................................................................................... 101 Fig. 35. Lindow Man exhibition at Manchester University Museum............................................................................... 102 Fig. 36. Offerings box at the Manchester display of Lindow Man................................................................................... 103 Fig. 37. Bronze facial reconstructions of Early Mediaeval people with photographs of their bones in the ‘Origins’ gallery of the National Museum Wales.........................................................................................................111

xiv

List of Abbreviations ADO

Ancient Druid Order or Anglesey Druid Order

AHRC

Arts and Humanities Research Council

AIAD

American Indians Against Desecration

AIM

American Indian Movement

AOD

Ancient Order of Druids

APABE

Advisory Panel on the Archaeology of Burials in England

APACBE

Advisory Panel on the Archaeology of Christian Burials in England

ASA

Association of Social Anthropologists

BABAO

British Association for Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology

BBC

British Broadcasting Corporation

BDO

British Druid Order

BM

British Museum

CBA

Council for British Archaeology

CoBDO

Council of British Druid Orders

COD

Cotswold Druid Order

CTUIR

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

DCMS

Department for Culture, Media and Sport

DNA

Deoxyribonucleic Acid

EH

English Heritage

GR

Grid Reference

HAD

Honouring the Ancient Dead

ICOM

International Council of Museums

IfA

Institute for Archaeologists

LAW

Loyal Arthurian Warband

MA

Museums Association

MoJ

Ministry of Justice

MoLAS

Museum of London Archaeology Service

MPhil

Master of Philosophy

NAGPRA

Native American Graves and Repatriation Act

NAU

Norfolk Archaeology Unit

NGO

Non-Governmental Organisation

NT

National Trust

OBOD

Order of Bards Ovates and Druids

xv

Contested Heritage PF

Pagan Federation

PhD

Doctor of Philosophy

PPG16

Public Policy Guidance note 16

PPS5

Planning Policy Statement 5

QuANGO

Quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisation

SOD

Secular Order of Druids

TAG

Theoretical Archaeology Group

TDN

The Druid Network

UFO

Unidentified Flying Object

UK

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

UNESCO

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

USA

United States of America

USACE

United States Army Corps of Engineers

UWL

University of Wales Lampeter

UWTSD

University of Wales Trinity Saint David

WAC

World Archaeology Congress

xvi

Abstract This book, based on a PhD, thesis uses ethnographic field research and literature analysis to examine the sometimes fraught interactions and relationships between the archaeologists and heritage managers who have managed and interpreted the material remains of Britain’s ancient past and contemporary Pagan groups to whom such remains have been considered sacred. It provides a description of contestation of sites and human corporeal remains followed by a detailed analysis of the reasons presented in the discourse of contestation and the underlying attitudes behind the issues. The book concludes with some thoughts on how heritage managers and archaeologists may better manage their interactions with the Pagan community in the future.

xvii

1 Introduction 1.1. Foreword

18, 37-39). He explains the concept of community (gemeinschaft) comparing it with and situating it within society (gessellschaft). He describes community as held together by the natural will, a shared morality and kinship, whilst society is held together by rational will that has contractual and legal frameworks. He characterises society as large-scale, impersonal and modern while community is seen as small-scale, traditional and involving faceto-face communication. However, much has changed since the 19th century: Appadurai (1996:8) has described ‘communities of sentiment’ influenced by large-scale migration. Licklider & Taylor (1968) appear to have been the first to suggest the idea of online communities of interest. Boyd (2012:191) suggests that ‘communities of interest’ develop a sense of cognitive ownership that ought to be recognised. Smith & Waterton (2009:18) remark that community is not homogenous but varied and fluid. Some may be geographical but others linked by religion or ‘a range of social and cultural experiences’. They point out that a single individual might belong to several communities at the same time (Smith & Waterton 2009:18). Moore (2001:71-72) has argued that increasing individualism has harmed feelings of community and identifies obstacles to community including ‘intense nationalism – and related “isms”… and a strong tendency to scapegoat outside groups’

This book examines interactions and relations between the heritage and archaeological professions and the British Pagan community in the first dozen years of the 21st century. In terms of British Pagans, it focuses particularly on Druid groups, as these were the most active in matters relating to heritage. Relations between the contemporary Pagan community and the heritage and archaeological professions in the UK have often been somewhat strained during the period in focus and perhaps for some time leading up to it. The book examines issues of contention and contestation between these groups, such as sensitivities over excavation of ancient sacred sites, access to ancient monuments and especially issues surrounding excavation, storage and display of ancient human remains. It explores the consequent relations between them and the underlying attitudes of members to one another. Decades of defamation, dismissal and sometimes discrimination left parts of the Pagan community with a disjointed and sometimes hostile range of interactions with ‘establishment’ organisations: on the one hand there has been a desire to maintain anonymity thus avoiding discrimination, but on the other there has been a desire to demand equal rights with other religious and spiritual groups in order to challenge discrimination. Within the archaeological community and across the heritage sector there has been concern that if all the demands coming from the modern Pagan community were to be granted it would become difficult for archaeologists and heritage workers to fulfil their professional responsibilities and perhaps even their ethical obligations. Prejudices, misunderstandings and errors have given rise to conflict which, I shall show, has caused much distress and expense to all concerned. This book will analyse the ideas and arguments involved and set out suggestions to improve future interactions. In this introductory chapter I define the communities central to this study and describe the issues being contested.

The concept of a Pagan community is perhaps made problematic by the lack of a single cosmology, pantheon, or set of values or commandments. There is little or no concept of orthodoxy within specific traditions of contemporary Paganism (Jennings 2002:7-8). However, anyone active within such groups will know there are meetings known as ‘moots’ to which all who identify as Pagan or are interested in Paganism are welcome. Many moots take place in pubs and are either plain social gatherings or include a speaker on a topic of Pagan interest. Pagan societies also exist in many universities and several organisations exist to represent the interests of Pagans within professions or large organisations. These social groups along with events (such as camps, games and eisteddfodau1) at which Pagans of any tradition or sect are welcome provide a sort of communal space in which the type of social relations which unite and define a community may be negotiated. This along with the shared identity as Pagans provides a sense of community. I therefore argue the term is justified in this case.

1.2. Defining Terms Before a study of these groups can begin, it needs to be established who they are. Another fundamental question is what is meant by the term ‘community’. Are these groups actually communities and how do they fit into the broad canvas of contemporary British society? This will have a bearing on issues of inclusion and exclusion especially those investigated in chapter 5.

Since they have disparate aims and objectives it may be argued there are several archaeological communities rather than a single unified one. However, the connecting

I suggest that an understanding of community is vital in understanding contestation between groups. Discourses on community and society in the humanities tend to derive from the work of Ferdinand Tonnies (1955:16-

1

1

Recitals or performances of poetry, song, music or drama

Contested Heritage threads such as conferences and professional organisations which cross the social boundaries dividing archaeologists into distinct communities make this problematic. I have therefore chosen to refer to a single archaeological community.

(Holtorf 2007:96-98). Archaeology also has a dialectic involving excavation and archaeological theory as well as a vocabulary of its own with words like: material culture, potsherd, stratigraphy, section, geophysics, artefact etc. which either have a different use in mainstream discourse or are seldom used if at all. There are also words like Neolithic and Palaeolithic which have entered mainstream vocabulary specifically from archaeology. I am less certain if heritage professionals can be said to form a coherent sub-culture. I have not identified a particular style and although this community has its own jargon which may give it a linguistic distinction I am unsure whether that is sufficient to justify the use of the term sub-culture.

Similarly the heritage sector has its own professional bodies such as the Museums Association; there are journals and conferences. Arguably, many ‘shop floor’ level employees are less likely to enjoy the face-to-face communication Tonnies (1955:16-18, 37-39) refers to beyond their specific workplace. Mattessich et al (1997:7) acknowledge that a shared profession is a basis for a community; however, to some heritage employees it is a job rather than a profession. The difference is that a profession may be defined as a vocation with shared standards involving a high degree of competence, skill and/or experience (Darvill 2012:375; Everill 2009:6) as opposed to a simple paid job which may be transitory in a person’s life while a profession is something much more sustained and selfdefining (Robbins 1993:34). Laurajane Smith and Emma Waterton (2009:19) consider that ‘archaeologists, heritage managers and museum professionals can be defined as a community group’ which they collectively describe as ‘heritage professionals’.

If it is characterised by systematic dissidence and opposition to dominant cultural values, a subculture may be classified as a counter-culture (Dowd & Dowd 2003:2035). Ivakhiv (2001:46-51) and Greenwood (2000:8) refer to spiritual or religious counter-culture to describe not just Pagans but New Age spiritualities and other New Religious Movements. Wallis (2000:253) describes Paganism (which he describes as Neo-Shamanism) as ‘queer’ meaning consciously outside the mainstream and I consider it significant that, when examining discourses on counter-culture, Timothy Leary (1994:53) emphasises the counter-cultural credentials of the Woodstock Pop Festival by describing it as ‘pagan’. England and Scotland still have established churches. Anglican Christianity has been woven into the unwritten constitution of England and Presbyterianism into that of Scotland (Davie 1994:39159). National ritual and pageantry has a Christian flavour and seldom actively involves non-Christian clergy. The 2011 census returns showed Christianity as the largest religious identity with 59.3% of people in England and Wales describing themselves as Christian (Office for National Statistics 2012).

Tonnies’ (1955:16-18, 37-39) definition of community includes neither contemporary Pagans, heritage professionals nor archaeologists which, I would argue, indicates a weakness in his definition. If, as Wittgenstein (1933:51-61) suggests, use is meaning then the use of ‘Pagan community’ means it is a ‘correct’ use of language but that the context provides the meaning. The rise of electronic interaction via computers has brought about self-describing online communities. Subcultures and Counter-Cultures

The relationship between Paganism and Christianity has been neither uniform nor consistent. As people within faiths vary so their interactions will also inevitably vary. I believe that the general character of relations between these religions, although improving, is not good. Several Pagans of my acquaintance have moved away from Christianity and Judaism because these faiths failed to satisfy their yearning for spiritual enchantment but others left their parents’ religion because they felt that Abrahamic scriptures contained much that was ethically problematic to them. Polytheism in particular is not easy to reconcile with mainstream Christian cosmology. Add to this a legacy of vicious persecution of early Christians by pagan Romans and centuries of denigration of Paganism and magic and a basis for bad relations appears strongly ingrained. Also since many Pagans define themselves against the ‘Christian other’ a further obstacle to good relations exists.

As groups within British society it is worth considering whether contemporary Pagans, archaeologists and heritage professionals may be termed subcultures. Hodkinson (2002:7-33) and Hebdige (1989:1-19) explain that subcultures are often elective and self-defined using a particular style, visual or dialectic, to differentiate themselves from the hegemonic mainstream. These are often, but not always, united by a common interest or belief. Indeed a trend may be discerned which began with the multicultural permissive society developing from the late 1950’s and into the 1960s which has since been accelerated massively by the information revolution. This has made the concept of a British cultural mainstream problematic. Britain now appears a society of overlapping subcultural groups rather. I base this contention on what I perceive to be a distinct lack of cultural phenomena which are common across British society but distinct from other European societies. Archaeologists may form a sub-culture; there are particular styles common especially among field archaeologists such as high-visibility waterproofs and gilets or military surplus jackets and trousers, heavy working boots and broad-brimmed hats

The second most popular religious orientation in contemporary Britain after Christianity is atheism (the denial of all religion) with just under fifteen million recorded in the 2011 census (Office for National 2

Introduction Statistics 2012). Atheists have often viewed Pagans as being ignorant and superstitious, sometimes more so than Christians. In fact personal experience and remarks by others lead me to conclude that many atheists are even less tolerant of Paganism than of Christianity or than Christians are of Paganism. Paganism is therefore sufficiently contrary to mainstream religious thought in Britain today that it fulfils the requirements of a counterculture (Greenwood 2000:8). Although I acknowledge that all Pagans are to some extent counter-cultural, I believe a spectrum between hard counter-culturalism and integrationalism can be identified. The counter-cultural side is especially focused on the narrative of oppression and adamantly disinclined to trust authority figures in general, but especially those outside their community. They are less likely to be in regular paid employment which can be derived from opposition to the capitalism of mainstream society and many follow or idealise a nomadic existence. They hope to change society from outside. The integrated Pagans function as members of mainstream British society, are generally content to live settled lives in houses and hold down jobs. They may also feel that society could learn lessons from Paganism but work within existing frameworks to effect social change.

Witches, Wiccans, Druids, Heathens, Shamans etc. (Office of National Statistics 2012). The same survey showed 39,000 Spiritualists, 7,906 Rastafarians, 5,021 Baha’is and 4,105 Zoroastrians. This would suggest that Pagans comprise one of the larger non-Abrahamic religious groupings. However, Miller admits that many Pagans at the time were reluctant to be publicly identified as such and may have opted not to declare their religious identity. I have observed an increasing tolerance of Paganism over the last thirty years and so more of these invisible Pagans may have come out of what has been colloquially known as ‘the broom closet’. Cooper (2010:22) cites a BBC survey as indicating the number of UK Pagans in 1997 as about 100,000. Greenwood (2000:5) cites an unnamed participant as suggesting there may be up to 250,000 Pagans in the UK. Jennings (2002:16) asserts that unlike Buddhists, Muslims and Christians, Pagans do not actively proselytise and attempt to win converts. He argues that most Pagans do not choose to convert to Paganism but rather come to the realisation that their existing ideas and beliefs are Pagan (Jennings 2002:16). Jennings (2002:16) also suggested that people might be drawn to Paganism for reasons including spiritual experiences, involvement in environmental activism or rejection of or from their previous religious group.

1.2.1. Contemporary Pagans

Unifying Characteristics in Contemporary Paganism

Yvonne Aburrow in one of her blogs explained that referring to Neo-Paganism is best avoided since the term is used pejoratively both within the Pagan community and outside (Aburrow 2008a). Therefore the terms ‘contemporary Paganism’, sometimes abbreviated to ‘Paganism’ will be used throughout this study. Capitalisation is used on Paganism and Pagan since it is customary to use it in the case of other self-adopted religious identities such as Christian. Non-capitalised ‘pagan’ and ‘paganism’ will be used to refer to the ancient pre-Christian spiritualities which have inspired contemporary Pagans but which were only defined as pagan by outsiders. Harvey (2005:84) describes Paganism as ‘a diverse but cohesive array of nature-centred spiritualities or nature religions’. They tend to celebrate the natural world (Harvey 2000:155) and be non-evangelical, non-dogmatic, lacking an established orthodoxy (Crowley 1995:21-24; Harvey 1997:1-2, 216, 223; Jennings 2002:7-8; Luhrmann 1991:7). This lack of evangelical behaviour is beginning to change as will be seen in chapter 7. Some people within contemporary Paganism are uncomfortable with describing themselves as religious preferring the term spiritual. Asked about this, one informant explained: ‘religion is hierarchical and dogmatic. Paganism isn’t. I prefer to think of it as spirituality rather than religion’.

The Pagan Federation, which exists to bring Pagans together and to promote and educate people about Paganism, defines Paganism as ‘a polytheistic or pantheistic nature worshipping religion’ (Pagan Federation nd). This definition replaces the three ‘Principles of Paganism’ which it formerly used to provide a definition: • Love for and Kinship with Nature • The Pagan Ethic: ‘Do what thou wilt, but harm none’ • The concept of Goddess and God (Pagan Federation 1992:4; Jennings 2002:9) The boundaries of contemporary Pagan identity are inevitably (considering the diversity it encompasses) fluid and negotiable (Harvey 2004a:245). Shallcrass (2000:3) describes Druids as being opposed to dogmas and suggests they hold to more mutable ideas held as long as they stand scrutiny, which he terms catmas. Defining Paganism is therefore hampered by its diversity and fluidity (Pagan Federation 1992, Harvey 1997). However, most branches of contemporary Paganism incorporate one or more of the following beliefs: • Duotheism or Polytheism: participants recognise two or more distinct deities (Zwi Werblowsky 1987:436, Harvey 1997:175). In the case of duotheism, these deities can be a generic god and goddess but most commonly either a Lunar (often triplicated as maiden, mother and crone by phase) or an Earth goddess and either a solar or horned/antlered god of nature and fertility. Polytheists may pick and choose deities from different pantheons but are more likely to devote

Accurate and verifiable numbers of UK Pagans are not known. The 2001 Census provided several selfidentifications accepted by the Pagan Federation as Pagan totalling 41,050 individuals (Miller 2005:17) which works out as about 0.07% of the UK population. The 2011 Census recorded those who identified specifically as Pagan had risen to around 57,000 with about another 20,000 identifying as 3

Contested Heritage physical world. Susan Greenwood (2003:195) goes so far as to suggest that a belief in magic and Paganism are two names for the same thing but I have encountered several people who identify as magical practitioners but not as Pagan and many others who identify as Pagan but do not practise magic. For the purposes of this study I suggest a more useful definition of magic is ‘the belief that, through ritual activity or psychic power, humans can access hidden information or bring about change in themselves, others or the world around them’ (my words derived from Kauffman 1975:299 and Harvey 1997:87-106).

their spirituality to one particular cultural/historic family of divinities such as the Tuatha De Danaan of Irish mythology, the Olympian gods of Greece or the Egyptian gods (Jennings 2002; Harvey 1997). The ways in which the divine is perceived varies significantly within the contemporary Pagan community. Wiccans and some of the more political and counter-cultural (i.e. non-integrated) Druids tend to be more inclined to duotheism with ‘The God and The Goddess’. Those who are more reconstructionist in their theology will tend to honour a whole pantheon of named gods and goddesses whilst maybe giving particular devotion to one above the others. • Pantheism considers the material world and the divine to be one indivisible whole while Panentheism recognises the divine as being manifest in the material world, but also to exist beyond it. This is often characterised as a belief that all living things contain a divine essence or spark (Kauffman 1975:343-4; Hartshorne 1987:165; Harvey 1997:176). • Animism is a word originally coined by E. B. Tylor to describe what he saw as a primitive and erroneous belief that animals and landscape features (even sometimes human-made objects) have souls and consciousness and can interact with humans and that non-divine spirits dwell around us and influence our lives (Harvey 2005:xi; Kauffman 1975:33; Bolle 1987:296). Harvey (2005:xi) prefers to define animism as the recognition ‘that the world is full of persons, only some of whom are human, and that life is always lived in relationship with others’. Increasingly people within the Pagan community are identifying themselves specifically as animists often asserting a unity of body and soul or spirit and matter (monism) proposed by Harvey (2005:192-193) and promulgated by Emma Restall Orr (2012:104). This worldview is of key importance to many reburial campaigners but is not without problems as I shall demonstrate in Chapter 7. • Magic, sometimes spelled magick to differentiate it from sleight of hand conjuring, illusionism, escapist romanticism and spiritualism (Crowley 1986:XI-XII; Harvey 1997:97), was defined by Aleister Crowley (perhaps the most famous occultist of modern times) as ‘any event in nature which is brought to pass by will’ (Crowley 1986:107). However, this definition might include such simple and everyday actions as toasting bread. Sir James Frazer defined magic as ‘practices designed to bring spiritual or supernatural forces under the control of human agents’ (Hutton 2001:66). Within the Pagan community, Doreen Valiente (1993:73), one of the first Wiccan high priestesses, cited a definition of magic as ‘the science of the secret forces of nature’ which she attributed to S.L. MacGregor Mathers. Another definition of magic attributed to the early 20th century occultist Dion Fortune (1932:21) is ‘The art of causing changes in consciousness at will’ (Butler 1977:12, Starhawk 1999:42). Luhrmann (1991:7) describes the core concept of magic as the belief ‘that mind affects matter’ and that therefore magical practices are those intended to focus the mind to bring about change in the

Additionally, Philip Shallcrass (p.c. 2011) of the British Druid Order suggests that reverence for the ancestors is a characteristic of contemporary Paganism but although common I am unsure if this is sufficiently universal to be considered characteristic of Pagan spirituality. Most Pagans identify strongly with peoples of the pre-Christian past and to a greater or lesser extent feel that they are carrying on or resurrecting the paganisms of the past (Maughfling 2000a:46). As such they will tend to identify strongly with people of the past and derive a sense of tribal communion with them, thus, in some cases, they feel entitled to act as spokespersons for them (Davies 1998, BAJR 2008). If this diversity of belief and thought were not enough, York (2005:69) and Harvey (2005:28, 2013:206-210) argue that defining spiritualities or religions by beliefs is, in itself, problematic and that what members do (praxis) is a better way to categorise them than their beliefs. Many Pagans (particularly Witches and Druids) carry out ritual in circular spaces (York 2005:63) but some, especially polytheist reconstructionists, do not. Pagans also often leave offerings of various kinds to gods, ancestors and other spiritual beings at sacred places but others, e.g. Restall Orr (1996:27) are opposed to the practice. Thus it may be seen that clear boundaries between ‘Pagan’ and ‘not Pagan’ are diffuse, fuzzy, hard to define, and often a matter of opinion. Branches or Traditions of Contemporary Paganism The most numerous and well-known types of contemporary Paganism in the UK are: • Witchcraft, of which the largest element, Wicca, is a tradition invented (some would say revealed or reinvented) by Gerald Gardner in the 1940s (Hutton 2001:205-252). Witchcraft tends to be duotheistic and involves the practice of Magic(k) (Harvey 1997:35-52; Pagan Federation 1992:6). • Druidry, in which subversive Christian and eclectic occult groups have given rise to Pagan groups throught the 1980s and 1990s (Bonewits 2006:80-81; Cooper 2010:71; Cunliffe 2010:128; Hutton 2006:249253, 2007:196-200, 2009:418). Many Druid groups however, include Christian members and argue that their philosophies and practices are not exclusively Pagan. Druidry tends to concentrate on ‘Celtic’ lore 4

Introduction coming from Welsh, Irish, Scottish and Breton sources as well as from classical literature (Harvey 1997:1734). Contemporary Druids are normally divided into three grades through which initiates work sequentially: Bards who specialise in performance and the arts, Ovates who concentrate on divination and healing and Druids who specialise in ritual, magic and philosophy (Shallcrass 2000:47-139; Green 1997:171). The Druid community is, broadly speaking, split between those orders which concentrate on spiritual training, generally with an ideal of peace-making and those which are more actively political and adopt a warrior ethos, involving themselves in protests in support of religious freedom and green issues (Hutton 2006:256-257). • Shamanism in Britain is often described as urban or neoShamanism to emphasise differences with Shamanism in traditional societies (Jakobsen 1999:147-205). It draws primarily on American Indian practices and cosmologies but also on Siberian Shamanism, African traditions, European Paganism and other influences. It is based around spirit communication ecstatic or trance work and tends strongly towards an animistic worldview (Jakobsen 1999:147-205; Harvey 1997:107125; Pagan Federation 1992:9). • Asatru, Heathenism or Odinism is largely based on adherence to the perceived or researched values and deities of ‘Viking’ or Anglo-Saxon pre-Christian cultures (Harvey 1997:53-68; Pagan Federation 1992:8). Large numbers of deities and other supernatural beings are recognised as well as magic and a degree of predetermined fate (Wyrd or Orlog). Honour, truth, bravery and hospitality are core values among this group (Jennings 2002:94).

group which includes Christian members and their liturgy and rhetoric refer to ‘The Goddess’ rather than named deities from Romano-British, Gallo-Roman and Welsh, Scottish and Irish mythological sources. Witchcraft is frequently unashamedly eclectic whilst Asatru tends towards the firmly reconstructionist end of the spectrum. I suggest that in Druidry a tension between predominantly reconstructionist and more eclectic groups increased throught the 1990s and early 2000s (see Hutton 2006:257; Pendragon & Stone 2003:81-82). Misconceptions Regarding Pagans Those not familiar with contemporary Paganism have sometimes, mistakenly or deliberately, conflated Paganism with Satanism as well as with the New Age Movement. This spurious association with Satanism has, in the past, featured in lurid media reports and continues to be promulgated by scandal-hungry reporters and some evangelical Christians, who feel threatened or upset by the increasing prominence of contemporary Paganism (La Fontaine 1998:42-46, 163-166; York 1995:122-123, 131132, 182). Pagan traditions are not devil worship or Satanism. The Devil is a construct of Abrahamic cosmology whereas branches of Paganism have their own cosmologies and mythologies (Jennings 2002:12). References to ‘Pagan Devil Worship’ have however, surfaced in the Press from time to time (Hutton 2001:255, 259-60, 319) and have even been referenced in information panels at major heritage sites such as Avebury to the anger of many Pagans (BBC 2009). Assertions of devil worship are countered by pointing out that the devil does not figure in Pagan cosmology since Pagans usually adopt non-Abrahamic cosmologies, therefore they cannot worship something they do not believe exists (Pengelly & Waredale 1992:3; Pagan Federation 1992:3). There are, however, a few people who identify themselves, and are accepted by others, as contemporary Pagans who work within an Abrahamic cosmology. They are generally those who integrate or restore concepts of ‘the divine feminine’ to these traditions by recognising characters like Asherah or Lillith as goddesses (Raphael 1999:42; Oringer 19982001).

There are also many other groups: Some concentrate particularly on the Divine Feminine often from a radical feminist perspective (Hutton 2001:341-251; Pagan Federation 1992:10; Raphael 1999). Some Pagans concentrate on a single pantheon or set of deities associated with a particular historical culture and try to remain as true as possible to the Pagan religions, traditions, values etc. surrounding them, carefully researching historical and archaeological resources to construct and inform their spiritualities. These Pagans are commonly termed Reconstructionists (Aburrow 2008a; Blain 2004:221; Bonewits 2006:304-305; Filan & Kaldera 2013:159183). An important, perhaps even defining, feature of Reconstructionist Paganism is the scholarly learning associated with it. I suggest that within Paganism as a whole there is a spectrum of reconstructionism versus eclecticism. Jennings (2002:113) describes eclectics as unable or unwilling to limit themselves to one culture. They are happy to combine deities and spiritual practices from a variety of sources and also to include more personal revelation and inspiration into beliefs and practices. Critics describe this as pick and mix spirituality (Jennings 2002:113) and indigenous groups complain of cultural appropriation (Jennings 2002:113). I disagree with Cooper (2010:72) when he describes the Loyal Arthurian Warband as Reconstructionist. LAW is a Druid

Contemporary Paganism definitely has connections and commonalities with the New Age Movement including features such as diversity and lack of dogma. Pagans tend to emphasise a distinction between themselves and New Agers and may even use the term pejoratively, often accompanied by the term ‘fluffy’, against those they perceive as being undisciplined, excessively eclectic or in denial of some of the less comfortable aspects of their tradition (Harvey 2004a:245; Jennings 2002:37; Pearson 1998:45; Shallcrass 1998:168; Wallis 2003:29; see also Brown 2012:138). Many New Agers to whom I have spoken maintain a Christian or Buddhist cosmology or use an Abrahamic concept of divinity rather than Pagan ones. 5

Contested Heritage Paganism and Occultism are also related but not identical. Occult is defined as that which is kept secret, the esoteric, the mysterious (Greenwood 2000:2) and while many, perhaps most, Pagan traditions fall into this category, others (particularly reconstructionists) do not as there are certainly Pagans who do not practise magic (Raphael 1999:134). Likewise there are occultists who are not Pagan. One of my research participants identified himself as a Crowleyan Magickian and objected strenuously to being referred to as Pagan on the grounds that he did not acknowledge or pay homage to any Pagan deities.

groups who do not identify themselves specifically as Wiccan often draw on Wiccan ideas such as these. Other Pagan ethical frameworks stress virtues such as the Nine Noble Virtues of Asatru: courage, truth, honour, fidelity, hospitality, discipline, industriousness, self-reliance and perseverance (ADF 2009:86). The Order of Bards, Ovates and Druids (OBOD nd) promotes a nine fold Code of Ethics constructed by Athelia Nihtscada inspired by early mediaeval Irish Brehon Laws: 1. Every action has a consequence that must be observed and you must be prepared to compensate for your actions if required. 2. All life is sacred and all are responsible for seeing that this standard is upheld. 3. You do still live in society and you are bound by its rules. 4. Work with high standards. 5. Make an honest living. 6. Be a good host as well as a good guest. 7. Take care of yourself. 8. Serve your community. 9. Maintain a healthy balance of the spiritual and the mundane. (OBOD nd)

Oppression and Discrimination Misunderstanding about the nature of contemporary Paganism, and consequent prejudice, has diminished over the last few decades. However, fear of discrimination still remains to some extent, especially amongst the older generations. When studying the contemporary Pagan community, it should be borne in mind that as recently as the 1990s, Pagans were dismissed from their jobs for their beliefs (Pagan Federation 1996:7), had their houses vandalised (Greenwood 2000:5) and had supervision orders placed on their children (Hutton 2001:328), attempts were even made to have their children taken into care (Worthington 2005a:130). Satanic ritual abuse allegations in the late 1980s and early 1990s (e.g. Bell 1988; La Fontaine 1998) created a great deal of fear in the UK Pagan community although few Pagans were accused. La Fontaine (1998:38-55) even went so far as to suggest that the abuse idea was promulgated specifically by US based evangelical Christians to discredit contemporary Paganism. During the 1980s people dubbed by the Press ‘New Age Travellers’, many of whom had Pagan spiritual beliefs, even had their mobile homes damaged or destroyed by police (Worthington 2005a:130, 142). I argue that the memory of this kind of repression, combined with the myth that mediaeval and early modern witchcraft trials and executions represent an attempt to wipe out a Pagan religion (Hutton 2001:348), still influences Pagan relations with ‘establishment’ organizations such as government, heritage agencies, the media and the academic world (Hutton 2006:262-264; York 1995:131-135).

Many Pagans are keen to present their ethics and morality as superior to Abrahamic codes such as the Ten Commandments. The Pagan Federation (1992:4), for example, describes the Wiccan Rede as ‘a positive morality rather than a list of thou shalt nots’. Origins of Contemporary Paganism Jones & Pennick (1995:212-214) and Hutton (1996:4, 2001:3-204) describe Wicca as arising from several roots including the Romantic Movement and particularly its interpretations of Classical paganisms, European Occultism, secret societies such as the Freemasons, Folklore and folk magic. These threads were brought together by Gerald Gardner and his collaborators (Hutton 2001:205-252) before being further developed by others including Alex and Maxine Sanders (Hutton 2001:319339).

Pagan Ethics

Druidry can be traced back further but may be argued to have only become Pagan in the last three decades or so (Bonewits 2006:80-81; Cooper 2010:71; Cunliffe 2010:128; Hutton 2006:249-253, 2007:196-200, 2009:418). Antiquarians such as John Aubrey (16261697) and William Stukeley (1687-1765) suggested that the Druids mentioned by Roman writers might have been the builders of the megalithic stone circles thus inspiring an enduring fascination with Druids in Britain (Green 1997:140-57; Souden 1997:24; Bahn 1996:44). William Camden established an image of the Druids as monotheistic proto-Christians by mistranslating a Greek text thus making Druids acceptable to a Christian audience (Hutton 2008:14). Stukeley was so enthusiastic about Druids that he chose to identify himself as one but that he

The most common example of Contemporary Pagan ethics is the Wiccan rede ‘An it harm none, do what thou wilt’ (Crowley 1989:78). The archaic language of the rede opens it to several interpretations. One of these is: in order to harm none, follow the true will of your heart or higher self but the most common understanding is: provided your actions harm none, do as you please (Howe 2008:44-45). Howe (2008:44-45) also points out that Wiccans draw ethical guidance from the ‘Law or Threefold Return’, which states that all you do comes back to you threefold, and also from the ideal of perfect love and perfect trust. Wicca has been enormously influential on other Pagan practices and beliefs and so eclectic Pagan 6

Introduction was unable to find anyone to join him (Hutton 2008:7). Claims that John Aubrey considered himself a Druid remain unsubstantiated and are generally dismissed by those who have made detailed studies of him. Although Stukeley was unsuccessful in recruiting new Druids, a couple of generations afterwards through the late 18th and 19th centuries, quasi-masonic gentlemen’s friendly societies calling themselves Druids such as the Ancient Order of Druids had appeared (Bonewits 2006:70-73) and by 1905, the AOD were holding ceremonies at Stonehenge (Stout 2008b:119; Worthington 2005a:57). Edward Williams (1747-1826), a Welsh stonemason, was a passionate Welsh patriot and poet. In his enthusiasm to promote both Welsh culture and the religious philosophy of Deism he took on the Bardic name Iolo Morgannwg and sought out evidence for continuity of belief and practice to restore this tradition (Green 1997:153). When he failed to find such evidence, he resorted to his remarkable imagination and skilfully forged it (Hutton 2009:313-4; Harvey 2011:2778). In doing so, he produced the foundations of the Welsh National Eisteddfod (Green 1997:154-7) and a liturgy which has continued into contemporary Druidry. Around 1908 George Watson MacGregor Reid formed a spiritual group calling itself the Universal Bond. By 1912 this was renamed the Ancient Druid Order and was holding ceremonies at Stonehenge (Hutton 2009:348; Stout 2008a:125-7, 2008b:118-9). Worthington (2005a:57) characterises Reid’s ADO as influenced by theosophy and occultism producing a Druidry which I would describe as moving away from Christianity. Nevertheless, by the early 1980s Wiccans and other Pagans still perceived the Druids of the time as Christian. In 1964 Ross Nichols, a friend of Gerald Gardner and described by Bonewits (2006:78) as adhering to an eclectic mix of liberal Christianity, Buddhism and Sufism influenced by Celtic mythology, founded a splinter group from ADO which he named the Order of Bards, Ovates and Druids (OBOD) (Bonewits 2006:78; Hutton 2009:399). This new order did not long survive Nichols death in 1975 but was refounded by Nichols’ protégé Philip Carr-Gomm in 1988 with a distinctly Pagan character (Carr-Gomm 1990:911). The new OBOD was not exclusively Pagan but had an increasingly Pagan focus. The late 1980s and 1990s saw the emergence of new orders such as the British Druid Order, Cotswold Order of Druids, Insular Order of Druids, Loyal Arthurian Warband and Glastonbury Order of Druids, many of which were thoroughly Pagan in character (Bonewits 2006:80-81; Cooper 2010:71; Cunliffe 2010:128; Hutton 2006:249-253, 2007:196-200, 2009:418).

evidence suggesting that the heathenry of pre-Christian times incorporated Shamanic practices and several have been experimenting with such techniques (Harvey 2011:284-285). The most popular sources on this area are Brian Bates’ Way of Wyrd (1996) and Jenny Blain’s Nine Worlds of Seidr Magic (2002). The word Shaman originates from the Tungus of Siberia and has come to be applied to practitioners of ecstatic or trance based ritual practices involving mastery of or alliance with spirit beings in many cultures around the world (Jakobsen 1999:2). Wallis (2003:24) asserted that European interest in Shamanism may be traced back to the 17th century. However, perception of Shamans in a positive light in Britain only goes back to the latter part of the 19th century and the romanticisation of American Indians in the mould of a ‘Noble Savage’. American Indian spiritual beliefs also inspired environmental campaigns, notably that of Archibald Belaney (1888-1938), a British man, who presented himself as an American Indian named Grey Owl (Anahareo 1972:177-179; Wallis 2003:61, 201). His campaign demonstrates that British People had begun to see American Indian traditions as admirable naturefocused spiritualities to be emulated. Wallis (2003: 25) suggests that occultists working in Britain in the first half of the 20th century such as Blavatsky and Spare may have been influenced by ideas of Shamanism. However, it was probably not until Carlos Castañeda, working on the basis of academic work such as that of Mircea Eliade, published six books explaining the work of a, probably fictional, Shaman named Don Juan that significant numbers of people in Britain began to identify themselves as Shamans (Dutton 2012:147; Hardman 2007:38-40; Jakobsen 1999:157; Wallis 2003:39-42). Subsequently Michael Harner, Joan Halifax and others publicised Shamanism to spiritual seekers (Jakobsen 1999:158-9). In my opinion, Shamanism has had a great influence on the other strands of contemporary Paganism with Witches, Druids and Heathens adopting Shamanic practices. Pagan Community Leaders Throught the 1990s and 2000s there have been several prominent spokespeople for contemporary Paganism. Within Druidry, Emma Restall Orr has featured on radio programmes and television broadcasts talking about Pagan beliefs, ethics and practices but has now retired. Arthur Pendragon has also caught the media’s attention and has even referred to himself as a ‘media tart’ (Pendragon & Stone 2003:249). He co-wrote an autobiography which details his campaigns up to the end of the nineties (Pendragon & Stone 2003). Other Druid leaders have included Rollo Maughfling (Glastonbury Order of Druids), Philip (Greywolf) Shallcrass (British Druid Order), Phillip Carr-Gomm (Order of Bards Ovates and Druids), Veronica Hammond (Cotswold Order of Druids), Mark Graham (Charnwood order of Druids), Phil Ryder (The Druid Network) and Steve Wilson (Druid Clan of Dana). Influential and well-known witches have included Shan Jayran, Maxine Sanders, Vivianne and Chris Crowley,

The history of Germanic Heathenry can be traced back to the late 19th or early 20th century through Guido von List (1848-1919) and Willibald Hentschel (1858-1947) in Europe but its history in Britain is hard to trace back much further than the 1980s, when a group calling itself The Odinic Rite achieved recognised charity status (Jones & Pennick 1995:219, Toynbee 1996). Since then numerous groups such as Ring of Troth and The Odinist Fellowship have emerged. Heathens have been finding historical 7

Contested Heritage Patricia Crowther, Janet Farrar and Gavin Bone. Within the Heathen/Nordic/Asatru community there have been several groups, each with different leaders. Three of the most prominent names within this community have been Freya Aswynn , Pete Jennings (formerly head of the Pagan Federation) and Runic John whom I spoke to briefly on a field trip to Thornborough Henges. It was harder to identify community leaders among contemporary Pagan Shamans but one prominent practitioner and writer on the subject has been Gordon (the Toad) MacLellan. Among non-Germanic Reconstructionists, the most significant names I encountered were Nick Ford and Robin Herne. Based on an engagement with the contemporary Pagan community extending about twenty years I would suggest that leadership is built in a manner similar to Lewellen’s (1992:84) model for tribal or band leadership in which leadership is not conferred from one leader to another but rather dies with the outgoing leader and is then built up by the new leader through charisma and respect. Such community leaders may even be better able to shape opinion within the community than those who have leadership passed on to them. However, they have seldom been as didactic as clergy in established ‘world’ religions as adherents are generally keen to make their own decisions and authoritarian behaviour tends to alienate the kind of free-thinking counter-cultural individualists who tend to be drawn to Paganism. Additionally ideas from others, most notably scholars like Hutton, Pryor and Parker Pearson, have been enthusiastically adopted into Pagan beliefs. I argue that Pagan community leaders neither fully shape nor reflect the opinions of their communities due to the diversity of opinions they encompass. However, they do need to maintain at least a degree of reflection or representation to maintain their position and are therefore worthy of recognition and consideration.

that places without any obvious human modification can be deemed cultural heritage if they have important cultural significance (Harrison 2010:12-13). However, Smith (2008:11) famously argued that ‘there is no such thing as heritage’ suggesting that the term is misapplied to material things being rather a set of processes. John Carman (Carman & Sørensen 2009:12) pointed out that a ‘one-and-for-all’ definition of heritage would have to be so vague as to be almost meaningless, arguing rather for flexible contextualised understanding of what heritage entails. Carman and Sørensen (2009:14) have suggested that the development of the concept of heritage came about with a more collective ownership of the material aspects of heritage. Carman (2005:119-121) has expanded on this observation criticising the way in which heritage sites and artefacts are owned. Other criticisms include Wright’s (2009:105,136,193-194,218) and Hewison’s (1987:53, 143-144) identification of a middle class bias and avoidance of narratives of class division and political unrest. Hewison also (1987:43-45) asserted that commodification of heritage has led to an imposed set of criteria for determining heritage value. However, this assertion has been challenged by Urry (1990:110) who has argued that heritage value is ascribed from the grass roots, citing the 1.5 million membership of the National Trust in 1987. I argue that the situation is actually more fluid and dynamic with consumer opinions being influenced by managers, media and academics but also influencing them as well. It could be argued that funding bodies, like the Heritage Lottery Fund, have been either arbiters or a means of heritage professionals to enforce the Authorised Heritage Discourse. However the latter view has seemed less likely with the increasing expectation that funding should be contingent on an expressed need at grass-roots level. Smith and Waterton (2009:11) have dismissed discourses on protection as rhetoric and assert that archaeologists’ and heritage professionals’ ‘interest in the past is no more or less legitimate or worthy of respect than anyone else’s’ arguing that all communities with interests in heritage should have equal authority in how it is defined, interpreted and presented. This assertion is not unproblematic and I shall address this in section 8.3.3.

1.2.2. Defining Heritage Professionals A professional may be defined as a person practising a vocation or calling, particularly an academic or scientific one, or someone who displays the competence, conduct and standards appropriate to such a vocation or calling (Darvill 2012:375). Thus heritage professionals are those whose vocation or calling lies in that sector, but how can the heritage sector be defined?

If a broader definition of heritage is adopted, much that is not archaeological may be considered heritage. However, Skeates, Carman & McDavid (2012:1-8) point out that little if any archaeology is not heritage. Thus the issues of sites and monuments, access, protection, interpretation and ownership and those relating to the treatment of human remains can be comfortably considered heritage issues.

Defining the Heritage Sector Much debate has occurred surrounding definitions of heritage (Carman & Sørensen 2009:11-24). An example of a simple dictionary definition of Heritage is the Oxford English Dictionary’s (Pearsall & Trumble 2003:660) “Inheritance, a nation’s historic buildings, monuments, countryside etc”. Darvill (2003:176) expands this to include ‘images, ideas, sentiments and practices’ which he refers to as intangible heritage. He also comments on a distinction, sometimes drawn between ‘natural heritage’, which is natural landscape and ecology, and ‘cultural heritage’, created/modified or built places and material culture (see also Harrison 2010:11). It may be argued

Origins of Heritage Attractions Museums and heritage organisations are seen by some as part of the ‘establishment’, at least in part, due to the government connections with organisations such as the British Museum, English Heritage and, arguably, The National Trust. Museums are perhaps the oldest method of presenting the past to the British public in a way 8

Introduction recognisable as heritage. The origins of museums are found in the ‘cabinets of curiosity’ containing archaeological, anthropological and other items of interest which the wealthy collected and displayed to visitors in the 17th and 18th centuries (Parry 2007:30; Bahn 1996:36-7). David M. Wilson (1990:13), former director, explained the British Museum was created by an Act of Parliament in 1753 when Hans Sloane left his collection to the nation. This, along with other collections, became the core of the British Museum which was the first public corporate museum in the world (Burnett & Reeve 2001:11-12; Wilson 1990:13).

English Heritage helps people understand, value, care for and enjoy England’s historic environment. (English Heritage ndb) Cadw, the statutory heritage body in Wales explains: We aim to: protect and sustain, encourage community engagement in, improve access to the historic environment of Wales. This includes historic buildings, ancient monuments, historic parks, gardens and landscapes, and underwater archaeology. (Cadw nd)

The National Trust was created as a charitable foundation in 1895, and subsequently regulated by acts of parliament, to purchase and preserve places of historic interest and natural beauty in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (Salway 1996:1). It has become one of the largest owners of heritage sites in the UK and, at the time of writing, recorded over 3,700,000 paid up members (National Trust nda). With the increase in tourism since the 19th century heritage sites have become popular tourist attractions with a recent survey indicating that 68% of British adults have visited a museum and 38% have visited an archaeological site (BDRC nd). Government regulation of heritage began in 1882 with Lubbock’s Ancient Monuments Act to prevent destruction of ancient monuments (Her Majesty’s Government 1882; Worthington 2005a:96). This act and its successors ensure oversight and protection of all scheduled monuments. Subsequently many such sites were gifted to the nation and direct management of them, as well as oversight of all scheduled monuments, was undertaken by the ministry of works. In 1984 the Thatcher government reorganised state heritage management setting up English Heritage, the first of the independently managed regional Quangos (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations) who are now responsible for overseeing scheduled monuments and managing those in public ownership (English Heritage ndd; Chippindale 1986:42). Since then the regulatory, oversight and statutory advisory role has been removed from EH and invested in a new body: Historic England.

The National Trust describes its mission thus: We protect historic houses, gardens, mills, coastline, forests, woods, fens, beaches, farmland, moorland, islands, archaeological remains, nature reserves, villages and pubs. Then we open them up forever, for everyone. (National Trust ndb) In chapters 3, 5 and 8 I shall offer evidence suggesting that heritage organisations do not always live up to these lofty aims and can, in fact, be exclusionary not merely in terms of keeping people physically outside sites but also with regards to historical and interpretative narratives relating to them. Who Shapes Policy in the Heritage Sector? I have already cited Hewison’s and Urry’s arguments that heritage has been imposed from above or influenced from below but there have been other influences as well. All heritage organisations must operate within the law and many are affiliated with professional bodies with Codes of Practice such as the Museums Association (2008). For quangos, such as English Heritage (ndf), most funding and hence some direction has been supplied by the Department for Media, Culture and Sport or its equivalents in the Scottish and Welsh governments for Historic Scotland and Cadw. These organisations are also bound by international treaties such as the UNESCO (2010) Conventions and the Valletta Agreement (Council of Europe 1992). Their directions are also charted by their own senior management. Charitable trusts are managed by a board of trustees but may to a greater or lesser extent give a voice to signedup members (Dickson et al 1998:9-14). Privately owned and run heritage ventures are largely influenced by issues of profitability which in turn will be largely the result of consumer choice. Consumer choice however, may, at least to a degree, be driven by media coverage of heritage, history and archaeology. Heritage researchers including Hewison (1987:53, 143-144), Smith (2006:155-156) and Wright (2009:105,136,193-194,218) point out a middle class bias in the management of Heritage. However, I would also suggest that academics and through them a rationalistic, mechanistic worldview are also highly influential in how heritage is perceived and managed. If academic discourses

Heritage Aims and Ethics Heritage organisations may be government controlled and subsidised, subsidised but independent, or independent in both means and governance. As previously explained most of the largest heritage organisations have had some affiliation to government and thus heritage organisations in general are likely to be regarded as part of the ‘establishment’ by Pagan activists. The mission statements of heritage organisations give a strong indication of how they see their role. Examples of these drawn from their websites are as follows: English Heritage exists to protect and promote England’s spectacular historic environment and ensure that its past is researched and understood (English Heritage nda) 9

Contested Heritage and remains to attempt to ascertain areas controlled by distinct groups. Childe preferred to think of these groups as cultures and was not keen to associate them with contemporary nations or ethnicities. Kossina, on the other hand, was keen to do so. Although he died in 1931, Kossina’s ideas found favour in Nazi Germany but were discredited after 1945 (Bahn 1996:216-8). Whereas in Europe, archaeology was seen as being most closely allied with history, in the United States it was seen as being a sub-discipline of anthropology (Johnson 2006:28). In the mid-1960s a new archaeological theoretical paradigm emerged, initially known as ‘The New Archaeology’ but subsequently known as Processual Archaeology (Johnson 2006:12-30). It was championed by Lewis Binford, a young American archaeologist who advocated a more scientific and anthropological approach to data gathering and interpretation (Johnson 2006:20). It is less interested in the spatial limits of cultural groups so much as how groups, individuals and their cultures changed through time (Johnson 2006:22, 25). It emphasises the use of ethnographic parallels to interpret archaeological finds and tends to speak about the past in positivistic scientific language (Johnson 2006:48-63).

on heritage through sociology, economics, archaeology, history, art history etc are studied by managers, as they surely are, they will inevitably influence the way heritage organisations are run. Professional ethics are usually more strictly codified than Pagan ethics. I judge the most important ethical principles regarding heritage management to be the requirements to make heritage attractions as inclusive to all as possible and to optimise access with explanations for any restrictions (Museums Association 2008:12). Issues surrounding heritage ethics will be examined in detail in section 6.1.5 with regard to access and inclusivity and section 6.3.1 with regard to human remains. 1.2.3. Defining Archaeologists In order to define the archaeological profession it is first necessary to define what archaeology itself is. Darvill (2003:21) defines archaeology as “The study of past human societies and their environments through the systematic recovery and analysis of material culture and physical remains”. Philip Rahtz (1991:1) describes it as ‘The study of things, tangible objects which can be seen and measured...the physical manifestation of human activities’. Francis Pryor (2003:xvii) explains that archaeology (unlike history) is a ‘hands-on’ approach to studying the past. He also describes archaeologists reconstructing past thoughts and behaviour from ‘discarded prehistoric rubbish’ (Pryor 2002:xix). Cornelius Holtorf (2007:6395) explains how archaeologists are perceived by the public, which has almost inevitably fed back into how the profession expresses its own identity. He describes archaeologists as being: adventurers, detectives, revealers of profound truth, guardians of the past or a combination of these. Archaeologists, therefore, are the people (both professional and amateur) who conduct, teach or participate in the study of the past through material remains. The discipline of archaeology grew out of the antiquarianism of the 17th to 19th centuries. Antiquarians were generally made up of the landed gentry, clergy, and aristocracy who were developing an interest in the land they owned. In this aspect archaeologists share some common ancestry with contemporary Pagans (particularly Druids) who can include members of the antiquarian tradition among the progenitors of their movement (Hutton 2008:5-8, 2009:86-117). While Paganism blended a romantic vision of the past with classicism, secret societies (such as the freemasons) magic and occultism (Hutton 2001:3-131), archaeology applied increasing academic rigour and scientific techniques to become the respected discipline it is today (Darvill 2012:374-381; Stout 2008a:17-36).

From the 1980s this positivism was being called into question by archaeologists such as Ian Hodder who proposed an idea of Interpretive Archaeologies. In this paradigm, a wide range of methodologies and tools (technological and cognitive) might be employed (Johnson 2006:98-115). Perhaps driven by a public desire to know more about the lives of their ancestors, the current interpretive archaeologies theoretical paradigm tends to focus on the everyday lives of individuals in the past more than that of the previous theoretical schools. Although some archaeologists, such as myself (see section 2.2) prefer to think of our hermeneutic theories as cognitive tools to be applied or discarded according to utility (p.c. Hanks 2009), many archaeologists define themselves by hermeneutic theoretical schools such as Marxist, Functionalist and Structuralist. Types of Archaeologist Probably the most widespread archaeological employment is in the contract or rescue sector. This work includes managing archives, assessing impact of development proposals and advising developers on the anticipated need of archaeological intervention. It also involves surveys, watching briefs on developments in progress and, where necessary excavation of sites prior to development thus ‘preserving by record’ evidence of the past before it is destroyed by building and construction work (Barber et al 2008:31; Carver 2009:365-367; DCMS 2009:22; Spoerry 1993:32-34). Archaeologists, as specialists in the past, are also often employed in the heritage sector (BAJR nd IfA nd). A second area of employment for archaeologists is academia. Academic archaeologists’ work consists largely of research and/or teaching, mostly in universities. Finally there is Public and Community Archaeology which encompasses outreach by commercial and academic

Before World War 2, there were two broad theoretical schools: Cultural Historical archaeology and Settlement archaeology. The latter was championed by the German archaeologist Gustav Kossinna (Bahn 1996:136-8). He was opposed by Vere Gordon Childe who championed his cultural historical approach (Stout 2008a:71). Both theoretical paradigms mapped characteristic artefacts 10

Introduction organisations but also includes community based groups often consisting of amateurs. Archaeology has always attracted many enthusiastic amateurs, who may or may not have formal qualifications in the discipline. Most famously the author Agatha Christie was involved in excavations in Mesopotamia (Bahn 1996:243).

community and ethnic minority or indigenous groups in colonised areas have addressed conflicting aspirations for sites through polyvocality and recognitions of stakeholdership and/or cognitive ownership (Coleman 2013:156-175; Carmichael et al 1994:5-7; Davidson 1995:3-5; McDavid 2002:310-312, 2009:217-234; O’Regan 1994:95-106; Watkins 2012:663).

Archaeological Ethics and Codes of Practice

1.2.4. Pagan Archaeologists and Heritage Professionals

Vardy and Grosch (1999:4) remarked that the word ‘ethics’ originates from a word meaning character but has come to refer to behaviour of virtuous character. Blackburn (2003:4) asserted that humans are ‘ethical animals’ on the basis that we ‘grade and evaluate, and compare and admire’. Scarre and Scarre (2006:1) suggested that ethics govern or inform ‘what sort of people we should be, what kind of acts we should perform or avoid, and how we should treat our fellow human beings’. They proposed that the fundamental purpose of archaeological ethics is to provide a framework within which practitioners may operate to ensure that information regarding the past is gathered and shared in a manner which minimises loss of data whilst avoiding causing harm to anyone or anything (Scarre & Scarre 2006:3). The most fundamental rules governing archaeological work are enshrined in law, for example: the 1979 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (Her Majesty’s Government 1979) makes unauthorised disturbance of scheduled archaeological sites and ancient monuments a criminal offence and the 1857 Burial Act requires government licences to be issued before excavation of human remains can be carried out in England and Wales with similar legislation covering Scotland (Roberts 2009:26-7). Guidance beyond the basic requirements of the law may be found through professional associations such as the Museums Association (MA), which publishes a Code of Ethics (Museums Association 2008), and the Institute for Archaeologists (IfA), which publishes a Code of Conduct (IfA 2010). Organisations employing archaeologists and heritage professionals may also have policy documents specifying standards and procedures for professional practice. In chapters 5 and 6 this book will examine how these laws; codes and policies affect and inform the interactions of archaeologists and heritage professionals with contemporary Pagans.

So far I have acknowledged the crossover between the archaeological and heritage communities. However there are members of those communities who also identify as Pagan. Several student archaeologists of my acquaintance, several heritage workers and three field archaeologists have identified themselves as Pagan to me but most expressed a desire for colleagues in their sectors not to know about their spirituality expressing concern that doing so may affect their working relationship with colleagues and opportunities for career advancement. I therefore think it difficult to design an accurate quantitative survey to assess the proportion of people working in this sector who consider themselves Pagan. 1.3. Situating the Researcher In keeping with Davies’ (2002:4, 87-90) principle of reflexivity (see also section 2.5) I should ensure the reader is aware of where I situate myself regarding these groups. There is a more detailed, reflexive statement in section 2.5 but the most important points are as follows. I consider myself an insider in each of the communities on which this book focuses. I have identified myself as a Pagan, albeit a slightly agnostic one, for over twenty-five years. On the strength of academic qualifications and work in the sector I claim membership of the archaeological community. I have also worked in the heritage sector as a tour guide, storyteller and costumed historical interpreter. Therefore I consider myself an insider in the Pagan, archaeological and heritage communities. This joint affiliation gave me a better understanding of their core values and shared ideologies. Francis Pryor’s (Time Team 1999) assertion that Pagans and archaeologists share a concern for ancient monuments and ought to get on better with one another particularly helped to inspire this project. Conducting the research and writing this book has been a transformative journey of discovery. My initial position was critical of archaeological and heritage approaches, especially regarding human remains. Learning more about how archaeologists and museum professionals act and feel regarding them and engaging critically with the arguments surrounding the reburial issue has moved to a position considerably more critical of the Pagan campaigners.

Contesting Archaeology Contestation of archaeology and heritage is not, of course, restricted to Pagans or to the United Kingdom. Issues of contestation include disturbance and appropriation of archaeological material have been largely addressed through legislation and by attempting to inculcate an appreciation of their value as an archaeological, educational and tourism resource: Tomb robbery was campaigned and legislated against (Little 2009:39, 2012:399-401). In the UK, metal detectorists have, to some extent, been brought into the archaeological fold by use of arrangements such as the portable antiquities scheme (Bland 2005:440-447, 2004:272-291). More relevant to Pagan contestation of archaeology is the way in which the archaeological

1.4. The Structure of the Book Having defined the most important terms in this study and stated my personal position regarding the groups involved, the structure of the book requires some explanation. Chapter 2 explains how the research was designed and 11

Contested Heritage implemented as well as lessons learned in the field. The main focus of the Book however, consists of two main areas of contestation between contemporary Pagans and the archaeological community and heritage sector. These are: the treatment of prehistoric human remains and the management of ancient monuments/sacred sites. In chapters 3, 4 and 5 this Book explores matters relating to sites described as ancient monuments by archaeologists and heritage professionals but seen as sacred places and used for ritual and/or worship by Pagans. Chapter 3 focuses on contestation of access to sites, chapter 4 on the preservation of sites and chapter 5 on the interpretation and ownership of sites. Chapters 6 and 7 investigate contestation of human remains or Ancestors. Chapter 6 explains the reasons why ancient human bodies and bones are of interest to archaeologists and why they are displayed in museums. It examines the legislative, professional and institutional regulations which govern the treatment of human remains. Finally it explores the reality of how remains are excavated, analysed, and stored, displayed or reburied. Chapter 7 examines in detail the way in which Pagans have contested archaeological examination and museum display of remains and the ideas and arguments involved. The Book concludes in chapter 8 by bringing together analysis of contestation from the separate issues previously examined. I interrogate the reasons for contestation through the examination of concepts of moral ownership, guardianship, advocacy, culture clash and lack of a shared epistemology. Overall this Book provides a description and analysis of interactions between archaeological/heritage professionals and contemporary Pagans through investigating issues of contestation involving both. It explains that fundamental failures in inclusivity policies and practices over decades have exacerbated a situation where incompatible worldviews and dialectics lead to lack of a common discourse which in turn has exacerbated mistrust and disrespect.

12

2 Research Design and Implementation Fail to plan: plan to fail Prior planning, preparation and practice prevents piss-poor performance (British Army sayings) 2.1. Introduction

(bearing in mind limited resources) in a population so disparate. This problem is further exacerbated by the fact that some Pagans are reluctant to be identified. Using a non-probability sample would have been problematic since a degree of self-selection would be likely to occur which in turn would skew the results. Even after discussions with my supervisory team, Ronald Hutton, Jenny Blain and Rob Wallis, I was unable to develop a strategy to overcome this problem and so I was forced to abandon this direction of enquiry.

In this chapter, I set out how the research behind this book was planned and accomplished. I explain the choice of research methodology and how I approached the necessary ethical principles and considerations for the project. I describe how plans to accomplish data collection were formulated and implemented, and how experiences in the field influenced the conduct of my research. 2.2. Planning

The purposes of the research were to:

As a Territorial Army soldier I was taught to use a planning framework called an appreciation. It is an adaptive framework, not dissimilar to theory of change, that can be applied to both simple and complex projects. It begins by clarifying the general aims and specific objectives of the project as well as the situation in which it must operate before establishing the available courses of action. These courses are then evaluated by considering all the factors relating to their implementation. Having selected the most appropriate course a detailed plan is then set out with phases, timings, costings and all operational requirements (Harris 1995:164). I have not seen it being used for planning academic research before but I have found it highly effective in planning the research which underpins this book.

• Analyse the state of relations between the contemporary Pagan community and the archaeological/heritage professions • Examine and assess the arguments surrounding contestation of sites and human remains between these two groups • Establish reasons for contestation • Present solutions to the problem of improving relations between Pagans and archaeological/heritage professionals 2.3.2. Situation In planning a military operation (at least at a tactical level) this section of the appreciation framework would be used to assess the ground, friendly and unfriendly forces, civilian presence, resources, time available etc. In an academic project it is necessary not merely to examine the physical operational environment but also the cognitive and ideological environment.

2.3. Choosing a Methodology A distinction needs to be drawn between methodology (a general or strategic approach and the philosophical basis of method) and method itself (the research procedure or tactical approaches) for carrying out the work (Gobo 2008:22, Fife 2005:1-2). In assessing methodologies and methods as well as planning fieldwork, I used the appreciation framework explained in the previous paragraph. In the subsequent sections I shall explain how and why I chose my methodology.

The physical area covered by this project was spread across England and Wales. The groups and individuals concerned were also widely dispersed. Many were internet users but not all. Many Pagans gathered (and continue to gather) together at seasonal festivals at sacred sites and Pagan groups often hold conferences and camps together. People subscribing to particular views and beliefs may attend events organised by people with different ideas or choose to stay within their own groups. Archaeologists and heritage staff involved in issues of contestation were and are likewise geographically scattered. The sites involved ranged from Thornborough in Yorkshire to Stonehenge in southern England and Nevern in Wales. Although Blain & Wallis (2007:152-156) have examined sites in Scotland I

2.3.1. Aims and Objectives I considered attempting to assess the extent of support for contesting heritage and archaeology issues within the contemporary Pagan community but quickly realised that finding a probability sample (i.e. a sample where any member of the target population has an equal chance of being selected to participate) was excessively complicated 13

Contested Heritage decided not to, partly due to costs and partly on the advice of a Glaswegian Pagan interviewee who explained that Scottish Pagans were far more concerned with exclusion from interfaith dialogues than issues surrounding heritage and human remains.

• A combined methodology A methodology using both of the above approaches (Gobo 2008:27-8)

The cognitive and ideological landscape relevant to this research is complex and multi-faceted. I would describe the main areas as: Pagan concepts of their place in society; archaeologists’ and heritage professionals’ concerns about disruption of their work and archaeological, Pagan and academic epistemologies.

Methodologies must be judged on applicability or fitness for purpose. Each technique offers strengths and weaknesses in different circumstances. It is therefore necessary to assess these before deciding which methodology to employ.

2.3.4. Factors Affecting Choice of Methodology

An ethnographic methodology provides direct, interactive access to current players and events in the field and almost certainly gives the best chance of finding how people feel. It is however, time consuming and expensive. Ethnographic examination of contemporary Pagans, heritage professionals, or archaeologists alone yields valuable insights but, I believe, an integrated comparative study of both groups, comprising both field and published data, reveals a much better context for understanding contestation and co-operation.

In section 1.2.1, I explained that many Pagans have been subject to defamation and abuse resulting in a widespread though not universal victim mentality (p.c. Ford 2010). Some Pagans were therefore likely to be suspicious of anyone who appears to be part of what they may perceive as the ‘establishment’. I considered important that Pagan research participants should be confident that they would receive a fair hearing and not be subjected to ridicule. I considered Archaeologists and heritage professionals were unlikely to have such concerns but it needed to be borne in mind that they, and the archaeological and heritage organisations they work for, invest a great deal of money, time and effort into excavations, displays and sites and were therefore not likely to welcome any activity that increases the likelihood of expensive, time consuming and possibly destructive contestation of their professional activities. The consequences of these issues and the procedures for dealing with them may be perused in the ethical section (2.4). However, the epistemology underlying the beliefs of most contemporary Pagans is different from that which subtends archaeology and heritage management. Pagans are often willing to build worldviews and ideologies at least partially on revelation or gnosis (Cowan 2005:39; Filan & Kaldera 2013:9, 37-55, 78-93; Van Gulik 2009:12, 14) whilst archaeologists and heritage professionals tend towards a scientific epistemology relying on reproducible experimental results to verify facts (Hitchens 2007:10-11).

One factor to be considered is my own training and aptitudes. With a BA in Archaeology and Anthropology I had been trained in ethnographic methodology but not in quantitative techniques. I was confident about talking to people and interviewing. I was also well placed as an insider in both the archaeological and contemporary Pagan communities to do qualitative ethnographic fieldwork. This insider status also gave me a good working knowledge of source materials both printed and on-line for literary research. The views of archaeologists and heritage professionals have tended to be well represented in printed sources. The views of Pagans who are open and confident (‘out’) have also been available in print albeit within a less public readership. The more counter-cultural elements had a great deal of information available on-line and turned out, on the whole, to be far less of a closed community than I had expected at the outset. Their campaign material may be available but more detailed insights into the thinking behind the campaigns requires more discursive, face to face research tactics.

2.3.3. Methodological Courses I decided the methodological courses available to me, taking into consideration my training were:

A purely literary research strategy gives voice only to those who can get their thoughts published or who are easily locatable on-line. It therefore risks compromising what would ideally be a varied and broad based sample of informants. Such resources are less likely to express unpopular or politically incorrect views as many people are more careful about what they publish than what they may say in passing. This approach is necessary to establish background information in general and community histories in particular. To attempt this research entirely by means of fieldwork without reference to current publications and web-based discourses and publications risks missing developments outside the immediate area of investigation.

• An ethnographic methodology: Anthropologists, and increasingly other social researchers, seek to provide qualitative (descriptive rather than numerical or statistical) data. In order to do this, researchers undertake ethnographic fieldwork, involving techniques such as participant observation and interviews to gather information. Data are recorded as field notes and interview transcripts which may then be analysed to provide an ethnography (Gobo 2008:24). • A literary research methodology: This is normally an academy based, literature or online study, relying on published material to gather information. Analytical tools such as discourse analysis can then be applied to interpret the data (Gobo 2008:25). 14

Research Design and Implementation A combined methodology carefully adapted to the research questions, aims and objectives should be able to cover most eventualities. Such a methodology can be weighted in favour of a particular style to provide the required data. For example a purely ethnographic methodology with no literary background would be unfocused and lacking in historical awareness (Gobo 2008:33-4, Fife 2005:17).

practice (nd) for such research. It requires the researcher to maintain standards of fairness and respect and to be careful when researching groups whose values in these areas diverge from the mainstream in the society in which they live. Ethical guidance for the ethnographic techniques employed in my field research was drawn from the Association of Social Anthropologists’ Ethical Guidelines for Good Research Practice (ASA 2011).

2.3.5. The Methodological Plan

2.4.2. Ethical Concerns with the Research

After examining the above courses and factors, I decided that the methodology most appropriate for this research was a combined approach weighted in favour of an ethnographic approach and using actual instances of contestation as case studies. It incorporates ethnographic fieldwork with contemporary Pagans, archaeologists and heritage professionals. Such an approach is, I believe, the strongest option for ascertaining how the groups being studied see one another and observing how they interact. The ethnographic element also needed to be multisited due to the mobile and geographically dispersed nature of the people and places under examination (see Marcus 1995:102). This methodology also gives up-todate information to examine how the situation evolved following Blain & Wallis’s (2007) Sacred Sites Contested Rights/Rites. Ongoing literary research continued to be essential in order to focus fieldwork and keep abreast of new developments.

The three areas of particular ethical concern in the research underlying this Book are treatment of human remains, interacting with research contributors or subjects and conducting participant observation with groups who may be involved in illegal activities. As part of my application to undertake a research degree I was required to submit an ethical risk assessment in 2008. I suggested that where I was dealing with human remains I would be working with established archaeological and museum professionals and that I should make myself aware of and follow the laws, treaties, guidelines and policies but also be guided by the professionals whose work I was studying. The consequences of failure to consider the welfare of one’s research participants, contributors or subjects can be serious. The journalist Patrick Tierney (2001) famously accused the anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon and the geneticist James Neel of carelessness and unethical behaviour connected to their studies of the Yanomami in South America (see Chagnon 1983). They were alleged to have spread disease and used the Yanomami as medical test subjects for new vaccines (Tierney 2001:17; Hurtado & Salzano 2004a:7). Chagnon was also accused of falsely presenting them as violent people (Tierney 2001:8) and exploiting them for his own profit (Gross 2004:65). Hurtado & Salzano (2004a:3-11) and Gross (2004:64-68) refute most of Tierney’s claims but the scandal resulting from Tierney’s exposé has contributed to anthropologists around the world composing and enforcing robust Codes of Professional Ethics such as those issued by the ASA (2011) in the UK (Hurtado & Salzano 2004b:224-225).

2.4. Ethical Standards and Considerations In section 1.2.3 I briefly mentioned professional ethics. A useful definition is Scarre & Scarre’s (2006:1) assertion that ethics are the ideas which tell us ‘what sort of people we should be, what kind of acts we should perform or avoid, and how we should treat our fellow human beings’. Since this research was conducted with an aspiration to the highest professional standards, ethical requirements were among the top priorities in research planning. In this section I review the areas of ethical concern in this project and examine which ethical guidelines were relevant in designing the research upon which this book is based. I conclude this section by explaining how the research incorporated the standards and considerations required in these guidelines and Codes of Practice.

The study of British contemporary Pagans has not been without criticism. Pearson (2001:53-55) and Hutton (2006:260-263) have criticised the conduct of Tanya Luhrmann’s (1991) study of witches and occultists in London. Pearson (2001:53) criticises the limited scope of the study in that it included only one Wiccan coven and a few other practitioners in the London area in a book which purports to cover Britain. Both writers are critical of the fact that Luhrman sought and underwent initiation (full membership of Wicca) subsequently claiming ‘I am no witch, no wizard, though I have been initiated as though I were’ (Luhrmann 1991:18). Pearson (2001:54) and Hutton (2006:263) point this fact out implying Luhrmann had accepted initiation insincerely, under false pretences and hence dishonestly. The fact that she took no further interest

2.4.1. Ethical Sources Since this book is drawn from a social archaeology PhD thesis, perhaps the most obvious ethical framework to examine is the Code of Conduct provided by the Institute for Archaeologists (IfA 2010). One part of the field research involved participation in excavation of human remains and there are relevant sections to this issue in these Codes of Practice (as detailed in section 6.3.1). The direct interaction with human remains was a minor part of the research; far more of my field research involved the examination of religious groups and their beliefs. The Association of University Departments of Theology and Religious Studies provides a framework of professional 15

Contested Heritage in practising witchcraft and magic after completing her fieldwork resulted in some of her contributors feeling used. Her characterisation of magic and its practitioners as irrational and child-like has made them feel discarded and derided (Hutton 2006:261, Pearson 2001:55). Pearson (2001:53-54) accuses Luhrmann of failing to question her assumptions of the fallacy of magic and of misrepresenting herself. Hutton (2006:261), however, records members of the Pagan community as stating that Luhrmann had warned them of her role and that some were happy with her work. He also doubts that her conduct could be described as unethical but asserts that it seriously hampered subsequent research by eroding trust (Hutton 2006:262).

Even at public events I always introduced myself as a researcher to all those I spoke to. 2.5. Reflexivity When an anthropologist, or indeed any researcher in the humanities speaks or writes of reflexivity, she or he refers to the practice of making clear the researcher’s ideological, training and theoretical background as well as their beliefs, experience and agendas to help the reader understand and account for the viewpoints she or he expresses. Social research, if it is to have value, needs to be as non-partisan as possible (Davies 2002:4). If it fails in this it becomes polemical and risks dismissal as propaganda. Absolute objectivity, i.e. focusing purely on facts without being influenced by feelings or opinions, however, is generally agreed to be unattainable (Davies 2002:4). It is inevitable that a person’s research data will be, to some extent, shaped by their perceptions and expectations (Davies 2002:87). Educational and social background, training and any strongly held theoretical views shape how one interprets what one sees (Davies 2002:87). Additionally (Davies 2002:88-90) argues that a researcher’s identity will affect what they see. She cites the classic example of Mead and Freeman investigating sexual activity among young people in Western Samoa who received and presented starkly different impressions of that society. Mead, as a young woman spoke to different people under different cultural situations to Freeman as an older man. What they expected to see and the importance they ascribed to what they were told, exacerbated by the preconceived aims of their research, ensured they produced dramatically different impressions of life in Samoa (Davies 2002 87-89).

In my ethical risk assessment, I had expressed an interest in conducting participant observation with groups who might commit minor offences against the law, particularly trespassing on private property. I therefore sought guidance from the ethical oversight personnel at the then University of Wales Lampeter. They advised that I could not be permitted to carry out any illegal activity in the course of my research and required written confirmation that no such activity would be participated in. Having supplied written assurances that I would not break the law I was granted ethical approval for my research. 2.4.3. Ethical Research Implementation The ASA guidelines (2011:1) state that the most important ethical consideration in such research is to the subjects of the research - the people and communities on whom the research focuses. Research subjects, contributors and participants must never be exploited by researchers (ASA 2011:6). Perhaps the most important insurance that the subject individuals and groups are protected is to obtain informed consent, i.e. where the informant fully understands to what he or she is consenting (ASA 2011:13). I was therefore always careful to explain the focus of my research and the type of data I was looking for at the outset. I then requested consent for the interview and asked again at the end of each interview if the interviewee was happy for me to use what he or she had told me. Since the guidelines stated that consent may be verbal or written (ASA 2011:2) I usually recorded the consent on my cassette recorder. In order to protect interviewees who feared repercussions for anything they had said (ASA 2011:4-5) I also asked if they were happy to be named in the Book and subsequent published work or whether they would rather be cited anonymously. I made it clear that any elements of the interview they wanted to be deleted or kept off the record would be treated as requested. To ensure anonymity and confidentiality were protected; field notes were kept under lock and key (ASA 2011:5). I also ensured that interviewees were happy to be contacted subsequently in order to clarify points or to review what had been written about them in keeping with polyvocal ethnographic techniques (Davies 2002:17, Gobo 2008:296). When attending non-public events for participant observation fieldwork I attempted to make sure that other attendees were aware of my research agenda.

If, as ethnographic writers, we accept that we cannot achieve absolute objectivity; then the best we can offer is a candid explanation of the influences and agendas which are likely to compromise our objectivity. Since the 1980s therefore it has become standard practice for researchers to make explicit their background, approaches, theoretical standpoint and preconceptions so that the reader may attempt to discern where the inevitable subjective influences creep in (Davies 2002:5). In terms of personal identity I consider myself an academic archaeologist/ anthropologist and a contemporary Pagan. Within the academic community I would be inclined to place myself as a theoretical archaeologist and anthropologist albeit with a preference for emphasising empirical data over theoretical interpretations. I am pluralistic or eclectic in employing social theories such as Marxism, structuralism and functionalism. I think all provide explanations and insights but none provides a complete picture. Therefore I think it is misleading to exclude other viewpoints. I believe each set of social interactions is significant in several different ways even to one person; therefore multiple perspectives need to be employed. I’m inclined to consider functionalist ideas, 16

Research Design and Implementation e.g. that all cultural phenomena are produced and shaped by a practical necessity or useful function, flawed since sometimes people do things for no good reason or simply because it instinctively feels right at the time. However, looking at the broad consequences of people’s actions can be revealing and informative. I prefer to use theories as cognitive tools to be applied or put aside according to utility as Nick Hanks (p.c. 2009) described himself doing.

certainly compromise my neutrality and therefore any political activity within the Pagan community must be set-aside until after the research has been completed. I expected significant unwillingness to respect Pagan perspectives on the part of heritage professionals and archaeologists but found none willing to express it to any significant degree. In fact several archaeological/heritage interviewees displayed a sound understanding of the character of contemporary Paganism. To some degree it may be expected that people working in this sector may guard what they say for fear of disciplinary action but the way answers were phrased and the associated body language leads me to suggest that while some might not take the Pagan view particularly seriously none appeared to be actively prejudiced against Pagans.

Within the Pagan community I identify myself as a Brythonic Polytheist. This means that I attempt to be as true as practicable to what is known of the religious traditions of the Brythonic peoples of Pre-Roman Britain within a 21st century political, economic and ethical framework. As such I associate most closely with Druids and ‘Celtic’ reconstructionists (see section 1.2.1 for definition), although I have contacts in most branches of Paganism. Through the course of my research I have noticed myself becoming more agnostic in my beliefs. My insider status provides me with a good working knowledge of the language and cultural norms of contemporary Paganism. It provides contacts with individuals and organisations and reassures those wary of talking to outsiders.

I would therefore counsel the reader that I found to a large extent what I expected to find. That is that there have been errors in communication between heritage/archaeology professionals and the Pagan community and that misunderstandings and differences of opinion were being exacerbated by intolerance from the most opinionated individuals involved. 2.6. Research Method Selection

In this book I strive to be as objective as possible. However, certain beliefs and attitudes may influence my work. Above all, I believe that academics should serve society as a whole. I especially believe that all academics have a duty to society as a whole to make our work as intelligible as possible, especially since 35% of the costs of the British university sector are paid by the tax payer (BBC News 2011a). I also hold the view that Britain’s archaeological heritage is, to some extent at least, the property of all. At least it is something all citizens have a stake in. Finally some of my attitudes and expectations may have been affected by nine years’ service as a Territorial Army soldier.

Having chosen a methodology and examined the ethical requirements associated with it I shall now explain how the data collection, analysis and presentation methods were planned. The fundamental aims and situation for the project have already been detailed in sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2. 2.6.1. Research Method Courses Available research tactics or techniques in ethnographic methodology included participant observation, structured and semi-structured interviews and on-line interviews (Gobo 2008:148-200, Hodkinson 2002 4-6, Fife 2005:17106). Participant observation, pioneered by Bronislaw Malinowski during World War 1, involves total immersion of the researcher in the culture of the people he/she is studying (Fife 2005:71-2, Gobo 2008:8). The researcher must eat sleep, work, play, speak, and perform ritual like his informants and generally learn to live in the same way as the people he/she is studying. By doing so, especially over extended length of time, a far fuller understanding of social and cultural behaviour and thought may be achieved and opportunities for deception or misunderstandings may be reduced (Gobo 2008:8, Davies 2002:67). Whilst participant observation is particularly suited to gaining a broad overview of social and cultural life, sometimes answers to more specific questions are required. In such cases, interviews are a far more appropriate tool. Interviews may be classified in one of three ways: scripted/ formal/structured interviews; semi-structured interviews or unstructured/free or informal interviews (Agar 1996:140 Fife 2005:93). The formal interview is usually tailored to provide multiple choice type answers which lend themselves to generation of numerical or statistical

Perhaps the most difficult elements of this self-analysis to expose are my personal agendas. My initial thought was that I was writing without any agendas and that I was, therefore, writing from an objective standpoint. Thinking more deeply I realised that one of the Pagan writers I had perused (Brown 2012:27) was correct in suggesting that people are not always fully conscious of the agendas they pursue. I addressed the question by asking myself what I wished to achieve with my research and thus a set of agendas began to emerge. At the outset I was influenced by Pryor’s (Time Team 1999) assertion that both Pagans and archaeologists cared about the material remains of the past and wanted to preserve them. I supposed that there were misunderstandings and failures in communication which might be improved upon in the future. As I collected more data and gained a better understanding of the attitudes of the groups concerned I began to realise that Pryor had perhaps been slightly optimistic in his appraisal and that there were distinctly anti-intellectual and somewhat intolerant elements in the Pagan community. My emotional instinct is to oppose such ideas but to do so would almost 17

Contested Heritage (quantitative) data. Fife (2005:93) critiques such a technique as falsely scientific and positivistic. Ethnographic interviewing generally takes one of the other two forms. Semi-structured interviews usually involve a similar ‘sitting down together’ approach to structured interviews; however, the questions are significantly different. They are usually open-ended, encouraging explanatory answers rather than simple confirmations or denials. The semistructured approach permits the interviewer the flexibility to invite the respondent to unpack his or her answers thus yielding deeper levels of information (Fife 2005:945). Unstructured interviews are basically in the form of conversations. They are generally an integral part of participant observation based ethnographic methodology. Some questions may be planned in advance but the general approach is adaptive rather than fixed (Fife 2005:101-6). These ethnographic techniques can be focused on a single location or on a multi-sited basis. Literary techniques involve general data gathering and discourse analysis of internet message boards, periodicals and journals, books and articles (Hodkinson 2002:4-6, Gobo 2008:25, 33). Quantitative techniques available include polls and surveys, which can be conducted in person in the field, given out as questionnaires to be returned immediately when completed or later on by post. Such polls can also be carried out on-line and some message boards even provide an application for conducting polls (Hodkinson 2002:6, Gobo 2008:23).

aim is to examine what the situation is rather than how it can be manipulated. With this in mind, I took care whilst interviewing not to provoke people who were not already involved in activism to become so. I also consider neutral stance to be important for reasons I shall make clear over the subsequent pages. Decades of real and perceived repression and discrimination have, I believe, left the contemporary Pagan community (or at least elements of it) with a victim mentality (p.c. Ford 2010). This in turn gives rise to a siege mentality. Therefore a delicate and sensitive approach will be crucial if full and frank information is to be elicited. In my experience, dishonesty tends to be found out. Maintaining trust thereafter is almost impossible. Thus, in order to ensure forthright answers, honesty has to be the best policy. However, going into an interview or participant observation situation expressing a strong political view opposed to that of your informants is probably not going convince them that you will give them a fair hearing and, more importantly, represent their views to others fairly. Hutton’s (2006:260-263), previously mentioned (section 2.4.2), critique of Luhrmann supports this view. Gobo (2008:24-26) suggests that challenging or at least querying informants’ responses can be useful since it often helps to bring out information which otherwise may not become clear. It may be debatable to what extent a researcher should argue with informants when interviewing so drawing a balance between maintaining trust and not compromising data on the one hand and eliciting information on the other has been essential.

2.6.2. Research Method Factors Conditions in the field are an important consideration in selecting research tactics. In this instance the groups under study are, in some cases at least, in conflict. In other cases there is distrust and suspicion. I have known many Pagans who feel at risk of prejudice and discrimination, even of severe harassment and bullying. Several are sufficiently worried that they are highly selective about who they talk to regarding their spirituality. Some even appear to be actively hostile to outsiders.

Innovative ideas in ethnographic praxis include a highly interactive system known as polyvocality or polyphony. This involves ensuring that all people in a community, including those perceived as subordinated or deviant are researched but more importantly it requires a researcher to invite comment from informants on interpretation and to include this in the end product (Davies 2002:17, Gobo 2008:296).

Doing participant observation involves at least a degree of active participation; how far can this be taken without the researcher influencing his or her results? I concluded that instigation of events was inappropriate and potentially unethical. So Should researchers restrict themselves to observing and recording and deny themselves agency?

The groups involved in this study were geographically disparate and the issues were still very much ‘in play’. A multi-sited approach was therefore essential for a wideranging overview. Others (e.g. Aimee Blease-Bourne, who was researching from Sheffield Hallam University) have been conducting similar research on a single site, single issue basis and as such may be able to explain interactions on those sites better than I can. However, I believe that both contemporary Pagans and archaeologists and heritage professionals are more interested in an overview of the issues than a single site-specific example. Since these people comprise the target audience for eventual dissemination of this project, I deemed a multi-sited approach to be the best option.

One of the aims of this book is to provide information to allow the communities involved to better understand and relate to one another thus improving relations but this is not part of the research strategy, rather a hoped for result of its dissemination. A person’s behaviour is likely to be different when they are aware they are being watched compared to when they are not. So the very act of conducting this research will inevitably bring about change (Davies 2002:3). An absolute lack of influence on people’s ideas and behaviour is perceived to be impossible but the greater the impact on people and events the less perceived value this research is likely to have since its

The aforementioned geographical dispersion of the communities under examination necessitated long distance communication, of which the cheapest was via email and social media. Even at the time the research 18

Research Design and Implementation was undertaken (2008-2013) there were so many online boards, groups, pages etc. that it was impossible to monitor, or even locate, them all. The Pagan community also has published several periodical magazines including Pagan Dawn, the house journal of the Pagan Federation, White Dragon and Druidlore to name but three. Archaeologists also have many journals: academic peer review journals such as Antiquity and magazines aimed at a public audience such as British Archaeology and Current Archaeology. There are also journals for heritage professionals such as the Museums Journal published by the Museums Association.

these communities were involved or even interested in the contested issues. Therefore choices had to be made regarding who would be approached for interview and with whom participant observation fieldwork was undertaken to provide relevant data. Within the Pagan community, those active in campaigns were my primary targets. I contacted people contesting heritage and those who worked as archaeologists and heritage professionals as well as Pagans campaigning in support of archaeology. In the archaeological and heritage professions, people involved in managing contested sites, curating contested artefacts and remains and some who had written about either were approached for interviews. I also solicited interviews with people on the basis of their insights into the arguments surrounding contestation for reasons of spirituality, profession, training or study.

Financial factors also needed to be considered. This research failed to attract funding from either statutory or charitable bodies, necessitating a low-budget approach. Costing estimates for good geographical coverage of the UK and some peripheral research in the Republic of Ireland come to about £15,000 which, along with University fees and living expenses was significantly more than circumstances allowed. So, due to this shortfall in funds it was necessary to minimise travel and be selective about expenses.

A fully structured interview was too constrictive and reduced the opportunity to further investigate emerging topics but a completely unstructured approach risked important questions not being asked and hence data not being gathered so I opted for a semi-structured interviewing technique (Fife 2005:93-106; Gobo 2008:190-198). Questions were carefully composed to avoid leading interviewees and to ensure that the maximum relevant information was solicited from each interviewee.

2.6.3. Research plan The combined methodology research plan I chose consisted of a series of relatively short-term fieldwork sessions interspersed with online and literature research. Participant observation and fieldwork was targeted at Pagan events such as camps and conferences as well as seasonal festivals. I also conducted participant observation on an archaeological dig involving human remains. The format employed was to spend time participating and talking with people in a free unstructured way followed by semi-structured interviews. Informed consent was sought before and after all interviews, and anonymity offered. In keeping with principles of polyvocality, informants were shown early draft results and their responses were included in subsequent drafts. On the literary side of the research, written sources from the Press, academic and non-academic publications and online news, websites, social networks and blogs were read and used to understand and analyse contestation of sites and human remains.

2.6.5. Execution – Data Analysis and Interpretation My raw data came in two forms: field notes and transcripts from interviews and participant observation (Gobo 2008:24), and annotated photocopies and book notes from literary research. Such empirical data need to be collated, assessed and analysed. After some weeks spent transcribing recorded conversations and interviews I was forced to conclude that this was untenable within the time available. I made some précis notes recording important points but found that listening to the cassettes directly was the best option. Even during the data collection phases I was constantly asking myself ‘so what’ or ‘what are the implications of what I am seeing, hearing or reading’. I also had to remember that oral and written accounts almost always reflect the personal perspective of the speaker or writer. Bearing in mind the political nature of the research subject(s) I had to consider the possibility that some informants might be concealing information, misleading or lying. Interpretation of data was done largely through the application of anthropological and sociological theory relating to religion, heritage and conflict. Using these I have interpreted underlying motivations and suggested approaches to improving relations between the Pagan community and archaeological/heritage professionals. I chose to use case studies taken from my field research to present my findings in order to clearly present the evidence behind them. Case studies were chosen where they were particularly important in the narrative of contestation (e.g. Stonehenge access, Charlie at the Alexander Keiller Museum) or because they were typical of approaches taken (e.g. Thornborough, Dublin Museum and Pant-y- Butler).

2.6.4. Execution – Data Collection I sought out case studies to illustrate the issues of site access, protection of sites from development, protection of sites from archaeological excavation, inclusion of narratives relating to sites and ownership of sites with at least two examples of each. In the case of human remains I was able to investigate all the major cases of Pagan contestation in England and Wales current at the time of planning the research. To interview every contemporary Pagan, archaeologist and heritage professional in the UK would have been impossible simply on the basis of numbers. Not all within 19

Contested Heritage 2.6.6. Execution – Dissemination of Results

voice recorder had stopped functioning and I had mislaid my pocket notebook. I therefore used an A4 pad with a clipboard to record interviews. I was dressed (without much forethought) in brown combat style trousers with fairly new walking boots, a blue and black waterproof jacket and broad brimmed hat (see fig. 2 below) which I suggest was within the range of archaeological modes of dress (see section 1.2.3).

I was determined to make the results of my research available to Pagans, archaeologists, heritage professionals and all other interested parties by the following means: • PhD submission: The Thesis has been archived at the University of Wales Trinity Saint David and at the National Library of Wales. • Lectures at conferences, and for academic and Pagan groups: This has included papers at Conferences such as the Theoretical Archaeology Group (TAG), the Pagan Federation Wales and West and The Druid Network (TDN). • This book represents the ultimate fulfilment of the publication of the research.

However, the relative smartness of my appearance in comparison to most pilgrims coupled with the clipboard gave me a rather ‘official’ appearance. The elastics I used to keep my trousers dry, an army practice, may also have suggested ‘undercover policeman’ (p.c. Daughton 2012). Being perceived as someone official actually worked mostly in my favour since a group of three attendees gave me a detailed critique of everything they felt English Heritage was doing wrong. Shortly afterwards however, a woman aged perhaps in her twenties who had been giving me hostile glances for a while came up to me as I was introducing myself to one of the Druids and told me that I was not welcome there and that I should ‘Fuck off’. The Druid I was talking to was visibly upset that a member of his community should behave so inhospitably to an outsider. He invited me into his camper van, made me a (greatly appreciated) cup of tea and gave me a detailed interview. The whole experience however, got me thinking about how I presented myself to potential research participants. Subsequently in 2010, I attended a ceremony at the Rollright stones dressed in Druid robes (see fig. 3) to see if the way I dressed affected how people (especially Pagan people) interacted with me. I felt that it was harder to be taken seriously as a researcher, especially by nonPagans but also by some Pagans, thus clad. People within

2.7. Lessons from the Field In this section I shall explain how problems experienced in the field affected the research plan and how it had to be amended to address them. 2.7.1. Hostility and Hospitality at Stonehenge The first major piece of fieldwork undertaken after enrolling to start the PhD took place at Stonehenge on the Winter Solstice of 2008. My plan was to conduct participant observation of the Solstice ceremony and experience the open access arrangements English Heritage have offered for this event since 2000 (Rayner 2012:94; Worthington 2005a:226-235), to interview Peter Carson, English Heritage’s head of Stonehenge, before interviewing others present for the event. On arrival I found that my

Figs. 2 & 3. The author dressed as at Stonehenge Winter Solstice 2008 (Left) and at the Rollright Stones 2010 (Right) (Left Paul Rousselle, Right Author’s photograph)

20

Research Design and Implementation the Pagan community seemed a little more comfortable but I found the best way to dress to be in relatively conventional casual outdoor wear with one or two pieces of Pagan jewellery.

there must have been some misunderstanding and that he felt it would be unethical for him to influence my work in such a way. I was therefore able to proceed successfully with my field interview with Emma Orbach (conducted 09 Nov 2010) and was therefore able to conclude my Nevern field research to my satisfaction.

2.7.2. Complaint at Nevern

2.7.3. Museum Refusal

Around the end of June 2010 I was alerted by a friend of an archaeological dig which had been contested by Pagans. I shall explain the contestation of Nevern in detail in section 4.3.2. This section explains the problems in undertaking the field research regarding the site. Having found out who the parties involved were, on the 4th July I drove to Nevern to speak to the archaeologists first. This choice was made partially because I knew the way to Nevern better than to Brithdir Mawr but also because I felt it would give me an opportunity to assess the situation and ensure that my investigations did not exacerbate the situation. I spoke to the dig director, Chris Caple and also to an old friend who was working as public liaison officer for the dig. I heard that the protests appeared to have subsided so I decided to delay contacting the protestors until that season’s excavation had been completed lest I reignite the contestation. I told Dr Caple and he thanked me for my consideration. Subsequently I received warnings from my friend to be careful in how I proceeded and I assured her that I would be. I was still surprised when just before I was about to contact the protestors I was summoned to the office of the acting head of the university’s department of archaeology and anthropology and told that complaints had been received regarding my conduct at Nevern. I was told to speak to my supervisory team before contacting any interested parties. Unfortunately I had to wait a month before my supervisor was available due to research commitments. When I did speak to her, she contacted my public liaison friend and then suggested I contact her. I was warned off conducting the research with the suggestion my career would be harmed if I pursued this case study and offered to put me in touch with a colleague at Dyfed Archaeology Trust to find an alternative case study. I consulted again with my supervisors and made arrangements to see the colleague who confirmed what I suspected, that there were no other contested digs in the area. Once term started the first speaker invited in to address the archaeological society was Phil Bennett who was Pembrokeshire Coast National Park’s culture and heritage manager. As such he was a significant stakeholder in the Nevern excavation and I was keen to talk to him about the site. I was nervous about how to broach the subject despite having known him for over a decade and so was relieved when an undergraduate asked what the situation at Nevern was. He replied effusively and enthusiastically and then spoke to me personally after the talk reassuring me that he had no problem with me interviewing anyone associated with the protest. Having established that the opposition to my enquiries did not originate from him I wrote a carefully worded letter to Chris Caple at Durham in which I offered to give him a list of topics I intended to cover and to avoid topics he considered likely to cause problems with his research. I received back a friendly email explaining that

In June 2010 I visited a Museum in the south of England with an extensive prehistoric collection and to find out if I could speak to anyone about contestation of human remains. I was introduced to the museum director and was told that, once I had provided evidence that I was who I claimed to be, he would put me in touch with the curator. I supplied my supervisor’s contact details and wrote an email to the director. However, his response stated the curator did not wish to speak to me. Thinking of some of the abusive behaviour at the Stonehenge Aubrey hole excavation, I asked if the curator was unwilling to discuss such contestation because of similar behaviour. The director explained someone claiming to represent HAD had approached the curator and had been abusive towards her and that I was correct in assuming that this was why she was unwilling to speak to me. 2.8. Trust Since ASA ethical guidelines (2011) emphasise the importance of continuing informed consent, it follows that highly politicised contestation is a difficult and delicate area in which to conduct research. There is a constant risk that if an individual or group feels that the researcher is unsympathetic to their cause then they can refuse consent and the material they have provided may no longer be used. I have therefore felt obliged to avoid giving any interviewee, contributor or other research subject any reason to suspect that I might be hostile to his or her point of view. 2.8.1. Challenging Ideas Initially I had approached the project with the view that the ethnographer should observe and record without changing things. I understand Blain and Wallis’s (2007:11-17) discourse analysis methods to be just such a passive data collection and analysis strategy. However, one of the aims of the research was ‘To present solutions to the problem of improving relations between Pagans and archaeological/ heritage professionals’ (Section 2.4.1). In order to do this, I deemed it essential to test reaction to counter-arguments opposing reburial. Thus from the middle of 2010 (the beginning of the third year of my studies) I began to carefully challenge some of the assumptions of selected research subjects using a dialectic approach. This was done in interviews but also by means of a paper delivered at the Druid Network (TDN) conference on the 20th November 2010. I was careful to distance myself from assertions not based on verifiable fact by expressing them specifically as other people’s words rather than my own in order to avoid 21

Contested Heritage losing trust. This tactic appears to have been successful in eliciting responses to challenges without alienating participants.

was able to gather. For both logistic and financial reasons I was unable to undertake quantitative studies examining what proportion of the Pagan community held particular views. However, I was able to undertake detailed analysis of why views were held and of the arguments presented in contesting sites and human remains. The lessons learned from the conduct of the fieldwork include the need for care in how the researcher presents him/herself to his/her contributors, care in explanation and timing of interviews with participants in situations of conflict and caution in how one positions oneself in such situations.

2.9. Insiders, Outsiders and ‘Going Native’ For much of its history the cardinal sin in anthropology has been to ‘go native’ i.e. identifying cognitively or too closely with the subjects of one’s research (Pearson 2001:56 Wallis 2000:254-255). Like Wallis (2000:154255), I have an ideological issue with the whole concept of ‘going native’. I take the view that a significant part of the job of an ethnographer or an anthropologist is to provide an insight into a cultural group, as far as possible, from that cultural group’s own point of view. As such I feel that an ethnographer or anthropologist who identifies cognitively with the subject group may be better placed to do so. Ideally I would suggest that the best ethnographies would include perspectives both from within and without. Wallis (2000:154, 2003:xiii) asserts that the concept of ‘going native’ and its perception as one of the cardinal sins any anthropologist or ethnographer can commit is an unhelpful and distasteful legacy of colonial racism. Cox (2007:161163) appears to disagree and has criticised Harvey’s insider status describing him as an animist theologian rather than a religious studies scholar. However, I believe that where the group being researched feels threatened or oppressed as some Pagans do (see section 1.2.1) potential research contributors are more likely to give honest and complete data to a researcher who identifies as an insider rather than an outsider. Hodkinson (2002:4-6) and Pearson (2001) both explain that, as an insider researcher, one needs to avoid losing oneself in the experience and maintain a critical awareness in a process Pearson (2001) calls ‘going native in reverse’ to become what Hodkinson (2002:4) describes as a ‘critical insider’. As a learning experience, conducting the field research for this Book has taught me the vital importance of maintaining trust with research participants and the consequent care that needs to be taken in questioning assumptions. Another factor in engendering trust is for the researcher to present himself (or herself) in a way that will be accepted by potential participants 2.10. Conclusions Having elected to undertake a PhD, I chose to research interactions between the contemporary Pagan community and the archaeological and heritage professions as a contemporary and socially valuable piece of research. In establishing how this research might be undertaken, I utilised a military planning framework to assess and formulate a broad methodological strategy combining both literary and ethnographic approaches. I used the same framework to formulate detailed tactical plan for data gathering, analysis, presentation and dissemination. I considered the ethical implications and submitted a statement to the ethical chair in the summer of 2008. Perhaps inevitably I have been constrained by time and resources in the data I 22

3 Sites – Access 3.1. Introduction

Age visitors to sites as well as some Solstice revellers who may not identify as either are described as pilgrims. It can be argued that the term is misapplied since not all of them attend for entirely spiritual reasons (as generally understood) but I would argue that restricting the term in such a way is founded on a limited understanding of religious expression and behaviour which fails to acknowledge forms of religious and spiritual expression alien to Abrahamic traditions.

In this and the two subsequent chapters I shall be examining how sites have been contested between Pagans, archaeologists and heritage professionals. Carman (2002:47) argues that archaeologists and heritage professionals have used the term ‘sites’ in a rather undisciplined fashion to describe the location of human activity in the past and/or a set of remains in the present. In this book I use the word to refer to areas of land of interest to archaeologists, heritage professionals and/or Pagans, usually due (in part at least) to activities having taken place there in the past. These places have been variously described as sacred sites, ancient monuments and heritage sites or attractions. The issues of contestation have comprised access to sites, protection or preservation of sites and the ownership and public interpretation of sites. Case studies demonstrate how contestations have played out and how issues have been addressed with greater or lesser success. In this chapter I argue that contestation of access to Stonehenge has gone a long way to sour relations between Pagans and the members of the archaeological and heritage professions. The chapter concludes by identifying good and bad practices in managing access to sites. Throughout the following chapters Pagan and New

3.1.1. Defining Access This chapter focuses on physical access rather than inclusion of knowledge and awareness as Carman (1996:25) does. That issue will be examined in section 5.2.3. When access to sacred/heritage sites is contested it is seldom merely whether entrance is permitted at all, but rather the issue of whether payment may be levied and camping or other activities permitted. 3.1.2. Which Sites Have Been Contested for Access? Sites contested in this way are many and varied. Wallis (2003:144) points out that sites labelled prehistoric, archaeological, heritage, ancient or described as

Fig. 4. Pagan Solstice attendees at Stonehenge, June 2010 (Author’s photograph)

23

Contested Heritage monuments by members of the archaeological and heritage professions are often ascribed spiritual or symbolic meaning by Pagans. These sites are generally robust enough and of such limited interest that they have not been deemed by heritage organisations to require much active protection or management. More recently constructed heritage attractions such as stately homes and industrial sites definitely require more maintenance to preserve them and hence almost always charge for admission and always have done.

Murray’s suggestion that Neolithic or earlier spiritualities had survived as witchcraft traditions (Crowley 1998:172; Hutton 1998:102; 2001:273). Thus it made sense to consider such sites as having significance to Wiccans. Germanic Pagans (Heathens or Asatruar) and Shamans may also see ancient sites as places of power associated with Ancestors (Gundarsson 1993:110, Wallis 2003:145 Blain & Wallis 2007:65).

3.1.3. What Were Contested Sites in the Past?

Pagans, archaeologists and heritage professionals have all maintained an interest in these ancient sites, however, their desires and intentions for those sites have differed. I shall now explain the main expectations of each group regarding access to these sites.

3.2. Differing Aims and Requirements

The full range of purposes these prehistoric sites were built for, and ways in which they were used in pre-Christian times will probably never be known with certainty. Hawkes (cited in Evans, C. 1998:398-399) described a ‘ladder of inference’ depicting the first, easily accessible rung, representing the technologies of the past. The second rung represents the economies of the past which can be understood by collating and analysing data from many sites. The third, unattainable, rung is that of the ideologies of the past. Since ideas and thoughts do not survive in the ground most archaeologists would agree that they are beyond certain knowledge. This impossibility of certainty has never stopped people speculating and chapter 5 shows that different interpretations of the past have played an important part in the contestation of ancient sites. Some Pagans have felt that information about sites could be gathered by means not recognised in mainstream academic epistemology and these interpretations are also explored in Chapter 5.

3.2.1. Pagan Expectations Above all else, Pagan campaigners have desired freedom of access to the site for ritual, celebration and contemplation especially at festival dates (Maughfling 1997:8-10, 2000a:4-6; Blain & Wallis 2007:96-100). Some Pagans have felt it is unfair that Christian pilgrims have seldom been charged entry to churches (although voluntary contributions are often solicited) and so Pagans often resent having to pay to enter the sites they consider sacred on the general principle of equality (e.g. Maughfling 1997:10; Pendragon & Stone 2003:106-108; Wallis 2003:156). They have felt entitled to be permitted free and unrestricted access for seasonal celebrations and community rituals such as rites of passage etc. and they have especially resented having to pay access fees to organisations they feel are hostile to them. (Cooper 2010:141-156; Pendragon & Stone 2003:79114; Worthington 2005a:124, 147-153; Worthington & Dearling 2005:18-22).

3.1.4. How Did They Become Significant to Contemporary Pagans? In sections 1.2.3 and 1.2.1 I have shown that both archaeology and contemporary Paganism have their roots in 17th to 19th century antiquarianism. Aubrey (Bahn 1996:44; Hutton 2009:66) and Stukeley (2005:21-134; see also: Bahn 1996:46; Haycock 2002:124-5; Hutton 2009:87) publicised the notion that stone circles had been Druid Temples. In his imaginative reconstruction of ancient beliefs and practices published in 1792, Iolo Morgannwg (1998:307) seized upon this interpretation and specified that bardic ceremonies should be performed in circles of stones (Hutton 2009:156). His first Eisteddfod (poetic competition) was performed on Primrose Hill in London and involved a ceremony conducted within a ring of small stones he had brought for the purpose (Hutton 2009:158; Gentleman’s magazine 1792 cited in Green 1997:152). Whether via the writings of Morgannwg or directly from the works of Aubrey, English Druid groups were performing ritual at sites such as Stonehenge by the early years of the 20th century. By the time Gerald Gardner was publicizing Wicca in the early 1950s, archaeologists had accumulated strong evidence that stone circles were considerably older than the Iron Age heyday of the Druids (Chippindale 1994:205; Piggott 1968:33). Gardner had been influenced by Margaret

3.2.2. Archaeologists’ Agendas What archaeologists have generally wanted for prehistoric sites is centred on the imperative to enhance, preserve and promulgate accurate and verifiable knowledge about the past. Therefore the archaeological agenda for ancient sites has included preservation and protection of such sites for future research whilst allowing access for educational visits. They are also keen that non-destructive research should be permitted and, in most cases, that research excavation should be permitted where the benefits outweigh any potential losses (IfA 2010:3; Her Majesty’s Government 1979). The desire for information that is accurate and verifiable by the most scientific means possible has sometimes brought archaeologists into conflict with proponents of spiritual or mystical views as well as concepts such as Earth Mysteries. SchadlaHall (2004:257) has been particularly scathing of such interpretations which he regards as reliant on a belief that past societies had greater wisdom and/or power than contemporary societies, a concept he dismisses as unsupported by evidence. 24

Sites – Access 3.2.3. Policies and Agendas of Heritage Organisations

for concessions (English Heritage nde), not including the hire of an audio guide. People approached via a concrete underpass beneath the A344. As one rose from this underpass, the stones became visible. Visitors were then directed onto a path that curved in towards the monument, approaching to about 15 metres at its closest point to the outer sarsen ring, before turning away to the right. Visitors then walked anticlockwise around the monument about 60 metres from the outer circle. A raised causeway carried the visitors over the avenue and past the Heel Stone and thence back to the underpass to the Visitors Centre. After perhaps purchasing a memento from the shop, visitors return to the car park where a sign encourages them to walk in the wider Stonehenge landscape to visit barrow cemeteries and cursus monuments.

Section 1.2.2 introduced the nature and role of British heritage organisations. In this chapter it is their policies and practices regarding the sites they manage and oversee which is scrutinised. As quoted in Section 1.2.2, English Heritage stated that it ‘exists to protect and promote England’s spectacular historic environment and ensure that its past is researched and understood’ (English Heritage nda). It also stated an intent to help ‘people understand, value, care for and enjoy England’s historic environment” (English Heritage ndb). The National Trust stated the additional aim of preserving the natural beauty of the properties it owns and manages (see section 1.2.2). These may be regarded as typical of charitable, not for profit or public sector Heritage organisations in the UK. Such organisations therefore have primarily sought to balance preservation with public appreciation and accurate information. They have however, needed to ensure that their running costs are met and therefore earning money from their assets is also a priority. However, organisations which have been run primarily as businesses have tended to prioritise maximizing their profits. The requirement for long-term sustainability as well as legal requirements have tended to make even private heritage businesses prioritise preservation as well, with accurate interpretation coming afterwards.

With the opening of the new visitors centre ticket prices rose to £13.90 for adults, £8.30 for children and £12.50 for concessions but this included the audio guide in the price. Being somewhat further away than the old visitors centre landrover towed land-trains and busses began to be used to transport visitors to the stone circle although those who wished to walk there were welcome to do so. The Stonehenge circle and earthwork is but one part of a landscape dotted with Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments; clusters of barrows both older and more recent than the stones may be found in the surrounding area. An avenue connects Stonehenge to the River Avon where the site of additional bluestones has recently been discovered (University of Sheffield 2009). Upstream the river passes the enormous Henge of Durrington Walls next to which is the Woodhenge site. To the north of Stonehenge two enigmatic cursus monuments are situated.

3.3. Case Study 1: Stonehenge and the Free Festival Arguably Stonehenge has been the most contested heritage site in Britain. Its high degree of significance may be argued to make it atypical but it provides an essential starting point to understanding Pagan contestation of archaeology and heritage in the UK. I also argue that issues centred on Stonehenge have had a profound influence on how some Pagan groups have characterised English Heritage and the National Trust.

Stonehenge’s chronology has been reappraised many times, recently by Darvill & Wainwright and then by Parker Pearson. Hutton (2009:44) records that there is some contestation as to which of these chronologies is more accurate. Both agree that the earliest element of the archaeology of Stonehenge so far discovered is a set of three large postholes under the old Stonehenge car park which have been radiocarbon dated to between about 8500 and 6700BC (Burl 2007:107, Darvill 2007:62). Long barrows such as those at Fussell’s Lodge and Amesbury 42 were being constructed before 4000 BC according to Burl (2007:86) or between 4000 and 3600BC according to Parker Pearson (2012:141-144). The earliest phase of Stonehenge itself consisted of the ditch and bank surrounding a circle of bluestones whose settings are now known as Aubrey holes. Within these were three or more standing stones near the centre and a complex set of post alignments all constructed between 3000 and 2920 BC (Parker Pearson 2012:309), although Darvill (2007:99, 199) dates these stones to 2500 BC. Parker Pearson (2012:310) suggests the second phase was implemented between 2620 and 2480 BC and involved the erection of, first, the trilithon horseshoe and the removal and reerection of the bluestones into the two concentric arcs now known as the Q and R holes followed by the large sarsen

3.3.1. Stonehenge on the Ground Blain and Wallis (2007:110) describe Stonehenge as ‘not a singular thing. It is polysemic, signifying a range of meanings discursively contested through image and text’. Physically however, Stonehenge is a mainly Late Neolithic monument consisting of a circular ditch and bank surrounding stone settings with an associated earthwork avenue, barrow cemetery and cursus monument. It is located between Larkhill and Amesbury in Wiltshire at National Grid Reference SU122421. Before the construction of the new visitors centre, people could reach Stonehenge on foot or bicycle from Larkhill or Amesbury, by bus or on coach trips. Visitors in cars followed brown tourist direction signs from the main road to a tarmac car park across the road from the stones. Access was via a small grey concrete Visitors Centre with a rather temporary looking green painted ticket office in a hollow by the road. Ticket prices at 21st Jan 2013 were £7.80 for an adult, £4.70 for child and £7.00 25

Contested Heritage 1940s and subsequent calibration techniques which finally settled the matter permitting the site to be securely dated to the latter part of the Neolithic (Chippindale 1994:205). Archaeologists were then able to say with some confidence that it was erected by early farming communities without the use of metals and Stuart Piggott (1968:33) was able to describe the idea that Stonehenge was erected by Iron Age Druids as fantasy. More recently the debate was reopened, largely by Francis Pryor’s (2003:xxv, 182, 286) assertion that there is more continuity than discontinuity of culture through British prehistory from the Neolithic to the Iron Age which has inspired arguments that the Neolithic builders of Stonehenge might be considered proto-Druids or even may have used a similar name to describe themselves (e.g. Maughfling 1997:8). This was backed up by Gillings & Pollard’s (2004:95) description of the deposition of an Iron Age brooch at Avebury, another henge monument, as typical of ritual activity of the period.

stones with their lintels. Also part of this phase was the erection of three standing stones and a couple of D-shaped structures at the north-east entrance. The third phase, dated to 2480 to 2280 consisted of the construction of the Stonehenge Avenue along with a scouring out of the ditch of the henge itself shortly after which a large pit was dug to the north of the largest trilithon and two of the three stones at the NE entrance removed. The final part of this phase was the construction of the two mounds on the sites of the D-shaped buildings (Parker Pearson 2012:310-311). Phase 4 took place between 2280 and 2020 BC and involved the removal of the bluestones from the Q and R Holes and, after a small amount of tinkering, their re-erection in their current positions (Parker Pearson 2012:311). However, Darvill & Wainwright (2009:16) argue that this final placement of Bluestones took place around 2300BC. The fifth and final phase was carried out between 1680 and 1520 BC and involved the excavation of pits now known as X and Y holes outside the Sarsen circle (Parker Pearson 2012:311). Since that time, stones have been removed and broken up and other stones have been graffitied by many generations of visitors. There were two occasions when stones were re-erected or restored in 1901 under the supervision of William Gowland and 1919-1920 by Col. William Hawley (Worthington 2005a:98-100).

It was William Stukeley who first noticed that the central axis of Stonehenge was aligned to the Summer Solstice sunrise on the avenue side and the Winter Solstice sunset on the opposite side (Worthington 2005a:12). In 1923 Rear-Admiral Boyle Somerville called for further research into such alignments (Burl 2005:7). From 1954 to the present archaeologists including Alexander Thom, Clive Ruggles and Gerald Hawkins proposed that there were several other alignments relating to the points on the horizon where the moon rises and sets suggesting that Stonehenge was an early calendrical device and possibly used to help calculate eclipses (Burl 2005:38-9; Souden 1997:125-7; Postins 1987). Some of these alignments, particular the lunar and stellar ones are quite rough and other archaeologists such as Burl (2005:43) are dubious about their significance.

3.3.2. Stonehenge Explanations If the true purpose of the site has been forgotten, it has at least been subject to much speculation about its origins and purpose as far back as records can show. Early chroniclers and geographers such as Henry of Huntingdon, writing in about 1130, recorded the site as one of England’s great mysteries. Mythological interpretations of the site include the story put forward by Geoffrey of Monmouth (1966:198) in 1136 that the legendary wizard Merlin brought the stones out of Ireland to commemorate Britons treacherously slain by invading Saxons (Worthington 2005a:8; Piggott 1968:145; Bahn 1996:44). In 1527 Hector Boece suggested that stone circles had been pre-Christian temples (Souden 1997:89). Stonehenge was mentioned in Camden’s 1586 Britannia (Bahn 1996:35). The celebrated architect Inigo Jones drew up plans of the site in 1620 suggesting that the central trilithon horseshoe was originally a hexagon and subsequently expressed the opinion that it had been built by the Romans (Worthington 2005a:9; Bahn 1996:44). John Aubrey contradicted local folklore which attributed the ditch and bank to the Danes (Bender 1998:136) suggesting that the stones predated the Romans attributing them to the Druids of the Iron Age (Bahn 1996:44). By the 19th century Sir Richard Colt-Hoare and William Cunnington identified elements of the Stonehenge landscape as dating from the Bronze Age (Souden 1997:24). In 1895 Arthur Evans was suggesting a date just prior to 250BC (Lambrick 1988:17-18). Some archaeologists before World War 2 argued that the apparent shaping (entasis) of the upright stones (orthostats) demonstrated a link with classical Mediterranean civilisations dating the site to the last few centuries BC: the Iron Age. It was the development of radiocarbon dating techniques during the

Darvill (2007:141-146) supports a hypothesis that the trilithons represent divine couples or twins perhaps holding a symbol of the sky/earth/underworld realm they control or represent. He suggests that the largest trilithon in the middle of the horseshoe represented the sky supported by the sun god and moon goddess while the other trilithons making up the horseshoe might represent the rulers of the earth and underworld realms for each half of the year. Engineer Terry Meaden (1999:136-144) has hypothesised that the Summer Solstice sunrise at Stonehenge cast a phallic shadow from the Heel Stone onto the altar stone which he describes as a symbolic ‘Goddess Stone’, thus providing a ‘visual functioning of the Divine Marriage concept’ (Meaden 1999:140) He suggests this symbolic marriage of the gods which would impart fertility to the earth, animals and people (Meaden 1999:147). Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina (1998:308-26), working on ethnographic parallels from Madagascar, have interpreted Stonehenge as the central focus of a landscape of the Ancestors juxtaposed with the timber circles of the living at nearby Durrington. Excavations undertaken by Parker Pearson, Pollard, Richards, Thomas, Tilley, Ruggles and others as part of the Stonehenge riverside project have 26

Sites – Access provided much supporting evidence for their hypothesis (Parker Pearson et al 2006; University of Sheffield 2009). However, Darvill & Wainwright (2009:16-18) have suggested that the original purpose of Stonehenge as a healing shrine has survived in myth (Monmouth 1966:196) and folklore (Bender 1998:101, 106).

19th century was Edmund Antrobus who offered to sell Stonehenge to the nation in 1899 for £125,000 but was turned down by the government of the day. In 1915 he put the site up for auction where it was bought by Cecil Chubb for £6,600. In 1918 Chubb donated it to the nation (Darvill 2007:273) with a provision that the public should have free access but that the Ministry of Works might charge no more than a shilling per head if required for the upkeep and maintenance of the monument (Worthington 2005a:61). As mentioned in section 3.3.1, entry charges for Stonehenge are £8.30 for children aged 5 to 15, £12.50 for concessions and £12.90 for adults as of the 21st Oct 2014 leading to accusations that EH have used Stonehenge as a resource for generating revenue contrary to the terms of its donation. In 1986 Stonehenge and Avebury were registered with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation as a World Heritage Site (UNESCO 1992). UNESCO (2010) admits that listing as a World Heritage Site does not provide any automatic protection but is likely to be a protective influence by raising awareness of such sites both within the local community and internationally.

Earth Mysteries enthusiasts, including many Pagans, have interpreted Stonehenge as connected with subtle energies running through it (e.g. Michell 1969:69-82, 203). Michell (2001:54-56) also described an alignment between Stonehenge, Salisbury Cathedral and Old Sarum (a Mediaeval castle and abbey site built on an Iron Age hillfort). He also promoted the importance of what he described as Sacred Geometry which incorporates concepts of monumental architecture mirroring the geometry of the universe or of divine or sacred features, thus investing the monuments with spiritual power (Michell 2001:119-197). Picking up ideas promulgated by antiquarians suggesting megalithic monuments were Druidic in origin, selfidentified Druids have been using such sites since at least the early 20th century (Chippindale 1994:142; Worthington 2005a:57; Stout 2008a:126-7). Inspired by the ideas of Thom, Ruggles and Hawkins, many Pagans and New Agers see Stonehenge as a temple of the sun and moon (Postins 1987:5)

Despite withdrawal of government funding in June 2010 (BBC News 2010a), English Heritage went ahead with plans for a new Visitors Centre at Airman’s Corner. On their website English Heritage (ndc), explained that the previous centre was unsatisfactory for the following reasons:

3.3.3. The Protection and Management of Stonehenge

Intrusive roads and inadequate parking (especially at busy times) Dated, inadequate visitor facilities Lack of education and interpretation space Limited appreciation of the wider archaeological landscape The current situation compromises the dignity of the monument

Stonehenge was one of the monuments scheduled under Sir John Lubbock’s Ancient Monuments Protection Act (Her Majesty’s Government 1882). This Act made it an offence to damage or deface scheduled monuments unless with the owner’s permission. Subsequent amendments ensured that not even the owners of the monuments could damage them. The owner of Stonehenge at the end of the

Fig. 5. New Stonehenge Visitors Centre (Pitts 2011a)

27

Contested Heritage Mason and Kuo (2006:192) and Stone (2008:529) have also described those facilities at Stonehenge as disgraceful.

Pagans who celebrate there. He advocates the removal of the fallen orthostat and lintel of the largest trilithon from the altar stone and the re-erection of the orthostat stub with the upper part and lintel placed outside the central space as if it had fallen outwards. He asserts that this will restore the central focus of the altar stone and provide a more usable space for ritual as well as making access through the monument easier. He also suggests that the area covered by the old Visitors Centre and the grassed over section of the A344 road, since they are unlikely to contain any archaeological features close to the surface, be used for tented cafés and bonfires at managed open access times (Rayner 2012:73-74). I consider Rayner’s (2012:8586) suggestion for what reads like urban-style traffic calming and a camouflaged roadway running alongside the stones unlikely to be cost efficient, safe or desirable to road users. However, his proposal for a footbridge over the A303 cutting along the line of the Stonehenge Avenue (Rayner 2012:86) might be considered if the proposed tunnel becomes undeliverable.

The A344 between Airman’s Corner and the A303 has now been closed to traffic and the section between the stones and the A303 returned to grass. The old Visitors Centre has also been demolished and returned to grass. They chose to build a new Visitors Centre at Airman’s Corner, Grid Reference SU100427, with landscaped parking areas. At the planning stage, this building was described as sensitive to the surrounding landscape, constructed from high quality materials and providing space for exhibition galleries, education facilities, a café and a shop. The new visitors centre is just over 2km from Stonehenge necessitating a ‘low key visitor transit to Stonehenge’ (English Heritage ndc) for visitors unwilling or unable to walk. At least two land trains towed by a Landrovers were acquired but additional coaches have been essential to cope with the numbers of visitors. English Heritage described the proposals as transforming the landscape and providing ‘opportunities to walk in an archaeologically rich landscape’ (English Heritage ndc).

3.3.4. Stonehenge as a Sacred Site

However, improvement proposals did not meet with universal approval. Many were disappointed that proposals to divert the A303 via a tunnel and grass over that road as well have continued to stall (BBC News 2010a; Stone 2008:530534; Highways England 2020). Druids and other Solstice pilgrims have also protested about the proposed closure to traffic of the droveway (marked byway 12 on the map, fig.5) which runs alongside the field containing the stones (Pitts 2011a). The reason the closure of this land has been challenged is, at least in part, due to the fact that it is where many pilgrims parked their camper vans and pitched small tents when they came to the stones. However it may also be significant that this was where Phil Russell and the Wallies of Wessex camped after being evicted from the stones after the first Stonehenge Free Festival. When I visited the site to interview pilgrims at the Winter Solstice of 2008, the full length of the drove way which then ran between the A344 and A303 was full of vehicles and tents. Contestation of this closure was voiced in terms of interference with ancient freedoms (e.g. Maughfling 1997:9) and interviews indicated that protestors feared the exclusion of their vehicles and tents or expensive charges being levied at nearby campsites.

It has already been mentioned, in section 3.3.2, that Stonehenge has been identified as an ancient temple since Boece identified stone circles as such in 1527 (Souden 1997:89) so it should be no surprise that contemporary Pagans should consider it as such. Chippindale (1994:142) provides photographic evidence of a group of people identifying themselves as Druids holding celebrations at Stonehenge in 1905. The Ancient Druid Order claims to have been carrying out ritual there some decades earlier (Worthington 2005a:57) but scholars such as Hutton (2009:355) and Stout (2008b:118-9) are sceptical about such claims. Their presence was not always welcome and Edmund Antrobus ejected a group of Druids reportedly incurring a curse from the Archdruid (Worthington 2005a:57). Subsequently though, Antrobus himself was initiated into the Ancient Order of Druids in a mass ceremony at the stones in August 1905 (Chippindale 1994:142; Worthington 2005a:57). As explained in section 1.2.1, the AoD was less spiritual in character, being somewhat more of a gentlemen’s club or friendly society. ADO Druids continued to hold open ceremonies at Stonehenge until Solstice visitors were restricted in 1985 (Worthington 2005b:129-138). Subsequently, they and other Druid groups made use of special access arrangements outside normal opening hours close to, but not on, the Solstice itself (Restall Orr 2000a:4; Worthington 2005a:). However it is not only Druids to whom Stonehenge is sacred. Other Pagans consider it an important site, perhaps the most important in Britain (Trubshaw 2005:97). Research interviewees there included Witches, Shamans and Eclectic Pagans.

Any review of online comments about access to Stonehenge continues to demonstrate a widespread dissatisfaction at not being allowed in amongst the stones themselves. Reasons given for the exclusion of most visitors from such proximity to the stones have focused on preservation (Chippindale 1990:123). These reasons are frequently disbelieved by campaigners but a recent laser scan of the stones demonstrates extensive damage in the past caused by graffiti and chipping off stone mementos as well as more recent damage caused by footfall abrasion on recumbent stones (Abbott & Anderson-Whymark 2012:42-47).

3.3.5. Stonehenge as a Contested Site In this section, I examine how Stonehenge has been contested with particular focus on Druid and New Age Traveller groups. I look at early contestation before the

Rayner (2012:50-71) voices an aspiration for Stonehenge which resonates with ideas expressed by some of the 28

Sites – Access began with the Glastonbury Fayre held at Pilton in 1971 but Worthington (2005a:29) marks the genesis of the movement at Parliament Hill Fields in 1968. In 1972 a large free pop music festival was held, completely without permission or any kind of official endorsement on Crown land at Windsor Great Park (Worthington 2005a:79-80). The police broke up the subsequent 1973 Windsor Festival with a brutality which sparked a public outcry (Worthington 2005a:80-1). The Summer Solstice celebrations of 1969 and 1970 involved thousands of hippies joining the celebrations (Worthington 2005a:31-32) but it was 1974 when the first Stonehenge Free Festival began. It was the idea largely of Phil Russell who took on the name Wally Hope (Worthington 2005a:37-40). Problems however, arose when Russell and about thirty followers, calling themselves the Wallies of Wessex, stayed on after the Festival living in tents next to the stones. They were evicted in August but relocated onto the droveway next to their previous location where they stayed until after the Winter Solstice (Worthington 2005a:39-40). Russell was arrested for possession of drugs before the 1975 Festival, which went ahead without him. Stone (1996:89) describes Russell as being broken by psychiatric treatment whilst in custody. Shortly afterward Russell was dead giving rise to tales of ‘establishment’ complicity (Stone 1996:93, Worthington & Dearling 2005:15). At the 1976 Festival Russell’s ashes were scattered on the stones and an oration given by Sid Rawle (Worthington 2005a:46) who, along with John Pendragon and Bev Richardson, was to become a leading member of the Stonehenge Free Festival Community (Worthington 2005a:74). Harvey (2004b:255257) cites reports that not all the ashes were scattered since a child present, presumably unsure of what was expected put some of the ashes in his or her mouth and others followed this lead.

genesis of the Stonehenge Free Festival and then examine how the Festival developed. I assess to what extent the Festival may be characterised as a Pagan event. I detail the problems with the Festival before describing how it was suppressed and Stonehenge placed off limits to Solstice revellers. I write about how the exclusion was contested between those who supported it and those who opposed it before explaining how a solution was eventually reached. I conclude this case study by explaining the importance of Stonehenge in understanding broader relations between the Pagan community and the archaeological and heritage professions. Early Contestation (Before 1970) No records prior to the Middle Ages survive regarding Stonehenge but Bender (1998:100-104) argues that the site was a focus of contestation between the church and ordinary people regarding ideology by housing a religious order nearby and denigrating the stones as devilish. However, Hutton (cited in Bender 1998:133-8) argues that Mediaeval Christianity was characterised by the church authorities trying to keep up with grass roots popular expressions of faith rather than strictly controlling such expressions: a bottom up locus of control rather than top down. He argues there is no evidence for the ascription of diabolic character to standing stones at this time. Bender (1998:104-10) suggests that the church’s attitude to the stones became increasingly hostile culminating in the burial of stones at Avebury from the 14th to 17th centuries (Gillings & Pollard 2004:125-7). From the 17th century a new interest in the stones was emerging which was to contribute to the rise of the discipline of archaeology. As stated in section 3.3.2, during the 19th century, archaeologists such as Colt-Hoare and Cunnington were discovering evidence suggesting to them that Stonehenge might have a Bronze Age date (Souden 1997:24). It was the Neolithic dates provided by radiocarbon analysis, however, which finally convinced archaeologists that Stonehenge was not a Druidic monument (Chippindale 1994:205). This then set the scene for contestation between the Druids and the ‘archaeological establishment’. During the 1950s and early 1960s there was trouble between Druids and members of the public, including off-duty soldiers from the nearby Royal Artillery barracks at Larkhill (Worthington 2005a:23-5; Hutton 2009:396-7). Worthington (2005a:25-6) and Hutton (2009:397-8) also record that while attempts to keep unruly crowds out of the stones with barbed wire were unsuccessful at the Summer Solstices of 1962 and 1963, the police mounted an increasingly successful exclusion zone in subsequent years so that by 1966 no-one apart from the Druids (who were permitted to enter) was in the circle for the Solstice sunrise.

Paul Aitken, described as a Stonehenge regular (cited in Worthington 2005a:42-3) explained the experience of the early Festivals as being linked to the stones by a constantly moving umbilical cord of people. He described old bearded men squatting on tree stumps muttering prayers to their gods. Worthington (2005a:42) records that 3000 attended and listened to Hawkwind and Here And Now while Hare Krishna devotees provided free food. The Festival lasted ten days at the end of which a collection was made to compensate the farmer for the use of his land (Worthington 2005a:43). To gain an impression of the appearance, atmosphere and experience of the Free Festival on a good day, imagine a small city of tents and camper vans, tipis and yurts packed with exuberant people. They were mainly young and mostly dressed in bright colours but with some people eschewing clothes altogether. Leather clad bikers mingled with dreadlocked hippies. The atmosphere was relaxed and ‘laid back’ with loud music audible far from the stage. Smells of incense and cannabis smoke wafted about along with the odour of sweaty bodies. White-robed Druids, saffron-robed Hare Krishna devotees and Mohawked punks philosophised and argued with one another as cans

The Stonehenge Free Festival Music played a highly significant role in the hippy counter-culture of the late 1960s, 70s and early 80s. Ivakhiv (2001:82) suggests the Free Festival Movement 29

Contested Heritage of cider and lager were passed around. On a bad day, rain, mud, an atmosphere of aggression exacerbated by police searches, sound tests by stoned band members and a lack of toilet facilities made the event a distinctly unprepossessing experience (Shallcrass 2012). Mark Graham (2012) writes that the Festival began with an atmosphere of ‘peace and love got replaced by anarchy and the Festival developed more of an edge’. ‘For some people it was just about doing drugs and partying, for others it was a deeply profound spiritual experience and for others it was the cradle of a new utopian society, for most people it was probably a bit of all three. It was also a great place to meet girls’ (Graham 2012).

the Stonehenge Free Festival was substantially Pagan in character, practice and inspiration. Problems with the Festival The Stonehenge Free Festival continued to grow from 1974 to 1984 but not without critics. The Chief Constable of Wiltshire in 1978 described Festival-goers as a ‘bunch of sordid mystics’ (Worthington 2005a:93). Skeates (2000:77) points out that archaeologists, basing their epistemology on scientific scepticism, have rejected Pagan beliefs as irrational. Glyn Daniel (1992:25, 28, 34, 42, 51, 59, 126, 130, 173) in particular had been railing against Druids and other Solstice celebrants as editor of the prestigious journal Antiquity from 1958 to 1985. However, even he seems to have had a pang of conscience in 1978 when he pondered the possibility that they might be sincere in their veneration of the site (Daniel 1992:127). However, the following year, Worthington (2005a:94) records that he was ranting again against the idea that Druids, New Agers and other alternative spiritualities had any claim for religious freedom (Daniel 1992:129-130). Problems of facilities became more severe as numbers of attendees grew into tens of thousands (Worthington 2005a:121) and hard drugs became increasingly prevalent (Worthington 2005a:121-3; Worthington & Dearling 2005:21-22). Festival organisers had always tolerated the use of cannabis which was perceived as beneficial by many attendees. Heroin, however, was seen as destructive and abusive so that the 1984 Festival featured a burnt out car at the entrance with a label proclaiming it had been a dealer’s car (Pendragon & Stone 2003:32; Worthington 2005a:123). In interviews, Rawl (p.c. 2009), Daughton (p.c. 2012) and others admitted that hard drugs had become a serious problem in the 1980s. However, Graham (p.c. 2012) pointed out that the drug problem at the Festival was no worse than in any inner city at the time.

From 1976 a circuit developed with a strong cohesive community forming, which travelled from festival to festival from spring to autumn (Worthington 2005a:87). This community was anarchistic, communistic and counter-cultural in character. It stood, and its spokespeople spoke, against mainstream capitalist values and as such may have appeared threatening to the conservative ‘southern English establishment’. From 1982 the connection between Festival-goers and antinuclear protestors at Greenham Common airbase brought a new name to the convoy of vehicles travelling from festival to festival. It became known as the Peace convoy (Worthington 2005a:116-8) How Pagan was the Festival? There was a Pagan element to the Free Festival Movement from its beginning as evidenced by publicity for the Windsor Free Festival featuring Classical Greek deities (Worthington & Dearling 2005:8). The originators of the Stonehenge Free Festival were a diverse group: Wally Hope was an eclectic New Age Christian (Worthington & Dearling 2005:11, 14; p.c. Daughton 2012) but Sid Rawle (p.c. 2009) identified himself as Pagan and Bev Richardson as Wiccan (p.c. Daughton 2012). Daughton himself who produced the Festival newsletter rejects any kind of label to his spirituality and views the application of the term Pagan to the Festival as problematic, finding the term counter-cultural preferable though still not ideal. However, by 1985, the Festival was describing itself not as a pop festival but rather as a ritual/religious gathering (Chippindale 1986:46) and a list provided of groups involved in the the Festival includes names such as ‘The Ancient Order of Pagans’, ‘Union of Ancestor Worshippers’, ‘Mother Earth Circle’ and ‘Devotees of the Sun Temple’ (Chippindale 1986:46). Much of the spiritual activity forming part of the culture of the Festival revered the natural world (Worthington & Dearling 2005:16) and Stout (2008b:157) asserts that the Stonehenge Free Festival grew directly out of the ceremonies of the Ancient Druid Order. Michell (1997:4) and Harvey (2004:258) record that babies were baptised and marriages performed at Stonehenge during the Festival. Additionally Druid orders such as the Secular and Glastonbury Orders have their origins in the Festival (Hutton 2006:251-253, 1997b:19-21). Bearing all these points in mind I believe

In 1984 the ownership and management of Stonehenge was transferred from the Department of the Environment to the newly created quango or semi-autonomous agency English Heritage via legislation drawn up by the then Environment Secretary Michael Heseltine (English Heritage ndd; Chippindale 1986:42). English Heritage took over ownership from the government of the field in which the stones were located and was invested with oversight responsibility for the surrounding archaeological landscape, most of which is owned by the National Trust. Cleaning up the rubbish left behind after the Festival was becoming an expensive proposition and English Heritage and the National Trust must have resented having to spend £20,000 (Worthington 2005a:133) out of their not overgenerous budgets removing the litter brought by Festivalgoers (see fig. 6). Some within the Festival Movement demanded that the National Trust should supply firewood; a suggestion the Trust roundly rejected (Chippindale 1986:45). English Heritage was particularly worried by damage to the archaeological landscape surrounding the stones. Worthington (2005a:133) describes this damage as 30

Sites – Access

Fig. 6. Rubbish left behind by Solstice revellers, 21st Jun 2010. Author’s photograph

limited to a bread oven dug into a previously excavated Bronze Age round barrow in 1984 but Shallcrass (p.c. 2011) recalls seeing latrines being dug into barrows as well. Chippindale (1986:45) reports both bread oven and latrine excavations as well as damage caused to archaeological features by motorcycles. The police and general public, however, were more concerned about the common and open use of drugs at the Festival (Hester 2005:139; Chippindale 1986:44). Allegations of widespread petty theft from local shops were also levelled at Festival-goers (Chippindale 1986:44).

suppression techniques were drafted in from other areas to combat the pickets (Bender 1998:114; Worthington 2005b:203; Hester 2005:145). The miners’ strike ended in March 1985 but the police tactics used at locations such as Orgreave were not forgotten. The Government had demonstrated a willingness to deal firmly with dissident activists and this is precisely what at least some of the Free Festival community had become (Hutton 2007:201). They had always been political and claimed the festival demonstrated that a pacifist, anarchic communal economy could work effectively. Perhaps more worrying for the ‘establishment’ was the increasing connection between members of the Festival Community and pacifist activists at locations such as the Greenham Common airbase (Worthington 2005a:118-9). Most worrying of all would have been what Parker Pearson (2012:45) describes as the ‘moral panic’ regarding drugs, sex and nudity at the Free Festival.

Suppression of the Festival and Exclusion at the Solstice Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government was re-elected with a significant majority in 1983 after successfully recapturing the Falkland Islands following an Argentinean invasion. Economic pressures were cited as reasons for closing unprofitable coal mines but the leadership of the National Union of Mineworkers called a national strike hoping to bring down the Conservative government to which they were ideologically opposed (Thatcher 1995:339; Evans, E.J. 1998:38). Thatcher (1995:339-40, 377-8) took the view that to permit such an outcome would be a abrogation of democracy arguing that since her government had come to power through a general election, it should not be forced out of office by an organisation representing the interests of a minority. The government therefore drafted legislation to break the power of the trade unions. Police officers trained in riot

So in 1985 English Heritage and the National Trust issued notices that the Festival that year would not be permitted to go ahead (Worthington 2005a:131-133). These notices were backed by court injunctions (Chippindale 1986:45) and by the police who prepared roadblocks to stop convoys of travellers reaching the stones (Chippindale 1986:47; Hester 2005:140-142). The first convoy to encounter the waiting police had set out from Savernake forest on the morning of the 1st of June 1985. Chippindale (1986:47) describes the convoy as consisting of 140 vehicles carrying 31

Contested Heritage around 500 men, women and children led by a naked man on foot.

The ‘Battle of the Beanfield’, along with the publicity and police roadblocks dissuaded anyone from making a serious attempt to hold a festival at Stonehenge in June 1985 (Worthington 2005a:131-133). However, the following year, convoys again began to move towards the stones. Worthington (2005a:142) describes an incident where a hippy convoy denied access to Stonehenge was diverted to a disused World War 2 RAF base at Stoney Cross in the New Forest, Hampshire. Whilst there a social worker was reported to have visited the site in the night and warned the Travellers that they would be raided by the police at dawn and that Social Services would be taking their children away to be put permanently into care. On the basis of the social worker’s warning, two vehicles carried the children to Glastonbury where they were provided with sanctuary by Michael Eavis, the Glastonbury Festival organiser (Worthington 2005a:142).

The police stopped the convoy close to the village of Cholderton (GR SU225425). After some confrontation police broke windows of vehicles at the front of the convoy and arrested the occupants. One interviewee suggested this was done in order to render these out of production vehicles unusable since replacement windscreens were difficult or impossible to obtain. They blocked off any retreat for other vehicles in the convoy using commandeered Traveller vehicles. Drivers near the rear of the convoy then left the road and drove into adjoining fields damaging a police vehicle on the way. Once there, they were contained by 1000 police officers under the command of Assistant Chief Constable Lionel Grundy (Chippindale 1986:47; Hester 2005:142; Goodwin & Morris 2005a:82, 2005c:99; Worthington 2005a:134, 2005b:109-138). After instances of stone throwing and even the use of a high powered hand catapult by convoy members, there was an attempt to negotiate. The police then made it clear that the only way the Travellers were leaving the field was in police custody after having handed over the keys to their mobile homes: this the Travellers refused to do (Goodwin & Morris 2005b:89, 2005c:103). Large numbers of riot-shieldequipped police without identifying numbers on their uniforms then stormed the field. Travellers tried to avoid arrest by keeping their vehicles moving but eventually all were stopped. As each vehicle was stopped, police officers broke windows with their truncheons and dragged some occupants out before entering and arresting the others (Chippindale 1986:47-8; Worthington 2005a:129-31; Hester 2005:142-145; Goodwin & Morris 2005a:82-86, 2005b:90-92, 2005c:103-106). Many of the travellers were badly beaten by the arresting officers; vehicles, which were Travellers’ homes, were ransacked and damaged by police both during the operation and immediately afterwards (Chippindale 1986:48) with two Traveller vehicles being set on fire (Worthington 2005a:131; 2005b:133-134). Travellers have asserted that the police deliberately set these vehicles on fire but Deputy Chief Constable Ian Readhead (Hester 2005:141) describes the fires as having been lit by the Travellers themselves. I would suggest that more likely sources of the blazes were knockedover braziers or stoves left on when police arrested the occupants. The radio log shows the police chose not to call the fire brigade (Worthington 2005b:133). Having been taken into custody, some female prisoners were strip-searched. All were transported to police stations across southern England and charged with obstructing the police, obstructing the highway and some with unlawful assembly. Social Services were on hand to take charge of the children in the convoy. Some vehicles and their occupants, which had not entered the Beanfield, did manage to evade police and retreat back to the Savernake forest (Chippindale 1986:51). Once there, police sought to finish the work they had begun in the Beanfield but were denied access by the landowner, Lord Cardigan, who had witnessed the Beanfield operation (Chippindale 1986:51; Worthington 2005a:131, 137).

Reaction and Justification The response of the archaeological community was predictably varied: Glyn Daniel (1992 [1985]:178) remarked gleefully that the ‘pop festival desecrators were routed and the Midsummer Solstice passed off without any undue incident’. Barry Cunliffe on the other hand, some three weeks after the ‘Battle of the Beanfield’, wrote to the Guardian deploring the violence of the police but emphasising the need to protect the archaeological landscape of Stonehenge from damage (Chippindale 1986:48-9). The combination of the subversive counterculture of the Festival combined with the presence of hard drugs was never going to endear it to British Conservatives. After the Beanfield, the right-wing tabloid press such as the News of the World ran headlines like ‘sex-mad junkie outlaws make the Hell’s Angels look like little Noddy’ to describe hippy travellers (Worthington 2005a:131, Bender 1998:115). Government ministers such as Douglas Hurd (Home Secretary from September 1985 to October 1989) described Travellers as ‘Mediaeval brigands’ and even the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, vowed to do ‘anything I can to make life difficult for such things as hippy convoys’ (both cited in Bender 1998:115). The view of the police at the time is exemplified by DCC Readhead who cited a fatal tent fire and widespread drug use in proximity to young children as justification for the suppression of the Festival (Hester 2005:139). Festival attendees such as Mark Graham (p.c. 2012) continue to see this as insufficient justification on the basis that similar behaviour could be found in most inner cities at the time without such extreme measures taken to suppress it. It has been alleged, e.g. in a 1985 publicity poster for the Stonehenge Free Festival, that if it had gone ahead for a twelfth year, ancient laws still on the statute books would have protected it and ensured its continuation (Hester 2005:142). Interviews have indicated that many Pagans believe that a fear of Paganism was a factor in the decision to suppress the Festival. I find arguments supporting the Battle of the Beanfield and the subsequent exclusion zone appear somewhat weak. Several interviewees who had 32

Sites – Access been part of the free festival circuit were keen to emphasise the enthusiasm of the Thatcher government to suppress the free festival movement. It is certainly true that Thatcher and her ministers were keen to be rid of them but minutes of the English Heritage governing body record pressure from the National Trust rather than the government to suppress the festival.

as an ‘Eco-Pagan’ order, emphasising their focus on environmental activism. Initially Maughfling and his followers were successful and the Glastonbury Order was able to hold ceremonies at Stonehenge at other festivals but at the Summer Solstice they, like all others, were excluded (Maughfling 1997:10). Maughfling continued to campaign alongside Arthur Pendragon for unrestricted free access at Pagan festival dates (Pendragon & Stone 2003:96-97; Maughfling 1997:9-10, 2000a:5-6) and led rituals at Stonehenge on the occasions when I conducted fieldwork there. An anonymous contributor informed me that Maughfling had been voted out of the leadership of GOD but maintains control of CoBDO largely due to Pendragon’s support. Maughfling also claims the title of Arch-Druid of Stonehenge (Worthington 2005a:218).

The Stonehenge Exclusion Zone and its Challengers In 1986 Druids and Festival regulars were able to see in the Summer Solstice while standing in the A344 road between the stones and the Visitors Centre (Worthington 2005a:1457). The following year English Heritage offered 500 free tickets to watch the Solstice Sunrise in an attempt allow some celebration whilst limiting numbers of attendees. The Ancient Druid Order accepted but the other groups under the umbrella of the Stonehenge Campaign rejected the offer fearing that their mobile homes would be destroyed as had previously occurred and demanding unrestricted free access for all (Worthington 2005a:147, 2005b:209). In 1988 4000 people gathered in Cholderton Woods beyond the exclusion zone perimeter where, on the 20th June, an English Heritage representative offered them 500 tickets to enter the stones for the Solstice (Worthington 2005a:149). When the offer was rejected the representative offered to allocate any spare tickets on a first come, first served basis. At dusk the group who Worthington (2005a:150) describes as the ‘Festival-in-exile’ began to walk to Stonehenge picking up more people as they went. Maughfling (1997:9) asserts that 5000 people were gathered outside the fence on the A344 as they had the previous year but this time it was not to be a peaceful occasion. Maughfling (1997:9) accuses the police of leading pilgrims into a cul-de-sac before mounting an unprovoked assault but Worthington (2005a:150) records that a small band of agitators attacked the police first. Perhaps partially as a consequence of this violence, a complete exclusion zone was established in 1989 consisting of police roadblocks and checkpoints four miles from the monument itself. Police were ordered to turn away pilgrims and arrest anyone attempting to enter the cordon (Pendragon & Stone 2003:91, 99; Worthington 2005a:151). Those who were arrested were held until after the Solstice and then released without charge (Pendragon & Stone 2003:100).

Arthur Pendragon, described by Worthington (2005b:226) as media-savvy with the sense of humour of a true prankster, has co-authored an autobiography with journalist Chris Stone (2003). In it they explain that Arthur was born John Rothwell and after following his father into the army drifted into the life of an outlaw biker. After a spiritual epiphany, he concluded he was the reincarnation of the legendary King Arthur (Pendragon & Stone 2003:38-41, 44-57). As such he decided his duty was to fight injustice and protect Britain’s natural environment. He became involved in the campaign against the Newbury bypass where he learned about direct action tactics. He also mounted pickets at Stonehenge to protest about access urging visitors ‘don’t pay, walk away’ (Pendragon & Stone 2003:85). After managed open access arrangements (see section 3.3.5) were instituted he protested about delays in the implementation of landscape improvements and a new Visitors Centre. Since 2009 he has mounted a picket to protest about the removal of ancient human remains from the site which will be examined in more detail in chapter 7. The late Tim Sebastion was the founder and Archdruid of the Secular Order of Druids (SOD) which he initiated in 1975 (Worthington 2005a:169) with a, presumably, more formal foundation in 1985 (Worthington 2005a:170). He was described by Hutton (2009:xiv) as energetic, idealistic and enthusiastic. His order expressed four aims: to spread a Druidic message to British youth; to act as low key voluntary guards for Druid rituals; to encourage a drawing together of Celtic and Pagan magical systems in debate and to promote the ideas of John Michell (Worthington 2005a:169). Worthington (2005b:226) adds that the order may be classified as Eco-Pagan due to its environmental focus. Sebastion was a keen campaigner for Druid access to Stonehenge and wrote a pamphlet, which was subsequently expanded to a book chapter (Sebastion 1990), explaining why Druids wanted access to the stones and why such access should be granted. He was also a founder member of CoBDO (Pendragon & Stone 2003:96-97).

Rollo Maughfling had previously been initiated as an Alexandrian Wiccan high priest (Hutton 1997b:20) but after the Battle of the Beanfield and the failure of the Ancient Order of Druids to support anyone else’s claims for access to the stones, he founded the Glastonbury Order of Druids at Glastonbury Tor in 1988 (Worthington 2005a:172; Pendragon & Stone 2003:80; Hutton 2006:251-252). He was also involved in the Council of British Druid Orders (CoBDO) from an early date (Murray 2007; Pendragon & Stone 2003:96-97). The Glastonbury Order was described (CoBDO 1996:41) as operating mainly in and around Glastonbury but also as holding celebrations at Stonehenge when permitted to do so. Worthington (2005b:226) characterises GOD

Blain and Wallis (2007:86-87) also attribute a pivotal role in the campaign for open access at Stonehenge to George Firsoff’s ‘Stonehenge Peace Process’ and to Nora Morris who represented the Pagan Federation at the round table 33

Contested Heritage meetings. These two people lacked the public profile of the previous personalities covered but arguably may have done far more to bring about access arrangements due to a less confrontational approach.

campaigns for Druid rights including access to Stonehenge (Murray 2007) and a debating forum (Green 1997:169). One of CoBDO’s first acts in 1989 was to petition the Queen to intervene to allow them access to Stonehenge (Maughfling 2000a:5). It was perhaps inevitable that the politicised nature of the work of CoBDO wasn’t going to appeal to all members and in 1996 the Ancient Order of Druids (AOD), the Order of Bards, Ovates and Druids (OBOD) and the British Druid Order (BDO) left the council (Hutton 2006:256). In 2008 SOD also left and a rival council operated for a short while. Thus CoBDO ceased to operate as a representative body for a very large section of British Druids.

Modes of contestation Most contestation of Stonehenge has been non-violent with negotiation carrying on throughout although Wallis (2003:155-156) and Worthington (2005a:149-151) record that there have been outbreaks of violence at Stonehenge in 1988 and 1995. Maughfling (1997) argued that the responsibility for the violence lay with police tactics. Pendragon described attempting to walk past police barricades and being arrested for it so often that the desk sergeant at the police station began to greet him as an old acquaintance (Pendragon & Stone 2003:98-100). In between festivals, Pendragon along with his allies and followers picketed Stonehenge, advising visitors ‘don’t pay, walk away’ (Pendragon & Stone 2003:85). Other tactics employed included petitions and legal action. Many of these tactics were deliberately designed to cost English Heritage, the police and the government as much time and money as possible, On one occasion, when arrested by a police superintendent for attempting to walk to the stones in front of television cameras, he attempted to arrest the superintendent for violating his human rights (Pendragon & Stone 2003:133). In 1994 members of the Loyal Arthurian Warband (LAW) occupied Winchester Cathedral demanding that Pagan pilgrims should be accorded equal respect to Christian pilgrims visiting the Cathedral (Pendragon & Stone 2003:106-7). The following year members of LAW chained up the entrance to English Heritage’s offices at Fortress House in London excluding staff from their workplace just as Druids were excluded from Stonehenge (Pendragon & Stone 2003:108). Alongside his writings, Tim Sebastion and SOD also organised events aimed to raise awareness and publicise the campaign. In contrast, Restall Orr (2000a:4) described her approach as building a personal relationship with decision makers in order achieve change.

From 1996 round-table negotiations began between interested parties including Druids, local and district councils, police, landowners including the National Trust and English Heritage, farmers and other Pagans, but few if any representatives of the Traveller/Festival Community. The object of these meetings was to reach agreements about access to the stones for celebrating the Pagan festivals (Pendragon & Stone 2003:231; Worthington 2005a:215). Shallcrass (1998/9:17) describes himself and Restall Orr attending a round table meeting and being shocked at English Heritage’s description of Maughfling and his supporters ‘shouting loudly, slamming fists on tables and storming out’ at previous meetings. However the death knell for the exclusion zone came on the 4th March 1999 when the Law Lords ruled the exclusion zone unlawful. The case began in 1995 with the prosecution of Margaret Jones and Richard Lloyd for trespassory assembly under the 1986 Public Order Act. They were accused of violating the exclusion zone despite remaining on the roadside. They were initially convicted but the Law Lords overturned the conviction on the basis of the exclusion zone’s illegality (Worthington 2005a:219). A Solution: Managed Open Access In May 1995 protestors occupied Stonehenge (Worthington 2005a:208) causing English Heritage and other organisations involved in the exclusion policy to reconsider their position. The Pagan Federation (1997:6) reported that in 1996 English Heritage had agreed to recognise Stonehenge as a spiritual and sacred place and admitted that they had had ignored this aspect of the site. After years of exclusion English Heritage began to allow members of Druid groups and observers free access to celebrate the Equinoxes among the stones in 1997 but free access continued to be denied at the Solstices (Maughfling 2000a:6). Having established that the Equinox ceremonies passed without incident, a limited number of people were allowed among the stones to celebrate the Summer Solstice in 1998 and 1999 (Worthington 2005a:217, 220). The numbers were controlled by issue of tickets but this was deemed unacceptable by the campaigning Druid orders. Complaints were also made that one particular Druid successfully dominated the proceedings (Worthington 2005a:218-219). In 1999 the number of tickets was increased to 1000 but this proved woefully

An important argument put forward by the access lobby was the massive cost of exclusion (Bender 1998:130 asserts a sum of £5 million) compared to the comparitively modest costs (£20,000 in 1984 according to Fowler 1990:139) of cleaning up after the Festival. Most of the archaeological community who did not actively support exclusion seemed to have little to say on the subject. However, one notable exception was Barbara Bender who co-created an exhibition in 1993 with the Stonehenge Campaign group entitled ‘Stonehenge Belongs to You and Me’ (Bender 1998:145-171; Wallis 2003:154-155), which aimed to critique the restricted access to and androcentric unilateral interpretation of the site. In 1988 to 1989 representatives of several Druid orders formed a representative body for all British Druids (Pers. Com. Davies 2009; Murray 2007; Bonewits 2006:81). It was intended to provide representation, furthering 34

Sites – Access

Fig. 7. Crowds gather the evening before the Solstice 20th Jun 2010. Author’s photograph

Parker Pearson (2012:173) estimated the numbers of people attending Summer Solstice open access at Stonehenge to be about 37,000. This seems to have dropped substantially following the introduction of parking charges with BBC News (2017) estimating summer solstice 2017 attendees at about 13,000. With numbers in the thousands, security provision has to be made but also needs to be managed carefully to avoid exacerbating existing grievances. At Winter Solstice 2008, I met and spoke with a young woman who introduced herself as Morgan. She explained that she was a volunteer ‘Peace Steward’ at the Summer Solstice. Peter Carson, English Heritage’s ‘Head of Stonehenge’ explained that the system of ‘Peace Stewards’ had been running since 2000 and that they formed part of a four line strategy for public order and protection of both people and the site. The first line is the expectation that people would police themselves and each other reporting any problems to the other lines. The second line comprises volunteer peace stewards who are identifiable by high visibility yellow vests and circulate amongst attendees. The third is professional security staff contracted in by English Heritage who control access and patrol the site. The fourth and final line is the Wiltshire Constabulary which maintains a visible presence at the open access events.

insufficient to cope with demand and violence ensued (Worthington 2005a:220-221). The same year, the Law Lords declared the Stonehenge exclusion zone to be unlawful (Worthington 2005a:219-220). English Heritage was therefore forced to make arrangements for numerically unrestricted free access from the evening of the 20th June 2000 to after sunrise on the 21st (Hutton 2009:410; Worthington 2005a:226-231; Rayner 2012:26-33). As part of my fieldwork I attended Solstice celebrations at Stonehenge in December 2008 and June 2010 (see figs. 13-15). At the Winter Solstice pilgrims, estimated to number about 1900, were waiting outside the car park when I arrived at 7:00am. Despite the bitter cold, there was a sizeable crowd numbering perhaps a couple of hundred. A dawn ritual led by Rollo Maughfling was performed to welcome the sun. Magical power was raised by intoning the sounds I, A and O three times to support ‘Green Energy’ and to assist in the initiation of a new Druid. A Bard was then initiated and a Bardic pledge of fellowship proclaimed by all. Healing energy was sent to sick friends of attendees before the rite was ended and people began to drift away. Peter Carson (p.c. 2010) explained that for several years he has chaired the continuing round table meetings to make arrangements for free access events. He did remark that Druid delegates had insisted that the meeting not be minuted.

Managed Open Access (MOA) has gone some way to addressing the needs of the Pagan community but, having experienced the event on two occasions, I agree with Blain & Wallis (2007:87) that the crush experienced at the centre 35

Contested Heritage

Fig. 8. The Sun rises over the Heel Stone 21 Jun 2010. Author’s photograph

Fig. 9. Security searches at the entrance to the Stonehenge field (Author’s photo)

36

Sites – Access Consequences of Stonehenge

of the monument (see fig. 7 & 8) is not satisfactory. Rayner (2012:74-77) describes a tension I have also witnessed between those who would prefer an unstructured, anarchic, organic situation where people are free to follow their inspiration and those who favour a structured or semi structured approach with timetabled events and spaces set aside for particular activities. English Heritage forbade amplified music at open access but provided a small (Ca 20x20m) matted area for acoustic performances. Portaloos were provided, fast food trailers were on site, floodlights provided illumination, carefully controlled to avoid being too intrusive, and several braziers were positioned around the site to provide warmth overnight. English Heritage management arrangements were under continuous review and discussed at round table meetings with stakeholders involving Pagans, heritage managers, police, local and county council representatives, Festival people and any other interested parties wanting to attend (Rayner 2012:7274; p.c. Carson 2008).

As previously asserted, Stonehenge has arguably been the most important sacred site to British contemporary Pagans (e.g. Trubshaw 2005:97, for a contrary view see Ivakhiv 2001:80). To the community of people who regularly celebrate there, the Summer Solstice is the most significant festival (e.g. English Heritage cited in Bender 1998:178; Pendragon & Stone 2003:91; Wallis 2003:153167; Worthington 2005a:139-187). It should therefore be no surprise that exclusion from it at such a time was felt to be serious discrimination. However, the accompaniment of such exclusion with police violence involving physical assault on pilgrims and vandalism or even destruction of their homes and threats to take away their children has left a profound residue of suspicion. I experienced this firsthand as mentioned in section 2.7.1 where I was told to ‘fuck off’ by a young woman traveller at Stonehenge. It may be interesting to speculate how relations between the Pagan community and the archaeological and heritage professions might stand if the Free Festival had been managed differently.

Other Issues at Stonehenge Prior to the construction of the new visitors centre the parking facilities at Stonehenge were woefully inadequate at busy times. When I undertook fieldwork at the Summer Solstice, pilgrims were directed to a field about 2km west of the stones next to the junction of the A360 and A344 (GR SU100427), close to where the visitors centre now stands. I found some of the police officers to be terse and officious. The parking field opening time has been rigidly enforced causing large queues, long waits, significant traffic disruption and frayed tempers. Queue jumping was common and not dealt with by officers. Once in the field a calmer more festive atmosphere prevailed. When interviewing Winter Solstice attendees in 2008 one of the issues raised was that of traffic control and enforcement of good driving practice.

3.4. Case Study 2: Avebury Avebury is perhaps slightly less well known than Stonehenge but arguably even more magnificent. It lies about thirty miles north of Stonehenge and forms part of the same World Heritage Site (UNESCO 1992). It is perhaps the only village in the world to be located partially within an ancient stone circle (Britain’s largest). However, this stone circle and the henge that surrounds it are only a small part of the landscape which seems almost crowded with prehistoric features. It is located in rural Wiltshire between Devizes and Swindon (National Grid Reference SU102699). In this section, like Malone (1989:13), I use the name Avebury to refer to the broad archaeological, heritage and sacred landscape which surrounds the village.

Security considerations were obviously being taken seriously during the open access arrangements at Summer Solstices. Large numbers of security staff checked to make sure no large rucksacks, tents, sleeping bags or glass bottles were brought in (as shown in fig. 9 above). Some attendees felt that such restrictions and searches violated their civil liberties (Blain & Wallis 2007:88) but when I attended most seemed to accept them without complaint. Perhaps the most serious criticism from Pagans regarding the open access arrangements at Stonehenge is that the large crowds and associated noise and crush are not conducive to spirituality (e.g. p.c. Aburrow 2009).

Windmill Hill, dating from the early Neolithic, ca 4000 BC, is a causewayed enclosure consisting of three concentric circles of ditches many of which have been found to contain deliberately placed deposits within them (Smith 1965:1-21). It is situated just over 2 km north-west of the Avebury Circle. Equally ancient is West Kennett Long Barrow which lies just over 2km south of the stones at GR SU104677. At 100m long it is one of the largest of the Cotswold Severn Long Barrows. At the eastern end of the mound, five chambers were constructed using sarsen megaliths (Pryor 2003:198-203). Between Avebury and West Kennett, at GR SU100685, lies the mysterious mound of Silbury Hill. It is 37m high and 160m wide at its base and was built in three phases between 2900 and 2050BC (Pollard & Reynolds 2002:118-120). The Sanctuary is located at GR SU118680 on the A4 just opposite the end of the Ridgeway long distance footpath which is itself an ancient feature (Pollard & Reynolds 2002:170). Concrete blocks show where archaeologists have identified the postholes of circular

Frank Somers of Stonehenge Druids (p.c. 2010) has criticised English Heritage for refusing to provide funding for entertainment acts out of gate income from the site at other times. He was also indignant that he was not permitted to pour water over the bluestones with the intention of collecting some to send to a sick child (an idea which may well have derived from Darvill and Wainwright (2009). 37

Contested Heritage timber structures and the sockets for two concentric stone circles dating to the fourth and early third millennium BC but removed in the 1720s (Pollard & Reynolds 2002:106 & Malone 1989:84-87). The Avebury circles consist of a roughly circular henge earthwork with four entrances dated between 2900 and 2600 BC (Pollard & Reynolds 2002:90). It surrounds no fewer than three stone circles. Two smaller circles are located within one larger one which in turn is surrounded by the large henge earthwork. Also within the main circle are an alignment of megaliths and a cove, three giant stones forming a structure enclosed on three sides. Many of the stones are now missing, either buried or broken up for building material. Dating evidence suggests the stones were either erected at the same time as or later than the henge with dates between 2600 and 1600 BC (Gillings & Pollard 2004:46). The Avenue runs southsouth east along the B4003 from the Avebury Henge to the village of West Kennett at GR SU111684. Evidence has also been found of another avenue, subsequently removed, running southwest from Avebury towards Beckhampton Long Barrow at GR SU086691 (Gillings & Pollard 2004:3, Pryor 2003:241).

to be common in the Pagan community. Pitts (1996:1223) describes leaving a questionnaire at the vegetarian Stones Restaurant in Avebury to which fifteen out of 193 respondents believed that the Avebury Stones had been erected to mark a Ley Line. Pitts’ (1996:123) survey also suggested that 60% of his respondents considered the Stones to be a place of power. 18 out of 193 respondents, in the most popular interpretation of why the stones were built, described it as a temple to the Mother Goddess. Michael Dames (1977:176-209), an Art Historian, proposed an interpretation of Avebury as symbolic of a universal Neolithic Great Goddess using folklore, myth, anthropological parallels and historical and archaeological material. Although these interpretations have come to be seen as problematic in the archaeological community, they have been incorporated into Pagan narratives and beliefs. One strong element of this interpretation of Avebury as a Goddess landscape is the previously mentioned symbolism of Silbury Hill as the womb of a pregnant Earth, Mother or Fertility Goddess (see Cope 1998:195, 202; Trubshaw 2005:140). An example of how this interpretation of Avebury as a Goddess temple is used and reinforced is the Gorsedd ceremony held there since 1993. I describe these ceremonies in more detail in section 3.4.3 below but they include the priestess representing The Goddess sitting on the large stone known as The Devil’s Chair, situated just to the east of the southern entrance to the circle. This stone therefore took on the significance, to at least some Pagans, of the sacred place of The Goddess.

3.4.1. The Significance of Avebury Avebury has played a pivotal role in the development of British antiquarianism and hence both British archaeology and British Druidry. On a hunt in the area John Aubrey came upon the stones in 1649 and was inspired to investigate them (Hutton 2009:66; Gillings & Pollard 2004:136). Subsequently, in 1743 William Stukely ascribed the construction of the henge and stone circle to the Druids beginning the association of the site with Druidism (Bahn 1996:46; Gillings & Pollard 2004:140). In 1899 Harold St. George Gray began archaeological fieldwork to establish a reliable estimation of Avebury’s antiquity. His discovery of Neolithic pottery dated the henge and stones to the Neolithic (Gillings & Pollard 2004:170-171). Gray’s work was concluded in 1922 and published in 1935 (Gillings & Pollard 2004:174). From 1924 elements of the archaeological landscape including Avebury were bought by Alexander Keiller, a fabulously wealthy entrepreneur who had made his money in the production of marmalade and had a passionate interest in both archaeology and witchcraft (Gillings & Pollard 2004:174-175). Keiller developed a strong working partnership with O.G.S. Crawford, one of the great pioneers of British field archaeology and between them they carried out extensive excavations of the area (Gillings & Pollard 2004:175-178). Keiller was not simply satisfied with knowing the archaeology of Avebury, he wanted to show it to people. He therefore began clearing large parts of the village, demolishing buildings and re-erecting fallen stones, even cementing back together some shattered megaliths. Avebury, as Druids, tourists and archaeologists now see it, is therefore largely a product of Keiller’s efforts (Gillings & Pollard 2004:178-183).

3.4.2. Protecting and Managing Avebury Avebury, like Stonehenge, was among the first sites to be scheduled under Sir John Lubbock’s Ancient Monuments Act of 1882 (Her Majesty’s Government 1882). From 1924 Keiller excavated and re-erected buried stones demolishing several buildings to facilitate viewing the stones. Keiller may be considered most responsible for the experience of Avebury as visitors find it today (Gillings & Pollard 2004:174). In 1941, Keiller abandoned his work on Avebury and in 1943 he sold the land to the National Trust which continues to manage it as a heritage site with two museums and a gift shop (Blain & Wallis 2007:52; Pitts 1996:117-120; Pollard & Reynolds 2002:180). In 1986 Avebury was included with Stonehenge as a World Heritage Site registered with UNESCO (1992). 3.4.3. Pagan Use of the Site It is hard to say when people identifying themselves as Pagan began to use the site for rituals. Terry Dobney, a local Druid who describes himself, and is acknowledged by some, as ‘Keeper of the Stones’ claims to have been conducting ritual there since 1969 (Blain & Wallis 2007:66). Pagan gatherings there prior to the mid-1980s appear to have been small enough to go unnoticed (Sebastion 2001:128). However, all this was to change radically after Stonehenge was closed to Solstice celebrants. Worthington (2005b:217) explains that the Dongas (eco-protestors from Twyford Down) began to perform their Summer Solstice

Earth Mysteries interpretations of Avebury as a power centre utilising or marking veins of earth energies seem 38

Sites – Access form a circle. Spiritual guardians were invoked at the cardinal compass points. Shallcrass (p.c. 2011) explained that he preferred to have a Heathen invoke the Germanic gods at the north, A Christian invoke his or her god at the east and a Druid, Shaman or Wiccan at each of the other two directions. A brief explanation was made of the season and its significance followed by raising of spiritual power for peace and love. The liturgical elements were generally ones used throughout Wiccan and Druid groups with one or two elements from Iolo Morgannwg’s Bardic writings. Bread and mead were passed around and the attendees sat down on the grass as members performed songs, music and poetry in the eisteddfod (Bardic performance). At the end many of those gathered would head towards the Red Lion pub at the centre of the village for a drink and a chat.

rituals at Avebury during the late 1980s after they were denied access to Stonehenge. In 1993 Philip Shallcrass of the British Druid Order held a public initiation ceremony for new bardic initiates (p.c. Shallcrass 2011; Pitts 1996:125). When far more people stepped forward to be initiated than were expected, Shallcrass realised that there was an enthusiasm for public ritual. They began a multifaith Bardic focused event which held ritual at the four Fire Festivals, the Equinoxes and the Solstices. When I attended these rituals in the 1990s, the attendees met at ‘The Stones’ vegetarian restaurant at twelve noon on the Sunday closest to the festival. The group would then split into two parties. The goddess party would move directly a quarter turn anti-clockwise to the stone known as The Devil’s Chair (fig. 10 below) where the priestess would be enthroned representing the Earth Goddess (this ritual praxis is also described by Blain & Wallis 2007:64-69).

3.4.4. Contesting the Site Contestation of Avebury has not been the clear-cut battle between the Pagans and the heritage managers which has characterised Stonehenge. Avebury demonstrates a subtle interplay of interested parties where the heritage managers, in this case the National Trust, are more likely to find themselves mediating between other groups.

Meanwhile the god party would circle three quarters round clockwise singing and drumming all the way. They would gather around the seated priestess and take it in turns to make an offering to her. These offerings were most often in the form of poetry or flowers but sometimes in the form of food which would be taken to be shared at the circle which followed. After the priestess had welcomed the god party and received their offerings, all would process to an open area within the stone circle where the people would

Locals Versus Visitors Shallcrass (p.c. 2011) explained that when there were relatively small numbers of pilgrims attending during the

Fig. 10. Devil’s Chair stone at Avebury (Author’s photograph)

39

Contested Heritage 1990s, he would ask National Trust officials where he might be allowed to camp and was told he could camp on the verge of the ridgeway. He suggested that the problem arose due to increased numbers of pilgrims who camped without asking and spent the whole night drumming near people’s homes. He explained that after Stonehenge was re-opened numbers at Avebury massively increased to 1000-1500 for Summer Solstice celebrations resulting in some animosity from the villagers. Hutton (in an interview with Bender 1998:186) Described the National Trust as ‘right in the middle’ and ‘getting the blame’ having to mediate between residents wanting peace and quiet, police wanting to prevent antisocial behaviour, local authorities and emergency services needing to keep roads open and Pagans wanting to hold ritual. In 2006 the District Council threatened legal action to force The Trust to close the Avebury car park to high-sided vehicles and to prohibit camping on their land at Avebury (BBC News 2007; This Is Wiltshire 2009). In 2009, a news report reporting the overturning of the ban explained that ‘In 2005 and 2006, residents complained of chaos and anti- social behaviour with complaints of drunken revellers urinating in gardens, rubbish left everywhere and emergency service vehicles unable to get through the village’ (This Is Bristol 2009). However, since 2009 limited camping has been permitted in part of the overflow car park at Pagan festival dates. I attended one of these at the Autumn Equinox of 2011 and found the camping area populated by counter-cultural visitors, not all of whom went to the ceremonies or even considered themselves Pagan. Several described the festivals as ‘a time to hang out with old friends’ or as ‘being like old times on the road’. In the evening several campers got drunk and some were smoking cannabis. This presumably is part of what is referred to as antisocial behaviour but one anonymous interviewee informed me there were also incidents of vandalism at the public toilets in the village.

Stonehenge and anti-road protests. They were shouted down by the assembled pilgrims who wanted rituals, music and to practise their spirituality rather than to be subjected to political haranguing. This denial of politics by the BDO had already brought about trouble within CoBDO causing the Order to leave the council in 1996 (Hutton 2006:256). There remained antagonism between the more politically active orders and the BDO with the former heckling the latter during ceremonies (Shallcrass 1996:31). Shallcrass was subsequently told by an anonymous email that ‘If he muscled in at Avebury, he would be muscled out’ (p.c. Shallcrass 2011). There is another issue that divides different Pagan factions. Restall Orr (1996:26-8) wrote deploring large quantities of ritual rubbish left behind after rituals at ancient sites (see fig. 11). Like Damh the Bard of OBOD (2013) I would divide such deposits into two categories: offerings, such as votive plaques and flowers, and ritual debris, such as tea light bases and food packaging. One of the first ancient sites I visited as a self-identifying Pagan was Wayland’s Smithy, a long barrow beside the Ridgeway not far from the Uffington White Horse near Swindon. It was in the early 1990s and other Pagans were few and far between. As a Pagan I felt isolated and perhaps slightly threatened. It was therefore a joyous thing to see that other Pagans had been there before me. Little pools of wax from candles in the dust of the barrow chamber floor, wilting flowers and a paper plate with a pentagram drawn on it were carefully laid out within the end chamber. As an archaeologist, I sometimes wonder if our desire to preserve and keep tidy these sites is not depriving the archaeologists of the future of evidence of how people in the early 21st century are living. There are also some Pagans who use chalk to draw sacred symbols at sites, presumably in order to be easily removable, though other Pagans deplore the practice (e.g. Restall Orr 1996:26-8; Damh the Bard 2013). Blain & Wallis (2007:56-59) describe groups of local Pagans who visit the Avebury monuments specifically to clean up after other Pagans.

Pagans Versus Pagans When I attended a British Druid Order led Gorsedd of Bards of Caer Abiri at Avebury in 1994, attendees were invited to attend a camp they were holding at a campsite in Calne. I attended the camp and paid what I felt was a reasonable charge of about £15 to £20 for the night. I found the event convivial and entertaining with friendly people and good music. However, late that evening someone on the more counter-cultural side of the Druid community, upset at having to pay for a spiritual experience either committed or threatened to commit violence against the organisers and the police were called. Members of the counter-cultural wing of Druidry subverted the Gorsedd of Bards of Caer Abiri’s motto ‘In the spirit of freedom and for the freedom of spirit’ suggesting that the BDO was motivated by profit. They set up their own event calling themselves the Free and Open Gorsedd of Bards of Caer Abiri. Hutton (in an interview with Bender 1998:186) describes an incident at Midsummer 1997 when the self-styled Druid Chiefs of Wessex (most likely referring to Pendragon, Maughfling and possibly Sebastion) gave speeches about access to

The Role of Heritage Managers in Contesting Avebury As custodians of the site, The National Trust has frequently had to deal with problems arising from its spiritual significance. I have already explained how the Trust was the target of legal action to prevent camping at the site to avoid vandalism and anti-social behaviour in the village. However, vandalism has also been directed at the stones themselves. On the 19th of June 1996 strange linear patterns were painted on several stones in the Avenue (Bender 1998:187-8). Blain and Wallis (2007:55) and Green (1997:178) record that both the mainstream and the archaeological Press (e.g. Antiquity 1996:501) seemed to assume that the vandalism was perpetrated by Pagans or New Agers. I have always been dubious about this interpretation partially because the style was not like anything I had seen in any contemporary Pagan contexts and to almost all Pagans it would have seemed sacrilegious to do such a thing (See Green 1997:162). Shallcrass (p.c. 40

Sites – Access

Fig. 11. Tea light candles and flowers left in West Kennett Long Barrow. Examples of ritual rubbish left behind (Author’s photograph)

2011) explained to me that a person purporting to be an art student had been seen the morning after the discovery of the damage with wet paint on his clothing. Subsequently just before the Summer Solstice in 1999 campaigners against genetically modified crops painted two of the same stones previously attacked with slogans (Kennedy 1999). Blain & Wallis (2007:70-73) emphasise disputes over preservation of and access to Silbury Hill but in my fieldwork I found the most important issue to be camping and parking. 3.4.5. Avebury Solutions Times have changed and Pagans are a much more visible and accepted part of British society than they used to be (Rathouse unpublished). A Pagan ritual was even incorporated into the closing ceremony of the London Paralympics in September 2012. Philips’ (2010) rant against the Charity Commission’s recognition of Druidry as a religion, and especially the angry online response to it serves to illustrate how much Paganism has become part of the subcultural mosaic which makes up contemporary British society. Pagan pilgrims have become part of the human environment at Avebury and the management of the site by the National Trust has evolved to acknowledge its significance as a sacred site as shown on the sign in fig.

Fig. 12. Sign at Avebury Stones (Author’s photograph)

41

Contested Heritage 12 above. Attempts to exclude people wanting to camp were relatively short lived and an atmosphere of tolerance appears to have prevailed at the events I attended there between 2008 and 2013.

interviewees asserted that exclusion or obstruction of Christian worshippers at major cathedrals, mosques or synagogues would neither have been attempted nor tolerated and that the same courtesy should have been extended to them. Indeed the campaign to overturn the Stonehenge exclusion zone described in section 3.3.5 involved an occupation of Winchester Cathedral to highlight this disparity (Pendragon & Stone 2003:106108). It is possible that, as with contestation of human remains (See section 7.4.1), contestation of access to sites has been inspired or supported by contestation of site management by indigenous groups overseas. Skeates (2000:78) records American Indian objections to proposals to manage one of their sacred sites as a tourist resource and a compromise being reached to allow exclusive spiritual use at certain times.

3.5. Theorising Contestation of Access In this section I analyse and attempt to explain why access to sites such as Stonehenge and Avebury has been contested. 3.5.1. Why Demand Access I have chosen to present the demands for access to sites by Pagan groups in two sections: the first based on spiritual praxis and beliefs, which I have entitled spiritual reasons, and the second based on perceptions of differential treatment from followers of other religions or spiritualities or interference with religious freedoms, which I have entitled political reasons.

I also suggest that there has been a desire among some of the more political and counter-cultural Pagans to wrest control from hostile authority or at the very least to show those who do have decision making powers regarding these sites that any attempt to interfere with their freedom of religious expression would be met with vociferous protest. I also argue, like Cooper (2010:141155) and Hutton (2007:198-202), that the perception of a threatening authority and campaigns against it have helped to foster community cohesion. Furthermore I believe that religious groups who see themselves as oppressed have tended to view attacks from hostile outsiders as a validation of their religious values. This accords closely with the phenomenon Maggliocco (2004:185-204) describes as the ‘romance of subdominance’. Similar traits have been observed in fundamentalist Christian groups courting public disapprobation to strengthen the boundaries between members and non-members and to reinforce theological denigration of outsiders as antithetical to their values. Louis Theroux said of the Westboro Baptist Church ‘In their world being hated is proof that they are doing the right thing’ (aclipDump 2011).

Spiritual Reasons The spiritual reasons Pagans have demanded access to Stonehenge have been tied in with the activities they perform there. Worthington (2005a:124) and Chippindale (1986:45) refer to Pagan Free Festival attendees holding baby namings and handfasting (informal wedding) ceremonies there (see also Worthington & Dearling 2005:18-22). Druid groups have also held seasonal rituals at the stones and I attended the investiture of an Archdruid there. Stonehenge has been seen as a site of special power and sacred significance and many Pagans have accepted geomantic, earth mystery ideas about earth energies associated with the site (Worthington 2005a:169, Glastonbury Order of Druids 1992:29). Any ritual or magical acts performed at the stones have therefore been believed to be empowered by these energies. It has also been suggested that energising sacred sites may bring about shifts in overall human consciousness with beneficial consequences for all (p.c. Daughton 2012; Maughfling 2000a:4-5; Wallis 2003:145). Even those who have expressed doubt that Stonehenge taps into currents of earth energy, may be willing to believe the site to be spiritually empowered by the activities of people in the past (Wallis 2003:145). The strong sense of community which interviewees described as being part of the Stonehenge Free Festival and which they ascribe to continuing events at Stonehenge and Avebury is not to be underestimated. Pagans may have felt somewhat isolated much of the time and many have not had regular local groups or events. For these and for many others, attending large events at sites like these has provided a sense of belonging that has been lacking in much of their lives.

3.5.2. Why Oppose Access? Perhaps the most common arguments made for restriction or limitation of access to ancient sides has been to prevent damage and preserve them for future generations (Skeates 2000:62-71). At Stonehenge, Avebury and similar sites attrition by the erosive effect of visitors’ footfall, especially on earthworks, has been a particular concern (Golding 2000:259; Timothy 2007:xiii). It has also been alleged that orthostats at Stonehenge were being undermined by burrowing animals such as rats and rabbits encouraged to settle there in the 19th century as a result of the availability of food from picnic detritus (Heritage: The Battle for Britain’s Past 2013).

Political Reasons

In my interview with him, Peter Carson (p.c. 2008) explained that part of his role was to provide ‘balanced and equal access’ to Stonehenge for everyone. Some of his predecessors and indeed other parties including, as mentioned in section 3.3.5, noted archaeologist, Glyn

These reasons for demanding access have largely hinged on a perceived disparity of treatment between Pagans and followers of Abrahamic religions. Several Pagan 42

Sites – Access 3.5.4. Assessing the Claims

Daniel (1992:25, 28, 34, 42, 51, 59, 126, 130, 173) have argued that Druids and Pagans should not be allowed free access when others have to pay and are kept at a distance. He argued like Mason & Kuo (2006:184-5) that to give Druids privileged access would confer what he considered an unjustified legitimacy on what he considered a bogus pseudo-religion. They assert that other visitors would feel cheated if Druids and hippies were allowed free access (Mason & Kuo 2006:184). Section 3.3.5 shows the arguments for not allowing large numbers of people in amongst the stones centre on preservation (Worthington 2005a:133, Chippindale 1986:45) but Maughfling (1997:4) alleges that the Festival was suppressed to enhance profitability of Stonehenge as an attraction and hence support the finances of English Heritage. Somers (p.c. 2010) too was critical of the way Stonehenge is managed describing it as a ‘tourist trap’. Such arguments have been, to some extent at least, supported by heritage specialists within academia who point out the economic nature of the heritage industry and its reliance on tourism (e.g. Carman 2005:52; Harrison 2010:16-21; Hewison 1987:97-105; Skeates 2000:72-73).

I address claims regarding the ownership of sites such as Stonehenge and Avebury in Chapter 5. This section examines the contestation of access. Some Pagans have questioned the legality of English Heritage’s entrance charge to Stonehenge, arguing that the deed of gift through which Cecil Chubb donated the site to the nation limits the entrance charge to a maximum of one shilling (5p) per person (Loyal Arthurian Warband 2009; Worthington 2005a:61). What this price translates to in modern terms is arguable but the principle of charging for entrance to the monument was established when it first came into government ownership. The political counter-cultural Druids have been ideologically opposed to profit being made from Pagan spirituality (Pendragon & Stone 2003:105-106; see also section 3.4.4) and hence object to being charged money to enter Stonehenge (See Maughfling 2000a:4). They have perceived unfairness in that they are charged entry to sites they consider sacred while Christians entering the spiritual areas of Christian sacred/heritage sites are not normally required to pay (Pendragon & Stone 2003:106-108).

3.5.3. Why Are Other Sites Not Contested In This Way?

Skeates (2000:118-124) and Tarlow (2001:58-59) both emphasise the importance of inclusivity in archaeology and heritage and it is perhaps on this basis that the best case is made to permit access to Stonehenge for Druid groups. Skeates (2000:109) questions whether archaeology deserves to receive state funding if citizens are excluded.

There can be specific benefits of having visiting pilgrims in an area. A significant proportion of shops in the lower end of Glastonbury High Street have been seen to cater to the needs of spiritual visitors to the town (Ivakhiv 2001:6769) and even Avebury itself has sustained two gift shops which, to judge by the range of books and jewellery in stock, benefited greatly from Pagan visitors. Even the post office there has sold mead which staff described as being popular with pilgrims.

3.5.5. Options for the Future Certainly few archaeologists now would seek to prevent American Indians or Australian Aborigines from gaining access to the sites they have long considered sacred. Indeed, indigenous groups have increasingly been included in management of such sites (Coleman 2013:156-175; Carmichael et al 1994:5-7; Davidson 1995:3-5; McDavid 2002:310-312, 2009:217-234; O’Regan 1994:95-106). Arguments have been made (e.g. Schadla Hall 2004:264; Daniel 1992:25, 28, 34, 42, 51, 59, 126, 130, 173) that the recent genesis of contemporary Druidry (disputed by some Druids) justifies dismissal of their claims. The fact that groups identifying themselves as Druids have now been holding ceremonies at Stonehenge for over 100 years indicates that Druidry is no passing fad. Neither the issue nor the Druids are going to go away.

Recent heritage sites are far more likely to have an entrance charge than prehistoric ones. In a 2013 survey of the first 40 English Heritage sites listed alphabetically, 12 post-Roman sites levied entrance charges as opposed to 13 that did not charge, 2 Roman sites charged and 4 did not but only one pre-Roman charged as opposed to 6 which did not. I suggest that this is probably largely due to the expense inherent in conserving and maintaining later sites especially those which are not in a ruinous state. Recent heritage sites are unlikely to be considered sacred by new religious movements but Pendragon and Stone (2003:106-108) argue that churches which are also considered heritage sites do not charge visitors who come to worship. I would dispute the implication that this is true of all heritage churches: St Paul’s Cathedral in London charges for access to areas not used for spiritual purposes (St. Paul’s Cathedral nd) as does Salisbury Cathedral (Salisbury Cathedral nd) and most church services of my experience take a voluntary collection. Stonehenge and Avebury are partially victims of their own success in that their fame brings risk of erosion through visitor numbers (Golding 2000:259; Timothy 2007:xiii). Since more remote sites do not receive the same volume of visitors and therefore less attrition, there appears not to be the same need to manage access.

I had hoped that the construction of the new visitors centre and the Stonehenge landscape detailed in section 3.3.3 might improve relations in the future. There was off-the-record speculation from English Heritage workers and others that the visitors centre and parking would be what visitors paid for and that fences would be removed, allowing free access to the stones themselves. However a site visit in October 2014 revealed that fences, now topped with barbed wire, were still in place to prevent non-paying visitors from approaching near the stones. The 43

Contested Heritage contested closure of the drove (Pitts 2011a) may be part of a strategy to funnel tourist visitors through the visitors centre rather than restricting Solstice celebrants. Perhaps if they are willing to camp a little further away from the stones, Solstice celebrants may be able to have increased freedom of access at major festivals. A job advert on the English Heritage website seen in the summer of 2013 for a volunteer co-ordinator suggested to me that members of the Druid and traveller communities might be recruited as volunteers to tell the stories of their involvement in the social history of the site and to present alternative interpretations of the site.

while Greenwood (2000:5) explains similar identification in the UK. Although contestation of access to Stonehenge goes back before the First World War, the levels of violence displayed in suppressing the Free Festival and the subsequent denial of access (See Section 3.3.5) have placed the heritage managers and those archaeologists who have supported them in this endeavour firmly in the role of the oppressor within the minds of many Pagans, especially the more counter-cultural ones. The more integrated Pagans have been happy to avail themselves of charged special access arrangements at Stonehenge but the counter-cultural camp have campaigned for and achieved free and open access at festivals. Their next battle over Stonehenge surrounds the excavation, analysis and, contentiously, retention of human remains buried at the site. This issue is examined in chapter 7.

Rayner (2012:15) suggests that the organisation of Stonehenge managed open access might learn from the Kumbh Mela festival in India where millions of pilgrims set up camp on the banks of the River Ganges. Criticisms of heavy handed security at MOA might be addressed by training police and security staff to follow the example set by Indian police officers whom the BBC News (2013a) reports as being ‘encouraged to welcome pilgrims with a smile’. The news report may also be said to demonstrate that far larger gatherings than currently attend Stonehenge are manageable.

Avebury demonstrates a mode of management which, while not devoid of tension, shows that the National Trust has been able to reach a compromise with Pagan pilgrims although its ability to position itself between the Pagans and some locals seeking to exclude them may have helped in this. I had hoped that the move of the Stonehenge visitors centre to Airman’s Corner (see section 3.5.5) might be accompanied by removal of some fences surrounding Stonehenge and that this would relieve tensions further. However the fences have been replaced enclosing an area which was the A344 road removing non-paying visitors further from the stones. Furthermore, new contestation has emerged surrounding displays of human remains at the visitors centre which will be examined in Section 7.5.2.

The situation at Avebury has been more complex than with Stonehenge with local residents living within the stone circle. However, the principle of a round table committee at which all interested parties can meet to discuss the management of access can be useful to defuse tensions and resolve conflicts at an earlier stage. Similarly other sites where there have been issues surrounding access could benefit from adopting such an approach.

In the United States and Australia we have seen that first nations and other subordinated ethnic groups are included in management of sites of significance to them. Pagans might be argued to have chosen alienation from the cultural mainstream rather than have it applied to them but I contend that since Pagans indeed form a distinct subculture or counter culture (section 1.2) of significant numbers (section 1.2.1) and that they should therefore not be excluded. Inclusion is complicated by divisions within Pagan groups as exemplified at Avebury (Section 3.4.4).

The persistence of the contestation of the Stonehenge exclusion zone from 1985 and its success in persuading English Heritage to permit managed open access should leave no-one in any doubt that the Pagan campaigners are unlikely to give up and go away if they are ignored by decision makers. Indeed, I argue that to exclude them from decision making regarding the site can only lead to worsening of relations not merely at Stonehenge but at other sites as well. I would agree with Blain and Wallis (2007:209-210) that continuous dialogue is the only viable way forward

Many acknowledged experts on Stonehenge have preferred to concentrate on the archaeology and avoid the politically sensitive issue of access but others including Worthington (2005:133), Fowler (1990:151-155) and Bender (1998:114-115) have written on the subject. They all acknowledged that the exclusion of Pagans and festival-goers from Stonehenge was presented in terms of a perceived need to protect the stones but Worthington and Bender in particular are sceptical of the truth of this perception. In the next chapter I describe how Pagans and archaeologists have both sought to protect sites from development and how some Pagans have sought to protect them from archaeologists. Subsequently in chapter 5 I examine the importance of including different narratives in the interpretation of sites.

3.6. Conclusions I believe that Stonehenge has been of paramount importance in shaping relations between the contemporary Pagan community and the archaeological and heritage professions. Denial and contestation of access to Stonehenge and Avebury for the community of regular pilgrims has served to reinforce a strong Pagan narrative of oppression built on fear of discrimination and attack (see section 1.2.1). This narrative of oppression has contributed to Pagan ideas of self-identity and forms the a key element of Magliocco’s (2004:185-204) ‘romance of subdominance’, a narrative of brave pious Pagans standing against overwhelming odds in the United States 44

4 Sites – Preservation and Protection 4.1. Introduction

surrounding and within it are protected. Generally the greater the proportion of the site that remains unexcavated the keener the heritage managers have been to ensure that the land remains undisturbed.

The desire for preservation has been common to contemporary Pagans, heritage managers and archaeologists. Perhaps the most commonly shared value in the Pagan community is that of valuing the earth as deity and as environment. It is frequently expressed as ‘we do not own the world, but borrow it from those yet to come’ (Brown 2012:211). Heritage professionals seek to promote knowledge and enjoyment of sites by all but with the equally important aim of preserving them for generations to come. Archaeologists seek to expand knowledge about the past and acknowledge that excavation techniques in use are intrinsically destructive. However, they have always been keen to preserve information about the past even if in some cases it is by record rather than in situ. In this chapter I examine how the protection of sites has been contested. In some cases Pagans, archaeologists and heritage professionals have all sought similarly to preserve sites threatened by development but in other cases Pagans have sought to oppose archaeological excavation of sites. The case studies included were selected at least partially for ease of access but also to ensure comparison between different situations. Nine ladies and Thornborough were both chosen as protection from development case studies because people directly involved in the protests were already known to me. Crossbones was subsequently brought to my attention by Donald Henson at the TAG 2010 conference and provided an urban site to contrast with the more rural sites. The Seahenge timber circle was included as it was the site which inspired me to investigate the contestation of sites. Nevern was local to me and constituted a site which, like Crossbones, was not thought to have been a pre-Christian religious/ceremonial site. Having examined these in detail, I then examine how contestation of such sites may be understood and addressed.

It has been my experience from field interviews that Pagans have also been keen to preserve ancient sites. They have idealised preserving them for future generations; the saying ascribed to the American Indian Chief Seattle, though probably originating from Moses Henry Cass, an Australian politician, (Quote Investigator 2013) ‘We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children’ has been a guiding principle. However, Pagan ideas of preservation have also sometimes included factors such as earth energies and spiritual power of place (p.c. Nolan 2012) and maintaining the integrity of elements such as human remains (p.c. Sommers 2010). Some Pagans have arged that preservation of earth energies and spiritual power has necessitated continuing usage of sites for ritual and celebration (Wallis 2003:145). 4.1.2. State Protection and Preservation of Ancient Sites in the UK Ancient monuments have been considered to have intrinsic value partly because of their rarity, but also because they embody material evidence of the historical narratives through which societies and nations construct their sense of identity (Harrison 2010:12-13). The obvious answer to the question ‘who are they preserved for?’ would seem to be everyone in that society or nation. Certainly The National Trust (ndb) and English Heritage would support this contention with Payne (p.c. 2009) suggesting that everyone, including generations to come, is a stakeholder (also implied in Thackray & Payne 2009:16). Harrison (2010:16-25) also emphasises the importance of heritage as an economic resource particularly via tourism.

4.1.1. Defining Protection and Preservation

Carman (2005:117-121) suggests that the commodification of heritage sites as tourism assets in the exclusive ownership of the state or quangos like English Heritage is contrary to values of inclusivity and that such sites should be considered unownable and free for all. He proposes that such a system of non-ownership brings about a widespread (perhaps even universal) ‘recognition of social value’ (Carman 2005:120) which I shall examine in detail in section 5.4.3.

Heritage organisations including museums have generally sought to keep monuments, buildings, landscapes and artefacts from the past in the same or better condition than they receive them (see English Heritage and Cadw mission statements in section 1.2.2). Threats such as development, erosion, vandalism and degradation by wear and tear are prevented or mitigated (Timothy 2007:xiixiii). In some cases (as discussed in section 3.5.3) some sites have been reconstructed to a greater or lesser extent. Bearing in mind the destructive nature of archaeological fieldwork, it should be no surprise that the extent to which a site has already been excavated has influenced how the preservation of its setting, context and the land

I argue that sites have been preserved for the general public in a limited way, in that public access (albeit often for a fee) is often a priority (e.g. English Heritage ndb). Heritage organisations, particularly those in receipt of government funding, have also prioritised research 45

Contested Heritage 4.2.1. Case Study 1: Nine Ladies Stone Circle

(English Heritage nda) possibly implying that sites have been held for researchers as much as for the general public.

Stanton Moor is an area of high ground in the Derbyshire Dales between Matlock and Bakewell in the north of England. Nine Ladies Stone Circle is situated on the northeastern edge of the moor at grid reference SK249635. It consists of nine standing stones in a circle (fig. 13 below) with an outlying monolith in a clearing on high ground (Blain & Wallis 2007:125).

The protection of at least some ancient sites in the UK is enshrined in British Law. In the latter part of the 19th century antiquarians and archaeologists increasingly campaigned to protect ancient sites from damage or alteration. Sir John Lubbock (later ennobled as Lord Avebury) proposed the 1882 Ancient Monuments Act (Her Majesty’s Government 1882). The Act provided legal protection for listed monuments by making an offence of damaging or defacing monuments on the accompanying Schedule unless permitted by the owner. It has been updated several times since with the most recent iteration being the 1979 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (Her Majesty’s Government 1979). This Act makes it an offence to demolish, damage or destroy monuments on the schedule or to remove, repair or alter them or parts of them without permission of the relevant Secretary of State. It also forbids tipping or flooding on scheduled land without similar permission. Enforcement of the Act is left largely to the statutory heritage agencies (e.g. Historic England) who arrange periodic inspections of the monuments in their area. More recently, years of hard lobbying by archaeologists brought about changes in the law via the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act and the 1991 Planning and Compensation Act, which incorporate requirements for developers to undertake responsibility for checking sites for archaeological importance and for employing archaeological contractors to preserve by record any remains destroyed by development (Barber et al 2008: 1, 19-21; Carman 1996:140-141; Everill 2009:22-33; Spoerry 1993:13-14). This process is known as rescue archaeology and is usually carried out by archaeological contract companies (Barber et al 2008: 1, 19-21; Cumberpatch & Blinkhorn 2001:39, 42; Everill 2009:22-33; Skeates 2000:73-77). The initial regulations codifying this requirement in England and Wales were known as Public Policy Guidance notes 15 and 16 (PPG 15 and PPG 16) (see Barber et al 2008:30-31; Carman 1996:140-141; Everill 2009:22-33; Grenville 1993:126; Spoerry 1993:32-37) but these were replaced by Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS 5) (Her Majesty’s Government nd). PPS 5 was, in turn, superseded (in England) by the National Planning Policy Framework on the 27th of March 2012 (English Heritage 2012).

John Barnatt (1990:77) describes Nine Ladies as an embanked stone circle in a landscape of cairns. He explains that the monument consists of ten orthostats (standing stones) on the inside of a circular bank surrounds the remains of a cairn with an outlying orthostat 40m WSW of the main circle. Barnatt (1990:25-29) dates Nine Ladies, and the other stone circles in the area, to third and second millennia BC: from the late Neolithic into the earlier Bronze age. Threats to Nine Ladies The threat to Stanton Moor and Nine Ladies derived from the expansion of an existing quarry which had not been exploited for some decades. The Peak District National Park Authority, which includes the assessment and approval or denial of planning permission in its remit, found itself in a legal dispute with the quarry company. The Park Authority considered the quarry to be dormant, giving them authority to restrict or forbid any more quarrying work. However, the quarry company (initially Standcliffe Stone and Glentotal Associates subsequently taken over by Marshalls PLC) contested this classification demanding the quarry be considered active (Blain & Wallis 2007:125-127). Protection Campaign Five protestors set up a camp to highlight the dangers to the site and to non-violently obstruct and create expense for the quarry company in the Autumn of 1999. By May 2000 some were describing it as ‘the largest on-going eco-protest in England’ (Blain & Wallis 2007:135). I was shown round the site and the area where the protest camp had been located by five former protestors, Alison, Dani, Blue, Sid and Loulou on the 24th April 2009. We parked the car on Lees Rd and walked up Dukes Drive track as the sites of protestors’ benders, tents and tarps were pointed out to me. I asked Sid about the religious identity of the protestors and to what extent they could be described as Pagan. He explained that one person self-identified as Pagan but the rest of them had their own religion. He told me they would pray to Binderella before going foraging for food in supermarket bins. I was told about sites of lockons where protestors had planned to chain themselves to concrete blocks in case of any attempts at eviction. This was a tried and tested strategy within the eco-protest movement, causing a great deal of wasted time and money for would be developers as they were obliged to remove the protestors without harming them (Pendragon & Stone

4.2. Protection from Development In this section I shall examine how Pagan campaigners have sought to protect sites from development. Such protection of sites is one area where the aims of both Pagans and archaeology/heritage professionals conjoin and some co-operation may be expected. I shall assess how much has actually taken place and explain why there was not greater co-operation. I believe the extent of cooperation is significant in being a product and indicator of underlying attitudes between heritage professionals, archaeologists and Pagans. 46

Sites – Preservation and Protection

Fig. 13. Nine Ladies Stone circle (Author’s Photo)

that this was a factor lest it be an encouragement to future protestors.

2003:135, 249). I asked to what extent local archaeologists had been involved in the protests and was told that they had not been. When I asked why, Sid explained to me that the protestors were a bit suspicious of the archaeologists. He suggested the archaeologists were too quick to tell them they were not allowed to do things like building shelters on top of mounds. He described an archaeological dig near the stones which only turned up recent votive deposits. Sid explained that he had felt somewhat put out when the stones were fenced off and he was not allowed to go among them during the dig. He also expressed unhappiness that archaeologists had removed children’s bones from nearby Dol Tor.

4.2.2. Case Study 2: Thornborough Henges The Thornborough Henges are situated between the towns of Ripon and Richmond in Yorkshire in national grid square SE2879. Burl (2012:13, 60) describes the sites as comprising three class IIA henges, meaning that each bank has ditches both inside and outside. This style of henge is characteristic of eastern England. He remarks that the central henge is built on top of an earlier Neolithic cursus monument (Burl 2012:60), but the site map posted by Friends of Thornborough1 shows a second cursus immediately to the east of the north-western henge, a barrow cemetery to the east of the second cursus and a double line of pits immediately to the west of the south eastern henge. Harding (2003:90) describes the henges as ‘sadly neglected’ and as defying conventional ideas on later Neolithic British cultures. She emphasises the association of these three henges not only with one another but also with Nunwick, Hutton Moor and Cana Barn Henges (Harding 2003:90-91). All six earthworks are located in the Vale of Mowbray close to the River Ure. Harding (2003:97-99) stresses the importance of the river in interpreting the henges. She emphasises the role of the river as a transport route for trading stone tools and as part

Outcome After a court case and an appeal, Standcliffe Stone/ Marshalls PLC agreed in September 2008 to withdraw their request to quarry at Lees Cross and Endcliffe quarries and to manage the land to promote biodiversity in return for permission to quarry at Dale View quarry (BBC News 2008d). I have been unable to find any reports suggesting the degree of influence the protest camp had in persuading the quarry company to come to this compromise, but they must certainly have been aware of the financial costs of eco-protests in situations such as the Newbury Bypass and I would consider it highly likely that this was factored into their cost/benefit assessments. I would also consider it highly unlikely that they would be keen for it to be known

1

47

http://www.friendsofthornborough.org.uk/index.htm

Contested Heritage public awareness through a BBC television programme aired in 2004. Pagan events have been held there since 2003 (Blain & Wallis 2007:146). The conduct of the campaign to protect Thornborough has been different from that at Stanton Moor in that it has not involved large scale direct action. It began by focusing on dialogue, raising awareness and increasing Pagan ritual use of the site (Blain & Wallis 2007:146-149). But it has since proceeded to challenge decisions through the courts (Friends of Thornborough ndc).

of a travel network for pilgrims. She suggests that it had sacred or symbolic significance in a manner not dissimilar to Parker Pearson & Ramilisonina’s (1998:316-318) theory regarding the River Avon connecting Durrington Walls to Stonehenge. As well as the late Neolithic henges and the two cursus monuments, the site also includes a double pit alignment and a round barrow cemetery. Threats to Thornborough The actual henges themselves are scheduled ancient monuments and as such are protected by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. However, large parts of the surrounding landscape have been earmarked for gravel quarrying by Blockstone/Marshalls PLC through extension of quarry permissions initially granted in 1955 (Blain & Wallis 2007:126-127, 145; Blease-Bourne 2011:78-79). The areas threatened include parts of a pit alignment and part of a cursus monument associated with the site. Blain & Wallis (2007:145-146) record that the issue came to public notice in 2004 and that Pagan campaigns to protect the site and its landscape began in the same year. Some quarrying has been carried out in the area in the past resulting in low lying areas adjacent to the site. Having visited I can attest to the environmental impact of these excavations as shown in fig. 14.

Blain & Wallis (2007:146) record that campaigners described the campaign to protect the henges and their landscape setting as being ‘based on ideas of how the henges relate to their landscape’. I have been unable to confirm this but have come across similar ideas among Pagans at other sites such as the Hill of Tara and Stonehenge. This understanding of landscape resonates closely with, or may even derive from, Shanks and Tilley’s ideas of hermeneutic phenomenology in archaeology (Tilley 2004:1-31). These theories interpret archaeological landscapes from an experiential perspective. The RSPB had initially praised the manner in which Tarmac has attempted to mitigate the environmental impact on wildlife by restoring quarried out areas to wetland, but campaigners have been more critical, describing provision of created habitats as an insufficient substitute for leaving wildlife undisturbed (Blain & Wallis 2007:147). By March 2009 however, the RSPB was supporting the campaigners and even the RAF were becoming concerned about

Campaign to Protect Thornborough Blain & Wallis (2007:146) point out that Thornborough was little known prior to 2003. The site came to greater

Fig. 14. Quarried area viewed from the henge bank, now a car park (Author’s photograph)

48

Sites – Preservation and Protection

Fig. 15. Beltane festival at Thornborough Henges. Craft market overseen by a man clad as an Iron Age warrior (Author’s photograph)

more detail that their understanding of the planning system is that planning will only be refused for gravel extraction if English Heritage archaeologists overrule the contract archaeologists employed by Tarmac and that English Heritage are under-resourced to contest such issues.

disturbance of bird behaviour causing damage to their aircraft (Yorkshire Post 2009) I visited a Beltane event at Thornborough Henges on the second of May 2010 to find out what had been done to preserve the site. I spoke to a former eco-protestor who introduced himself as Oliver and he explained to me that Beltane festivals had been held there since 2003 to raise awareness and campaign against quarrying in the area. He explained that the farmer who works the land had initially been annoyed by the activity but quickly became supportive. Some campaigners were also initially concerned that the festival might harm the preservation campaign but Oliver explained that even Tarmac, the quarrying company, have assisted by providing toilet facilities.

The Outcome of the Protests A judicial review brought to overturn existing quarrying permissions brought a temporary halt to quarrying (Friends of Thornborough Henges ndb), further challenges to new planning permissions appeared to meet with some success too. Eventually, in 2016 a news report stated that an agreement had been reached to allow quarrying whilst protecting the archaeology (Gleeson 2016). 4.2.3. Case Study 3: Crossbones Graveyard

Oliver told me that some of the campaigners were suspicious of the archaeologists, whom they suspected of being in the pay of Tarmac, and confirmed that there had been tension between the archaeologists and those he described as ‘spiritual people’. He criticised the archaeologists for not making their findings about the site intelligible to the public and English Heritage for not appearing to care and appearing aloof. George, another campaigner, asserted that archaeologists were used by corporations to justify destruction of sites and that heritage organisations all had vested interests in such corporations. The website of Friends of Thornborough explained in

Crossbones Burial Ground is a former unconsecrated graveyard in the London borough of Southwark just off Redcross Way at Grid reference TQ32438009. It was referred to, although not by name, as an unconsecrated graveyard in which prostitutes were buried in 1598 (Brickley et al 1999:5). Another text dating from 1833 also refers to the site as an unconsecrated graveyard used by prostitutes and provides both the name Cross Bones and its location on Redcross St. Harris (2010) records that prostitutes licensed to operate in the area by the Bishop of Winchester were known as Winchester’s Geese. Brickley 49

Contested Heritage with the historical evidence that the people buried there were the poorest members of a very poor community, with 18% of interments being workhouse inmates. Harris (2010) alleges that London Underground intend to further develop the site in which burials are still located (Brickley et al 1999:3 confirm this). Campaign to Preserve Crossbones The campaign to prevent the development of the whole site and to preserve at least part of it as a garden of remembrance for women forced into prostitution and other social outcasts was begun by John Constable, a prominent local Pagan and Urban Shaman (Harris 2010). The campaign has involved monthly vigils (Anon nd & Harris 2010) and a campaign of letter writing to members of the London Assembly. The evidence for significant Pagan involvement in the campaign has come partly from the overtly Pagan nature of some of the votive offerings tied to the gates (fig. 16-18), such as the witch doll pictured below and also from articles in Pagan Publications (e.g. Constable 2008). Brickley et al (1999:2-3) describe how archaeologists from the Museum of London Archaeology Service (MoLAS), Newham Archaeological Service and Oxford Archaeological Unit excavated and recorded at Cross Bones, but I found no evidence that they have provided any support for the campaign to prevent development of the site.

Fig. 16. Memorial Plaque at Crossbones graveyard (Author’s Photo)

Understanding Contestation at Crossbones

et al (1999:7) record that the cemetery was continually reused and that early burials are unlikely to have survived due its intensive use in the first half of the 19th century. Despite being the largest cemetery in the parish it was considered the least desirable resting place (Brickley et al 1999:8). The graveyard was finally closed on the 24th October 1853, a new cemetery having been opened the previous year, and by 1872 Cross Bones was a builders’ yard. The site is now owned by Transport for London and was partially developed following three phases of archaeological excavation between 1992 and 1997 (Brickley et al 1999:2-3).

It was a paper, given at the Theoretical Archaeology Group in Bristol by Don Henson (2010), on local vs. national agendas in heritage which introduced me to Crossbones. In this paper, Henson noted that two of the most well publicised heritage attractions in the area (HMS Belfast and the Golden Hind) actually had no particular historical connection to Southwark at all. He argues that the only sites in the area which are about people from Southwark are the ones ignored by archaeologists and the heritage sector but championed by local people and that foremost among these is Crossbones Graveyard. It was perhaps most importantly the affiliation with the feminist movement that many Pagans, especially Witches, felt has encouraged so many of them to become involved in the campaign to save Crossbones. However, the oppression narrative mentioned in section 1.2.1 may also have helped contemporary Pagans to identify with people seen as outcasts and social pariahs. A third reason these people have been significant to Pagans has been the identification of them as Ancestors of place, a concept that is investigated in detail in section 7.2.1. This, combined with expectations of an eternal right of sepulture (investigated further in section 7.7.3.), has served to inspire action. Finally, another factor in the contestation of this site may be a simple desire for a green park area in what is a very built up area.

The archaeological analysis of the remains from Cross Bones revealed 145 sets of remains for whom an age at death could be determined. There were 98 sets of remains aged 0-5; 5 aged 6-15; 18 aged 17-45 and 24 aged over 45 (Brickley et al 1999:30-31). Widespread evidence of poor dental health with no evidence of any treatment being received was discovered (Brickley et al 1999:34-36). There was also frequent evidence of back complaints (Brickley et al 1999:37-38). These health problems which also included rickets and possibly osteomalacia2, as well as scurvy and anaemia along with the high levels of infant mortality are entirely consistent which Roberts and Manchester (2005:237) describe as ‘inadequate mineralisation... in cortical and spongy bone’

2

50

Sites – Preservation and Protection

Fig. 17. Gates to the Crossbones cemetery site from Redcross Way (Author’s Photo)

4.2.4. Understanding Pagan Protection of Sites from Development

archaeology/heritage professionals. I have found no evidence of joint campaigning at all even when their agendas coincide.

The interview with Sid at Nine Ladies (section 4.2.1) echoed off-the-record remarks from campaigners at Thornborough and at the hill of Tara in Ireland suggesting there has been little co-operation between Pagans and

The statutory safeguards for the archaeological environment are often successful, negating any need for the Pagan community to become involved. An example

Fig. 18. Votive witch doll tied to the gates of Crossbones Cemetery (Author’s Photo)

51

Contested Heritage of such a success is Whelan’s (2009) report on a Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age henge monument, which was found on land being developed as a housing estate. Arrangements were made to preserve the site (David Wilson Homes 2012) incorporating a fenced off area surrounding the henge. I have found no evidence that Pagan activists have played any part in the preservation of this monument, although I suspect that many Pagans might have preferred to see more of the surrounding landscape setting of the henge left undeveloped. George and Oliver at Thornbury highlighted the apparent failure of the archaeologists to pass on their findings to the people campaigning to save the henges. This may emphasise the importance for archaeologists (and potentially developers too) to make better use of community engagement archaeologists. Good community engagement work should also emphasise that although developers pay for archaeological evaluation, this is a statutory requirement and the developers should have no influence over the archaeologists determination of the value of the the archaeology on any given site.

to have seen them fifty years before they hit the news (Time Team 1999). John Lorimer brought the site to the attention of Norfolk Castle Museum in August 1998 after finding a bronze axe-head nearby whilst fishing for crabs. The museum sent Edwin Rose to examine the site and he called in Norfolk Archaeological Unit (Ayers, 2002:17; Brennand & Taylor 2003:1; Champion 2000: 12; Time Team 1999). Initial Analysis An initial evaluation survey was undertaken in the Autumn of 1998 by Norfolk Archaeological Unit (Ayers 2002:17; Brennand & Taylor 2003:1; Champion 2000:17-19) involving planning out the visible features and excavating two test trenches; one within the circle and another just outside it. Samples of wood were also taken for dating but failed to provide an absolute dendrochronological date. However, radiocarbon analysis returned a date of 2050 to 2049 BC. This was subsequently borne out by a more detailed dendrochronological examination. These results convinced archaeologists and heritage professionals that the site represented an exceptionally rare opportunity to examine a previously unknown class of structure from a mysterious phase of Britain’s past.

However it should not be surprising that archaeological contractors have not vocally supported the campaign to prevent development. It would not be in their commercial interests to do so. If one considers that archaeological contractors are employed by developers to fulfil planning requirements on a competitive tender, a company with a reputation for supporting contestation of the development might find itself with dwindling customer base. However, I cannot help suspecting that the increasing number of Pagans who are active in the archaeological profession may have alerted Pagan campaigners outside the profession to the threats to sites before now.

Preservation In-Situ or Excavation and Removal? Based on the report from Norfolk Archaeological Unit, English Heritage decided initially to leave the circle in situ even though wooden artefacts of such an age are inevitably fragile and once exposed are likely to be at extreme risk of attrition by the elements (Champion 2000:28). However, a campaign was mounted by prominent archaeologists led by Francis Pryor and Maisie Taylor (noted for their excavation of the Flag Fen site about 50 miles from Holme) to excavate and preserve what they identified as a uniquely wellpreserved prehistoric timber circle (Champion 2000:2829; Watson 2005:30). Brennand (2004:26) explains that stratigraphic and contextual data had already been lost through tidal action and that intensive analysis of the timbers themselves was the only way to answer questions about the erection and purpose of the construction. They were particularly worried that marine invertebrates would damage the timbers and tidal erosion would sweep them away (Ayers 2002:17; Brennand & Taylor 2003:1). This concern has been borne out by the fact that the site has now been eroded (p.c. Ayers 2009) and that, under analysis, the timbers were found to have experienced significantly greater attrition from marine life than initially observed (Brennand & Taylor 2003:13). The three options available were: preservation in situ, excavation and preservation elsewhere or recording in situ with the near certainty of decay (Watson 2005:26). Preservation in situ was opposed by Norfolk Wildlife Trust (responsible for managing the Home Dunes Nature Reserve within which the timbers were found), English Nature and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) who expressed serious concerns about large numbers of people visiting as the site was a nature reserve and a site of special scientific interest

4.3. Protecting Sites from Archaeological Excavation Having examined campaigns to protect sites where archaeologists and Pagans have been on the same side opposing commercial interests, I shall now examine cases where Pagan campaigners have attempted to protect sites they deem sacred from being excavated by archaeologists. The first case study is the Holme-next-the-Sea timber circle dubbed Seahenge by the Press and the second is Nevern Castle in North Pembrokeshire. 4.3.1. Case Study 4: Seahenge or Holme-next-the-Sea Timber Circle The name Seahenge is a media appellation for a site described by archaeologists as Holme I timber circle. It consists of a circle of 56 timber posts surrounding an upturned tree stump (Brennand & Taylor 2003:7) discovered in 1998 near the small Norfolk village of Holme-next-the-Sea at Grid Reference TF71125 45263 (Brennand & Taylor 2003:2). It was excavated in the summer of 1999 and was subsequently put on permanent display in Kings Lynn Museum (Hide 2008:50). Local people claimed to have seen the timbers much earlier with one man claiming 52

Sites – Preservation and Protection (SSSI) (Ayers 2002:18; Brennand & Taylor 2003:1-2; Champion 2000:36-39). Archaeologists and heritage professionals also agreed that visitors would quickly destroy the timbers themselves and thus it was decided that preservation in situ was neither desirable nor affordable (Brennand 2004:26; Brennand & Taylor 2003:1-2; Watson 2005:30-31). The campaign led by Pryor to excavate the timbers was actively supported by the Press. However, in the light of their subsequent criticisms of the excavation in support of the protests, Champion (2000:33) almost seems to suggest that the whole protest situation might have been engineered by reporters.

Nolan’s website (nd) includes several newspaper cuttings sympathetic to the Druids and Champion (2000:51) suggests that English Heritage became alarmed at this adverse publicity. English Heritage agreed to suspend work and hold talks in nearby Hunstanton (Champion 2000:51). However, it emerged just before this meeting that the archaeologists, fearing two already partially excavated timbers would be washed away had violated the agreement and completed the excavation of these two timbers. Any remaining trust the protestors may have accorded English Heritage evaporated and although David Miles (English Heritage’s chief archaeologist) issued an apology for the use of the chainsaw positions became increasingly entrenched (Champion 2000:51). Even so seven points were agreed:

Community Involvement It was not long thereafter that objections to the excavation started to be heard from some local residents, spiritualists and environmentalists (Champion 2000:43-46; Watson 2005:38). A meeting was held at the village hall in which those with concerns about the dig expected to have their objections taken into account, but were angered to find that the meeting was more to inform them of what was going to happen rather than to listen to what they had to say (Watson 2005:38-39). Ayers (2002:19) also points out that not all the local community were opposed to the excavation and many supported it enthusiastically. He also suggests that the Press may have exacerbated the situation. About the time of the announcement to excavate, English Heritage were contacted by Philip Carr-Gomm of the Order of Bards Ovates and Druids to enquire about the fate of the site (Champion 2000:32)

• • • •

The site should be treated with respect. The Site was sacred to the people who created it. It remains sacred to a large number of people today. The site contains a lot of information that can be shared, from archaeological to geomantic, and this should be shared. • The beach is profoundly vulnerable. • The current trend of visitors will irrevocably damage the site • That the damage done by visitors will result in the death of birds by starvation and exhaustion, and of the decline in their numbers because they will not be able to feed (Champion 2000:54) Champion (2000:54) records English Heritage (and subsequently Time Team) as suggesting that an agreement was concluded to permit the excavation to continue but he describes Crow and others as disputing this assertion.

Protest Ayers (p.c. 2009) explained to me that a colleague had warned at the outset that there could be protests, but Watson (2005:20) records that the archaeologists did not even consider the possibility that sawing a slice from the central upturned tree stump for dendrochronological dating might be considered controversial. However, this action was strongly condemned by anti-dig campaigners with Maughfling (2000b:10) subsequently describing it as sacrilege.

On the 1st of July Rollo Maughfling of the Glastonbury Order of Druids arrived to represent CoBDO and issued the following proclamation on its behalf (Champion 2000:56-57):

The protests began with Buster Nolan and Des Crow arguing with the archaeologists. The archaeologists initially tried to present counter-arguments, but when no agreement was reached they ignored the Druids and began the excavation work. Crow then began obstructive non-violent direct action involving switching off the archaeologists’ pump and removing the protective sandbag barricade and a farcical situation ensued of sandbags being removed and returned and the pump being switched on and off. Nolan, with financial assistance provided by Mervyn Lambert (a local businessman), sought a court injunction to stop the excavation of the timbers, but was unable to find any solicitors willing to take the case (Champion 2000:49, Watson 2005:40). Nolan and Crow returned to obstructive non-violent direct action and increasing numbers of supporters began to arrive (Champion 2000:50-51).

1) Sea Henge is a national monument, as important to the understanding of early Celtic culture as is Woodhenge or the wooden temple recently discovered beneath Stanton Drew. 2) It is an oak grove, possibly the only surviving intact specimen of a Druidic place of worship not destroyed by the Romans. 3) For English Heritage to be cutting it up and removing it must therefore constitute the greatest act of “controlled vandalism” since those times. 4) As are all ancient temples, it is site specific, meaning that it can only be properly studied in relation to its environment. 5) As even the waters have not destroyed it up to now, it is therefore a living temple of our native Druidic tradition, and not a museum piece for English Heritage.

The Council of British Druid Orders is pleased to contribute to Buster Nolan’s appeal to save Sea Henge from desecration disguised as conservation for the following reasons:

53

Contested Heritage 6) It rightfully belongs to the people of Norfolk who should have first say on how it might be preserved in situ whilst further researches into its origins and purpose are carried out. 7) Trying to remove Sea Henge is like trying to move Stonehenge or Canterbury Cathedral. As a prehistoric cultural jewel, and a place of sanctity and veneration for modern Druids it is irreplaceable. 8) As ancient places of worship throughout the Americas and Australia are being restored to the native and aboriginal inhabitants of those continents, so do we, the Druids of Britain, reclaim the place of our ancestors to ourselves, and those for whom it was originally built, the local people of Norfolk. It is East Anglia’s prehistoric national shrine. (Maughfling 2000b:11)

2002:xx, 254). Subsequently the timbers were taken to the Mary Rose Trust in Portsmouth and preserved using wax to replace the water in them (Hide 2008:50; Watson 2005:83). It was found that what was initially thought to be two separate timbers was in fact a forked branch providing a narrow entrance way into the circle aligned on the midwinter sunset (Brennand & Taylor 2003:7). A second circle (Holme II) was also found centred on a wattle fence surrounding a pair of oak sleepers dished in the middle to support a hypothesised split log (Brennand & Taylor 2003:10-12). This second circle was not excavated perhaps because of the protests. One of the most interesting revelations about the monument was the large number of axes used in its construction, numbering around fifty (Brennand & Taylor 2003:22). This has been interpreted to suggest that many people, perhaps a whole community were involved in its construction in a single phase (Brennand & Taylor 3003:29, 71). Environmental data were collected suggesting that the circle had been built beside a salt marsh separated from the sea by a ridge of sand dunes, rather than being in the tidal zone as it was when excavated (Brennand & Taylor 2003:61, 64). At the time of the excavation of the timbers, Pryor (Time Team 1999) suggested the upturned tree stump may have functioned as an excarnation platform. The presence of four ring ditches, suggestive of ploughed out round barrows, just 2.5 km south of the site (Brennand & Taylor 2003:4) may serve to support this interpretation.

Over the Summer Solstice violence had erupted at Stonehenge and Champion (2000:56) suggests that English Heritage was deeply concerned that Stonehenge protestors would descend upon Holme en masse with consequences not only for the excavation but also for the bird life in the area. Also concerned about rising costs, English Heritage turned to the courts and successfully obtained an injunction banning Des Crow, Rollo Maughfling, Geoff Needham, Buster Nolan and any other protestors from the site. This was appealed but with only partial success (Maughfling 2000b:12, Watson 2005:43-50) and police ensured that the archaeologists were able to complete the work without hindrance (Time Team 1999).

Display at King’s Lynn

Maughfling’s proclamation (above) sets out some of the arguments for leaving the timbers in place but there were other motivations for the protestors. The BBC record Nolan as saying ‘But we can put the oak posts back if necessary, if the tree bole is taken away then it will be lost forever’ (BBC News 1999a). Geoff Needham (Chairman of the Parish council and described as an expert on local tidal conditions) told the BBC ‘It will not get washed away. It is embedded in clay’ (BBC News 1999a). In a telephone interview (p.c. 2009), Nolan explained to me that he believed the Seahenge timber circle worked to prevent coastal erosion by creating a vortex mixing male and female polarised water. He explained that this also hardens the wood and asserted that the timbers were as hard as rock, denying archaeologists’ descriptions of the timbers as being vulnerable to tidal and wave action. This assertion conveniently explains Ayers’ assertion that the area of beach from which the timbers were excavated has subsequently been washed away. Needham videoed Nolan, a conservationist and Druid, saying ‘Seahenge has more meaning and power on the beach here at Holme than it does anywhere else’ (Watson 2005:40).

In April 2008, after a £1.2 Million refurbishment, the Kings Lynn Museum opened a display featuring timbers from the Seahenge circle, including the central upturned stump (Hide 2008:50). I visited the museum in April 2009 to find out how the monument was displayed. The Seahenge display was the first part of the museum visitors experienced after going through the reception area. As you entered the room there was a partial life-size reconstruction of the timber circle on the right hand side (fig. 19), while cases on the left displayed a range of Bronze Age artefacts from the area. Beyond the reconstruction, the actual timbers of the site were displayed in glass cases (fig. 20) with a video and large mural showing the environmental context of the find. To the right, beyond the timbers, was an educational area in which children could construct models of the timber circle and of a Bronze Age agricultural landscape with roundhouses and animals. The display was admirably multi-vocal providing information on the objections to the excavation of the timbers. Nolan (p.c. 2009) explained that he would rather have seen the timbers left in their original location, but conceded that if they were going to be put on display, various interpretations of their purpose need to be presented to visitors.

Detailed Analysis, Storage and Preservation After excavation the timbers were curated at Flag Fen Excavation Centre just outside Peterborough where a timber causeway had been uncovered in 1982. It was here that the timbers were examined and analysed (Pryor

The display included a visitors’ book for people to leave comments about the exhibition and to suggest 54

Sites – Preservation and Protection

Fig. 19. Reconstruction of Seahenge at the Kings Lynn Museum (Author’s Photo)

Fig. 20. Seahenge timbers on display at Kings Lynn Museum (Author’s Photo)

55

Contested Heritage have avoided offending both locals and the sensibilities of more moderate Pagans and hence reduced support for the protestors. Finally, Ayers (2002:19) points out that the lack of a professional Press officer for the dig may have contributed to problems with reporters and an imbalance in coverage reflecting protestors points of view. As with the exclusion of Solstice revellers from Stonehenge, the excavation of Seahenge has left a legacy of anger and distrust among some Pagans. Tim Sebastion (2001:127) described the project as a demolition. However, Pryor’s comments at the end of the Channel 4 programme have served to inspire Sebastion (2001:127) to hope for a more co-operative future.

interpretations of the monument. I checked 172 comments and found that 124 of them were positive, 13 negative and 34 were neutral or ambivalent about the display. Thirty-two interpretations were suggested of which nine considered it to have been a ritual or sacred site and three a burial site. Comments included the following: • Excellent exhibition and of great value to the nation – Yes surely it is right that it has been saved – we have so much to learn from it – well done indeed (CC Stanifold 4 Apr 08) • By removing these timber [sic] a desecration of a sacred site has taken place. What a shame for a few pieces of timber to be on display. (John Handish 5 Apr 08) • It’s a pity a way could not have been found to preserve Seahenge in situ but this is a good 2nd best as preservation is vital (S. Wilson 13 Sep 08) • As two Pagans we agree that Seahenge should have been removed from its location to preserve it – after all it was never intended to be submerged in water (climate change already back then!) If we truly care about our ancestral sites we should be supporting conservation efforts, not climbing all over already fragile ancient remains (protestors please note!) and incidentally encouraging people not to disturb a wildlife reserve. We like the display – very informative, confirms what we thought about possible use of central stump as place to expose bodies for excarnation – would suggest there might be significant ossuary/ies nearby – any clues? (Sep 2 Jan 09) • Thank you that at least you have provided alternative information/perspective from talkingtrees (Mother Hawthorne 11 May 08) • One reservation:- speculation should not have a place where proven facts ought to be (CMB 17 Jun 08)

4.3.2. Case Study 5: Nevern Castle Nevern Castle is a motte and bailey castle dating from the 12th century AD (Caple nd:1-2). Originally it was thought to have been an Iron Age hillfort (Mytum & Webster 2001:106; p.c. Bennett 2006) but this has now been disproved (Caple nd:1-2). It is located on a hill overlooking the village of Nevern (Nanhyfer in Welsh) at grid reference SN082401. The site is owned communally by the village but managed on behalf of the residents by Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority (p.c. Bennett 2010). It is important in Welsh history because it was a stronghold of Lord Rhys of Deheubarth who was held prisoner there by his sons in the 1190s (Caple nd:1-2, p.c. Bennett 2010). Excavation Prior to the excavation, both Phil Bennett (The National Park’s culture and heritage manager) (p.c. 2006) and Harold Mytum (who had excavated the nearby fort at Castell Henllys) (Mytum & Webster 2001:106) were of the opinion that Nevern Castle represented a post Roman refortification of an Iron Age rampart that had been continually developed and refortified between AD400 and 1190. The excavation sought to confirm or deny this hypothesis and to establish a chronology of occupation as well as to provide data on the nature of that occupation. Radiocarbon dating of charcoal excavated from sealed contexts beneath the ramparts has refuted the idea of an Iron Age or sub-Roman genesis of the site suggesting rather that it was built around 1108 to 1109. It was slighted and abandoned in 1195 (p.c. Bennett 2010, p.c. Caple 2010; Caple nd:1-2).

The issues surrounding inclusion of alternative narratives raised in the final two quotes will be examined in more detail in chapter 5. The Legacy of Seahenge At the end of the Time Team (1999) special on Seahenge Tony Robinson asked Francis Pryor what he would do differently if another timber circle were to emerge. Pryor replied ‘Nothing, absolutely nothing; except as regards people who have interests in it like the Pagans and the Druids: I think I would try much harder to get them on our side.’ He went on to explain that ‘they care about the past just as Maisie and I care about the past and there are an awful lot of people who don’t care about the past’. Bearing in mind that the Druids were specific that the timbers needed to be left in situ and for the reasons already stated in section 4.3.1 and English Heritage was equally adamant in its decision that this was not desirable, it is hard to see how Pryor’s alliance would have worked in this situation. However, a more sensitive collection of dendrochronological samples, with an auger (if possible) rather than a chainsaw along with better management of villagers’ expectations and a stronger commitment to keep the timbers in Norfolk (as indeed was done) might

Brithdir Mawr and Tir Ysprydol The protest against the excavation of the site was led by Emma Orbach, founder of the Tir Ysprydol (Spiritual Land) community. Emma and her then husband founded the Brithdir Mawr ecological commune some years previously and when they separated and divorced the land was split with Emma Orbach creating the new Tir Ysbrydol community, which she described as growing out of a need to ‘deepen connection with the earth and spirits’ (p.c. Orbach 2010). She declined to describe the 56

Sites – Preservation and Protection community as Pagan saying that Pagans sometimes ‘miss the higher dimension’. She does however, describe herself to people as a witch and my assessment based on what she told me is that the Tir Ysbridol community do come within the broad definition of Pagan. The members of the community live in low impact eco-houses built to a design credited to Tony Wrench. Wrench’s first house on the site became something of a local cause celèbre. The house had been built without planning permission and when this was applied for retrospectively, the National Park Authority refused it despite granting planning for farm buildings which stood out a great deal more and used less sustainable building techniques. The Authority ordered the house demolished, but the community there and other supporters objected and protested. The reconstructed Iron Age settlement of Castell Henllys, which features reconstructed roundhouses was occupied by protestors for a short while (Indymedia UK 2004, p.c. Orbach 2010).

reported that this conversation had become heated on Ms Orbach’s side but she had later apologised and that Crane accepted this apology. The result of Orbach’s protest was that some of the trees earmarked for felling were saved and that the dig was delayed as the risk assessments were re-evaluated. Caple (p.c. 2010) explained that steps had been taken to preserve local flora and that two excavation strategies had been prepared to permit some work to continue even if there was protest action. He told me that his diggers had been instructed to ask any protestors politely not to interfere with their work, but that if they persisted diggers should withdraw and take a break pending further instructions. Engaging with the Protests Caple (p.c. 2010) explained that he had not met with the protestors but Phil Bennett had spoken to them. Bennett (p.c. 2010) explained that he had collected Orbach from Tir Ysbridol and driven her to Nevern to discuss the situation on site so they could see clearly the features and areas they were talking about. He was keen to stress that the meeting was courteous and that he respected and was sympathetic to her views. Orbach described Bennett as trying to show he was listening to her but without actually listening. She expressed disappointment that the excavation organisers did not meet with her sooner and seemed frustrated that they were unable to see her point of view.

Protest at Nevern When interviewed Caple (p.c. 2010) explained to me that the protest was largely about the felling of beech trees at the site to allow the dig to proceed safely. The Community Council, which owns the land, had approved the felling and was applying for Forestry licences when the first protests were made. Bennett (p.c. 2010) also confirmed that most opposition was centred on the felling of the trees. In an interview (09 Nov 2010), Emma Orbach explained that she objected to the felling of the trees but also that it felt like a desecration of place that was sacred to her. She explained to me that she viewed Nevern as a place where our plane of reality intersects or connects with another dimension and that it provides a place where she can interact with beings from this other reality that she identifies to other people as fairies. She explained that the castle had been all about aggression and greed and that by proceeding without addressing her concerns the archaeologists were repeating this pattern of behaviour. She suggested that these fairies may have burnt down the castle and might take some form of vengeance on the archaeologists. In this belief she is supported by folklore: Harte (2004:8, 23) describes fairies as living in mounds and as willing to ‘blast’ trespassers and despoilers with tumours containing pins or hair. Many archaeologists (e.g. Schadla Hall 2004) ridicule such beliefs, but I have heard no suggestion that Caple or anyone else involved in the excavation behaved discourteously to Ms Orbach and her supporters. Fortunately I have not heard of anyone on the dig experiencing health problems related to it either. Caple (p.c. 2010) did state ‘We have a responsibility to a narrative based on factual evidence’.

Caple (p.c. 2010) explained to me that he felt it necessary to facilitate public understanding of the past. To this end he suggested that foliage at Nevern needed to be managed to make archaeological features visible. I was told that the dig had funding for eight years and that after that the trenches would be backfilled and returned to grass. I suspect that, along with interpretative panels, this is how the site will be presented once archaeological fieldwork is complete. At Nevern I was mindful from the earliest approaches to this field study that I would have to be careful to ensure that my enquiries did not exacerbate the situation. Full details of my research tactics and the problems which emerged are covered in section 2.7.2. Theorising Nevern The contestation of this site appears to be built on several causal factors. Despite being a community led and supported project (p.c. Caple 2010, p.c. Bennett 2010) Orbach and her supporters obviously felt that their opinions and feelings were not taken into account. This instance of contestation demonstrated both an ecological and a spiritual dimension. The ecological concerns appear to have had more popular support than the spiritual ones. It might be argued that Orbach, perhaps harbouring resentment against the National Park Authority over the Tony Wrench roundhouse affair, saw the excavation as opportunity to create problems for them. However, my assessment is that this would have been counter to her values and character. She certainly held beliefs which may

Orbach conducted her protest by organising a petition consisting of 200 signatures and a picnic was held at the site during which ribbons were tied around branches (p.c. Caple 2010). Preliminary excavation began at Easter 2010 and Orbach visited and spoke to Peter Crane who was jointly employed by both Dyfed Archaeology and Pembrokeshire Coast National Park. Caple (p.c. 2010) 57

Contested Heritage 4.5. Options for the Future

be considered outside the mainstream e.g. the presence of fairies and historicity of Atlantis and I suspect the contempt with which such views are often met within the ‘archaeological establishment’ (e.g. Schadla-Hall 2004, Mason & Kuo 2006:184-185) continues to be a barrier to constructive interaction.

In section 4.1.2 I explained the importance of the preservation (at least by record) of sites performed by archaeological contract firms (Barber et al 2008: 1, 1921; Carman 1996:140-141; Everill 2009:22-33; Spoerry 1993:13-14). As archaeologists employees with these firms may be expected to be keen to support preservation in situ but I suspect that for archaeologists to have open contact with campaigning groups encouraging them to disrupt building or quarrying operations might lay the archaeologists’ employers open to legal action from the developers or cause them to blacklist the archaeological contract firms, thus harming their business viability.

4.4. Theorising Preservation and Protection This chapter has shown two different situations in which Pagans have campaigned to protect monuments they consider sacred. In the first situation they were campaigning to protect sites from being developed, which begs the question: why have Pagans felt the need to take additional action rather than trusting to laws like the 1979 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (Her Majesty’s Government 1979)? In answering this one must understand that the campaigning Druid groups have shared a great deal with the anti-capitalist protest movement (See Graeber 2009:262) and have therefore considered the government and associated agencies responsible for safeguarding heritage as being, to a greater or lesser extent, in the pockets of big business. They have therefore been unwilling to consider archaeologists and heritage professionals wholly reliable or trustworthy to safeguard such sites. This has been exacerbated by insufficient community engagement work leading to a lack of understanding about the archaeology and archaeologists by stakeholders.

In the case of campaigns against archaeological excavation of sites, I suspect accommodations might be harder to accomplish. In section 4.3.1 I referred to Brennand’s (2004:26) explanation of the necessity of excavating the ‘Seahenge’ timber circle. But Champion (2000) and Watson (2005) record how managing community relations went badly wrong. Archaeologists overseas have succeeded in establishing good relations with stakeholder communities (Coleman 2013:156-175; Carmichael et al 1994:5-7; Davidson 1995:3-5; McDavid 2002:310-312, 2009:217234; O’Regan 1994:95-106). I therefore argue that open debate and better community engagement are key in avoiding campaigns against digs. I suggest that the lack of recurring protest at Nevern was partially a result of higher levels of community support for the dig and consequent alienation of protestors if they had persisted but also on pro-active engagement with protestors by Phil Bennett of the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park. Widespread community support for archaeological fieldwork therefore appears to be a vital factor in avoiding contestation. To garner such support, research plans need to be formulated to encourage community awareness and involvement. Funding needs to be formulated to allow employment of community archaeologists to engage with local people and visitors before and during the dig.

The second situation has involved Pagans campaigning against what they see as desecration, destruction or theft of sacred sites. Because they have felt a spiritual and emotional link with these sites they have naturally been unwilling to see them damaged or removed. In the case of the campaigning Druid Orders the perceived injustices of the past (especially Stonehenge, see section 3.3.5) have combined with the anti-capitalist affiliations mentioned in the previous paragraph. Lest I give the impression that Pagans have always been paragons of protection for ancient sites, I must also note that there have been instances of Pagans damaging sites. Wallis (2003:142-143) describes two cases where ritual groups have attempted to restore or alter stone circles: at Dol Tor in 1993 and at the twelve apostles on Ilkley Moor in 1998. Other monuments such as West Kennett Long Barrow (Wallis 2003:169) and Men-an-Tol in Cornwall (Cornish Ancient Sites Protection Network nd) have been damaged by fires, probably set by similar groups. It should therefore not be surprising that instances of damage such as the painting of Avebury Stones with strange patterns described in section 3.4.4 were initially assumed to be the work of ‘New Age crazies’ (Antiquity 1996:501). The issue of rubbish deposition at sacred sites has been another running sore in the relationship between pilgrims and site managers which has also been addressed within the Pagan community (Blain & Wallis 2007:56-59; Restall Orr 1996:26-28).

58

5 Sites – Representation and Ownership 5.1. Introduction

the site or uses it in their spirituality. The management of Stonehenge has tended to privilege the stakeholders with financial connections and, to a lesser extent, those with academic and educational duties over others. Only in the last fifteen years or so has it recognised minority spiritual stakeholdership outside of the Abrahamic faiths. Boyd (2012:172) argues that stakeholdership is an unhelpful concept since it is used to deny cognitive ownership, a point I shall address in section 5.4.3.

In this chapter I complete my investigation into contestation of sites between Pagans and the archaeological and heritage professions by concentrating on ideological contestation of sites. The sites in question have largely been accessible for ritual use and free from threats of damage or destruction or removal but are contested in terms of ownership and representation/ interpretation. A key concept in these issues is that of stakeholdership, but ownership and representation also need to be defined or explained.

Tarlow (2001:61) cites Spivak (1990:108-109) to explain that representation: can refer to standing or speaking for, e.g. as a politician represents his or her constituency, or it can refer to an artistic interpretation or depiction. In this book I refer to the latter role of representation as interpretation. The means employed in interpreting sites include: guidebooks, pamphlets, boards and panels, audio handsets or headsets, pictures and paintings, employed or volunteer guides, videos, interactive computerised audio/ visual displays. The routes of paths and the opening or closing of views around sites may also be seen as an aspect of the representation of those sites (Copeland 2004:137139). The second definition of representation provides a reminder that the choice to promote, marginalise or omit narratives takes on a highly political significance when we remember the importance of narratives in the construction of identity (an issue which will be examined in more detail in section 8.2). It also ties in with the degrees of influence, recognition or ownership accorded to different stakeholder groups.

5.1.1. Ownership, Stakeholdership and Representation Carman (2005:29) explains that ‘private property provides exclusive rights; common property provides shared rights; under state property all rights are abrogated to national government; while open access provides very poorly defined rights’. He explains that property rights require those people who are not owners to observe all rules pertaining to that property by the owner(s) or their agents (Carman 2005:30, 120). Skeates (2000:39) points out that classifying something as property provides legal protection from unauthorised appropriation. Boyd (2012:176-193) adds the concept of cognitive ownership identifying the sense of powerful connection and care for a place that an emotional or cultural attachment brings. I also include a sense of spiritual connection to a site in the factors which might bring about a sense of cognitive ownership. Calls for Stonehenge to be ‘taken back’ (Cooper 2010:153) or to be handed to the Pagans (Jenkins 2006) have expressed this kind of feeling of ownership of sites based not on property laws but rather in terms of spiritual connections or moral terms which I examine in section 5.4.

5.1.2. Defining Earth Mysteries In the previous chapter I recorded that Buster Nolan (p.c. 2009) supported an interpretation of the Seahenge timber circle as a device to prevent coastal erosion using polarities and vortices. These ideas come within the broad definition of Earth Mysteries. Paul Devereux (2000:1, 5152), former editor of the Ley Hunter, describes the term as ‘an area of enquiry encompassing many approaches (multi-disciplinary) but also includes different bases or ways of working (multi-mode)’ and he explains that ‘Earth Mysteries researchers have looked at associations with natural phenomena… in the siting of ancient monuments’. Earth Mysteries also include a range of spiritual and quasiscientific beliefs, many of which relate to ancient sites and form part of Pagan beliefs regarding them. One of the key concepts in Earth Mysteries is that of Ley Lines. The concept of Ley Lines derives largely from Alfred Watkins’ (1974) book The Old Straight Track first published in 1925. In it he postulates that many ancient sites and older churches and abbeys are built on ancient track ways (Watkins 1974:214). John Michell (1969) expanded on

A simple dictionary definition of stakeholder would be ‘an independent party with whom each of those who make a wager deposits the money etc.’ (Pearsall & Trumble 2003:1408) but this definition lacks relevance when used in a heritage management context. When heritage professionals refer to stakeholders, they refer to individuals or groups with an interest (stake) in a site, issue, display or other aspect of heritage. Carman (2005:84, 90-98) points out that heritage sites are likely to have multiple stakeholders regardless of who or what organisation legally owns them and that stakeholdership is not restricted to users. Stakes may be: financial, if a stakeholder has money invested in the site or benefits financially from the site; dutiful, if a stakeholder has a duty of responsibility for the site; academic, if the stakeholder seeks to learn from the site; emotional, if the stakeholder cares about the site or spiritual, if the stakeholder feels a spiritual connection with 59

Contested Heritage Watkins’ ideas proposing that the sites along the leys were set out to empower them using subtle energy currents flowing through the Earth’s surface. Paul Devereux championed these ideas until the 1980s when he began to see them more as ‘spirit paths for Shamanic flight’ (Stout 2006:22).

42, 51, 59, 126, 130, 173) to Bender’s pro-Pagan stance (Stout 2006:21, 32) and Chris Tilley and Ian Hodder’s more polydox approach (Stout 2006:33). He explains that archaeologists have become more inclusive and more willing to consider less obvious possibilities in interpreting evidence of the past. However, the line between orthodox archaeology and authorised heritage discourses (explained in more detail in section 5.1.5) on the one hand and alternative or fringe archaeology and Earth Mysteries has remained strongly apparent despite some blurring.

5.1.3. Earth Mysteries in Contemporary Paganism Having established the ideas and interpretations covered by the term Earth Mysteries it is necessary to understand how they are incorporated into contemporary Paganism. The archaeologist Aubrey Burl (1979:81) describes Watkins’ notion of leys as having been reinterpreted as a ‘network of telepathic rays, of telluric energy for the spiritual and physical re-energising of the people’. Tortorello (2012) quotes Druid Ivan McBeth as describing stone circles (both ancient and recently erected) as being used to draw dragons along ley lines so that Pagans can have beneficial interactions with them. Not too dissimilarly, (as seen in section 4.3.2) Emma Orbach (p.c. 2010), of the Tir Ysbridol eco-village, described the site of a mediaeval castle as being a dimensional portal through which highly evolved beings, which she also described as faeries, could interact with people. She views these beings as hugely beneficial to the spiritual development of the human race. Her ideas resonate with the New Age concept of ‘activation’ of sacred sites to bring about a shift in consciousness around the world thus ensuring worldwide peace and harmony (Ivakhiv 2001:85; p.c. Daughton 2012).

5.1.4. Community In section 1.2 I explained the difference between society (gessellschaft) and community (gemeinschaft) with communities traditionally possessing a local connection but in contemporary examples sharing an interest or identity and sometimes being geographically diffuse. I argued that contemporary Pagans, heritage professionals and archaeologists have each formed their own communities. In this chapter I shall be talking about community ownership and community outreach. It is quite common to talk about ‘the community’ in contexts which tend primarily to include local people but also visitors to a given area. Community outreach can be more focused on particular ethnic, cultural or religious groups and I shall be arguing in this book that archaeologists and heritage professionals may benefit from thinking more carefully about outreach to the Pagan community. 5.1.5. Public Archaeology and Heritage

In interviews, several Pagan contributors mentioned they felt excluded by the fact that the interpretation of sacred/ ancient sites told the archaeological narratives of those sites but largely or completely ignore the mythology and contemporary beliefs focused on them. This is particularly well exemplified by issues at Stonehenge described subsequently in this chapter. My own interviews with Druid campaigners left me with a strong impression that some of them would like to see Stonehenge given over to management by Druids as indeed one of Cooper’s (2010:153) interviewees told him.

Discourses on heritage are many and varied but Smith (2006:29-34) suggests the existence of an Authorised Heritage Discourse (AHD), seemingly constructed and controlled by heritage managers and heritage agencies with the intention of suppressing unorthodox ideas and maximising tourism revenue. Jane Lennon (2007) critiques this idea accusing Smith of creating ‘arcane jargon… for professionals and experts which excludes everyone else’. In section 1.2.2 I recorded that Hewison (1987:43-45) proposes that criteria for determining heritage value have been imposed by heritage organisations and governments to facilitate tourism (top down) and that Urry (1990:110) challenges this assertion suggesting that heritage value has been determined by the consumer with managers reacting to demand (bottom up). I believe that both points of view have some value but that concepts of what constitutes heritage and relative importance of aspects of it are being continually renegotiated and shaped by both consumers and managers in a discursive manner. It may also be the case that without some kind of discourse defining heritage, material culture of social value will be harder to protect through legislation and for government and NGOs to source funds for.

Archaeological approaches to Earth Mysteries have been varied but the ‘establishment’ line has varied from sceptical to openly hostile. Skeates (2000:77) explains that ‘archaeologists, well-trained in scepticism, have generally rejected the beliefs of both indigenous and New Age groups as irrelevant and even dangerous’. Aubrey Burl (1979:78) distinguishes folklore (to which he does ascribe value) from what he describes as ‘fakelore’ which he defines as a ‘hotchpotch of wishful thinking and sometimes of downright lies with which some writers today distort the past’ He describes the idea of ley lines (Burl 1979:80) as ‘the most lunatic of ideas about prehistoric monuments’. Stout (2006:7) chronicles the history of archaeological interactions with Earth Mysteries from the battle between O.G.S. Crawford and Alfred Watkins over ley lines, Lethbridge’s ideas on ancient UFOs (Stout 2006:13), Daniel’s campaign against the Druids (1992:25, 28, 34,

The question has therefore arisen: who are the consumers of archaeology and heritage? Parker Pearson and Pryor (2006:318) refer to an assumption that archaeology has only appealed to a ‘narrow class niche’ but has this 60

Sites – Representation and Ownership really been the case? Nick Merriman (1991:42-56, 143161) attempted to analyse heritage consumers using a random postal survey of 1500 British adults. He found social status to be a significant factor with 91% of high status, 83% of middle status, 75% of low status under 60 year olds and 62% of over 60 low status people having visited museums (Merriman 1991:50-52). However, Merriman’s (1991:160) means for ascribing social status was rudimentary and arguable, based as it was on home ownership, vehicle ownership and any education above minimal levels. Similarly other heritage sites were found to be more popular with the higher status than the lower. The survey did not analyse use of museums and other heritage sites according to ethnic identity.

cut with the intention of it becoming self financing through sponsorship and licensing, charitable donations and legacies as well as entrance fees and memberships by 2022-2023 (English Heritage 2017:18). • Private museums and heritage sites, whose income usually depends on entrance fees, often have charitable status giving them tax relief (Museums Association ndb) which may be seen as a degree of state support. • Rescue archaeology is normally developer funded (Barber et al 2008:31; Carver 2009:365-367; DCMS 2009:22; Spoerry 1993:32-34) although heritage agencies have funded excavation of sites at risk from other threats (Grenville 1993:130). • Research archaeology tends to be mainly the province of universities which are partially supported by the state through the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC nd) and by subsidised fees (HEFCE nd). Specific projects, e.g. the Cadw funded and Dyfed Archaeological Trust run dig at Pant-y-Butler (see section 6.3.2), also receive funding from charitable trusts, research councils and heritage agencies (Grenville 1993:130).

More recently as part of the response to the Alexander Keiller Museum reburial claim (see section 8.5.1) English Heritage and the National Trust commissioned a survey on public attitudes to museums (BDRC nd) which included questions on heritage consumer activity. The survey revealed that 68% of those surveyed visited museums and 38% visited archaeological sites (BDRC nd:5). When the social demographics of those who visited sites were compared it was found that those in the higher social grades ‘skilled and managerial’ were more likely to be heritage consumers than ‘unskilled labourers and unemployed people’ (BDRC nd:5). The survey also found that people with a religious faith were less likely to be consumers of heritage (BDRC nd:5). Only 47% of respondents claimed to be interested in archaeology but 73% said they had seen archaeological programmes on television. In this area too there was a social bias with the wealthier more likely to be interested than the ‘poorer social grades’ (BDRC nd:6).

In its Code of Ethics for Museums, the Museums Association (2008:12) asserts that ‘Society can expect museums to: Encourage people to explore collections for inspiration, learning and enjoyment’. To further this aim they require museum managers and staff to: • Recognise the diversity and complexity of society and uphold the principle of equal opportunities for all • Develop and promote the museum to appeal to an ever broader and more varied audience. Aim to provide something of interest to every potential user • Respond to the diverse requirements of different cultural groups • Take account of present and potential users’ ability and willingness to visit if admission or other charges are levied (Museums Association 2008:12)

Although heritage consumers may tend to be from wealthier demographics, there are still significant numbers from poorer groups so any arguments that heritage is only of interest to the wealthy is problematic. Sadly, no data seems to be available on how religious and ethnic identity corresponds to use of heritage sites.

This demonstrates that inclusivity has been viewed as an important ethical imperative within the heritage sector.

Paying for heritage

5.1.6. Public Driven Archaeology and Heritage

Timothy (2007:xiv) states that governments have provided generously for heritage but that the post 2008 economic downturn has reduced their generosity and that consequently heritage organisations have looked to other sources of funding to maintain themselves.

We have seen in the previous section that much of the heritage sector has been driven by profit. In such situations public influence has been limited to consumer choice to buy or not to buy with perhaps the occasional customer satisfaction survey. However, it has not been unusual for local communities to support or even initiate archaeological research as at Nevern (section 4.3.2) and designation of heritage sites as at Crossbones (in section 4.2.3).

• National Museums like the British Museum receive some government funds but also receive sponsorship and donations as well (Burnett & Reeve 2001:25). • Local Museums may be council funded but generally rely on charitable donations to a large extent (Museums Association ndb). • From the 1st of April 2015 most of the ‘Grant in Aid money which English Heritage had received from the government went to Historic England (nd). The state funding for English Heritage has been incrementally

5.1.7. Outreach in Archaeology and Heritage Smith and Waterton (2009:114) describe outreach using the example of museums employing outreach officers or 61

Contested Heritage Glastonbury is a lively, provincial English town featuring a profusion of shops catering for New Age and alternative living such as specialist bookshops, vegan cafes and crystal suppliers at the lower end of the High Street. The architecture there is colourful and varied incorporating painted rendering, red brick and limestone architecture.

units to provide ‘desired links between communities and the museum’. Merriman (2004:96) describes outreach as provision of services to non-traditional venues and audiences. University of Oxford Museums and Collections (nd) have offered free outreach sessions involving handling collections and other ‘hands-on activities’. Archaeological contract firms such as Museum of London Archaeology (MOLA) and Wessex Archaeology (nd) have also provided outreach services including presentations, displays, open days and work experience. Even university led archaeological projects have included public liaison officers to provide on-site up to the minute interpretation to visiting members of the public as I saw at Nevern in 2010 and at the Stonehenge riverside project in 2005. In section 1.2 it was stated that Pagans hold gatherings called moots and that these often include guest speakers. I have seen both alternative and mainstream archaeologists addressing Pagan moots and can thus state confidently that these provide a useful opportunity for archaeologists to undertake outreach work. Arguably McDavid (2002:310312, 2009:217-234) has gone beyond outreach by incorporating public participation at a fundamental level in her work.

Cultural History The town’s principal attractions consist of the remains of a wealthy Benedictine Abbey (GR ST500389) and the Tor, atop which only the hollow tower survives of St. Michael’s Church and at the foot of which lie the Chalice Well Gardens (GR ST507385). The Chalice Well Gardens are centred on a spring beneath which some believe the Holy Grail is buried (Ivakhiv 2001:70). This spring is known both as the Chalice Well after the grail and as the Red Spring due to iron salts in the water staining the surrounding rocks a dark red colour. Across the road is a Victorian stone reservoir built over another spring (GR ST507384). This other spring is known as the White Spring and together the two are considered sacred and healing by Pagans, New Agers and Christians (Ivakhiv 2001:70-71).

5.2. Case Studies

The Benedictine Abbey was once Britain’s wealthiest (Ivakhiv 2001:76) and was still the second richest when Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries (Ivakhiv 2001:78). Archaeological excavations by Rahtz (1993:54-60) have failed to find any evidence of prehistoric or Roman settlement near the Tor but a sub-Roman enclosure, tentatively identified as a religious settlement has been found. It has become an important site for mainstream Christians and probably the most important pilgrimage site in Britain for mystical Christians and those wishing to adopt a Celtic Christianity (Ivakhiv 2001:100-101). The financial rewards from being a pilgrimage site were important to the mediaeval monks who after a disastrous fire in 1184 claimed to have found the grave of King Arthur in the grounds of the Abbey in 1191 (Ivakhiv 2001:77). Since Arthurian legend had Arthur carried off to the mystical Isle of Avalon after being mortally wounded at the battle of Camlan or Camblam (Monmouth 1966:259-261; Ivakhiv 2001:77), and despite the near certainty that the monastic discovery was fraudulent (Ivakhiv 2001:77), Glastonbury became identified as Avalon. This connection not only contributed massively to the town’s interest to mystical and Celtic Christians but also made it attractive to Occultists, Pagans and New Agers (Ivakhiv 2001:95-98). The fact that one of Britain’s first Free Festivals (Ivakhiv 2001:82 describes it as the first) was held at nearby Pilton and has continued in the not-so-free form of the Glastonbury Festival has also made the town significant for surviving members of the Free Festival Movement.

Three case studies are presented to demonstrate how issues of ownership and interpretation have played out. In the first I shall examine how Glastonbury has been attributed conflicting meanings by Pagans, Christians, archaeologists, businesses and local people and how the National Trust has sometimes found itself caught in the middle. The second case study looks at how the ownership and interpretation of the Rollright stones has developed since they were put up for sale in 1997. Finally I shall revisit Stonehenge to explore the extent to which different narratives and interpretations are presented to the visiting public. 5.2.1. Case Study 1: Glastonbury Glastonbury (GR ST500389) is a small town in Somerset in the west of England and has been described as Britain’s ‘Holyest Erthe’ (Reiser 1974). It is sacred to Christians as well as to Pagans and New Agers as well as being a home and workplace to those who dwell there (Ivakhiv 2001:80, 100-101). Landscape and Character Glastonbury is located on the Somerset levels, a low lying predominately flat region with some low hills. The location would once have been on the edge of a peaty salt marsh area regularly inundated by the sea. From the 17th century coastal defences and drainage strategies were implemented and many areas which were marginal are now valuable farmland (Rahtz 1993:12-13). Glastonbury nestles between three hills, the highest of which is known as the Tor (GR ST512386), a local word meaning hill. The other two hills are Wearyall or Wirrel Hill and Edmund Hill.

Archaeology The most significant archaeological sites in and around Glastonbury are probably the abbey followed by the 62

Sites – Representation and Ownership remains of St. Michael’s Church atop the Tor but there are also traces of Iron Age settlements at Glastonbury and at nearby Meare (Rahtz 1993:22-24). Rahtz (1993:20-22) also mentions several Neolithic and Bronze Age track ways across the marshes which were well preserved in the waterlogged soils. Another significant archaeological feature in the area is an earthwork known as Ponters Ball dividing the peninsula of higher ground on which the town lies from the larger area of high ground providing a dry approach to it. Rahtz (1993:25-27) records the discovery of Iron Age pottery at the bottom of the ditch suggesting the earthwork is unlikely to have been dug later than this period. However, Ivakhiv (2001:122) asserts confidently that the earthwork has been dated to no earlier than 1200AD. Rahtz (1993:28) also explains that there is little evidence for Roman activity in the town apart from tiles suggestive of a building on the site of the later abbey. Rahtz (1993:52-54) admits that excavations during 19641966 intended to assess when Christian settlement in Glastonbury began were not successful but he records details of an Anglo-Saxon monastic settlement on the Tor and speculates that it subsequently became a retreat for the abbey monks or a daughter house (Rahtz 1993:60, 61, 64).

believed to have originated from the staff of Joseph of Arimathea and the abbey, believed to be the site of Britain’s first church (Ivakhiv 2001:74, 100-101, 95). The Chalice Well gardens have also been of interest, especially to the more mystic or Celtic Christians (Ivakhiv 2001:101), due to the story that the Holy Grail is buried in the area and that the water has therefore flowed over the relic (Ivakhiv 2001:70). Pagan Glastonbury For Pagans and New Agers alike the Chalice Well has been of central importance. Along with the White Spring across the road, it has formed one focus whilst the Tor standing over it has provided another with its reputation as an entrance to the Otherworld and court of the fairy king (Ivakhiv 2001:105). Ivakhiv (2001:96) also refers to a pair of sacred oak trees known as Gog and Magog. Other attractions for Pagan and New Age visitors have included the Goddess temple (GR ST497388), just west of the town centre, as well as New Age and Pagan bookshops, crystal shops and vegetarian cafes on and adjacent to the lower, western end of the High Street. The Arthurian connections to Glastonbury have been significant to Pagans because many have seen King Arthur not as the saviour of Roman Christian Britain but rather as a Pagan chief falsely Christianised (Hutton 2009:178, Hope 1987:197) or the last great Celtic war leader who was also able to unite Christians and Pagans in mutual respect (Snyder 2011:167). This view seems to have emerged, initially in fiction, in the 1980s. The idea’s supporters cite hagiographies which depict Arthur as being in conflict with early mediaeval saints such as St. Cadoc, St. Gildas and St. Illtud (Snyder 2011:96).

Glastonbury Earth Mysteries Glastonbury is one of the sites located along the MichaelMary Ley (Michell 2001:72-73). Indeed Ivakhiv (2001:108) refers to identification of anywhere from four or five to over a hundred ley lines believed to pass through the town. Glastonbury has also been suggested as being the heart chakra of the Earth (Ivakhiv 2001:110). The term chakra refers to seven centres of spiritual energy located along the axis of the human body originating in Hindu and Buddhist traditions but also adopted into some contemporary Pagan beliefs (Crowley 1989:88-93, Pike 2004:105). In the 1930s Katherine Maltwood discerned that certain features on a map including field boundaries, roads and water courses could be interpreted to outline shapes symbolising the signs of the zodiac which she suggested were Neolithic in origin (Ivakhiv 2001:111112, Rahtz 1993:50). Ivakhiv (2001:112-113) includes criticisms of the zodiac hypothesis focusing on the need to be at high altitude for the shapes to be visible but Rahtz (1993:50) points out that several of the elements of the shapes (such as drainage channels and some roads) can be dated securely to within the last few centuries and also suggests that similar patterns can be discerned on any map at random if one has the imagination to see them.

Contested Glastonbury Like Avebury Glastonbury has not presented clear cut, one on one contestation but rather a shifting web of interactions and oppositions. Much of the contestation has been related to those who have seen themselves as the original local community resisting what they have seen as a take-over by incomers. Ivakhiv (2001:81) points out this division between the traditional residents of Glastonbury and an incoming alternative or counter-cultural community. He explains that the division was already clear in the 1920s when the communities were described as Glastonburians and Avalonians. At the beginning of the 21st century this had become Glastonians and Glastafarians. Rahtz (1993:132) likens the competing interpretations and ascribed significances of Glastonbury to those of Stonehenge expressed in Chippindale et al (1990). In fact Rahtz himself (1993:132) lists stakeholder groups such as Christians and townspeople who do not feature (at least not to the same extent) in the ideological or interpretive contestation of Stonehenge.

Christian Glastonbury The town is particularly important to Christians as tradition has it that the first church in Britain was founded there by Joseph of Arimathea around 3 AD, perhaps even bringing the youthful Christ there himself (Anon 1827:8; Ivakhiv 2001:100).

Some in Glastonbury have been hostile to Pagans and other counter-cultural groups. The church green was fenced off to prevent use as a gathering area (Ivakhiv

The primary foci for Christian pilgrims to Glastonbury have been the holy thorn on Wearyall Hill (GR ST492381), 63

Contested Heritage 2001:67) and a proposal to pedestrianise the town centre became a bitter dispute between local shops catering for all and those catering more for New Age and Pagan clients. Worthington (2005b:203-204) also reports that Mendip District Council prosecuted Allison Colyer, owner of a Christian retreat in the town, for providing refuge for New Age Travellers after the Stoney Cross incident (see section 3.3.5) resulting in her receiving a suspended prison sentence. New Age Travellers were not welcome even if they had nowhere else to go.

opportunity to learn more, however others feel that the academic community are attacking their spirituality. 5.2.2. Case Study 2: The Rollright Stones The Rollright Stones are situated about two and a half miles north-north west of Chipping Norton in Oxfordshire at grid reference SP296308. They comprise a stone circle known as the King’s Men (fig. 21 & 24 below), a standing stone known as the King Stone (fig. 22) and a Portal Dolmen known as the Whispering Knights (fig. 23) (Lambrick 1988:32).

As previously stated the Tor forms one of the foci for Pagan pilgrims to Glastonbury. Ivakhiv (2001:130) describes protests from the residents of Chilkwell Street, around the Chalice Well corner from the Tor, regarding noisy celebrations atop it. He describes threats to sue the National Trust for failing to uphold its bylaws banning music and camping on its land. The Trust has ignored such demands continuing to permit unrestricted access to the Tor. It can therefore be argued that the National Trust has acted in the interests of the Pagan community in this instance.

Archaeology of the Rollright Stones The stones were excavated in the late 17th century by an antiquarian named Ralph Sheldon but little record of his findings survive beyond the fact that no human remains were found (Lambrick 1983:11; 1988:7-8). Lambrick’s 1981 to 1986 fieldwork is therefore the primary source on the site. Restoration work involving re-erection of fallen and displaced stones was carried out in 1882 (Lambrick 1988:35) and a major part of Lambrick’s research was to discover how accurately this reconstruction had been accomplished. Analysis of the stones themselves supports the contention that the stones were sourced locally, most likely as surface boulders rather than quarried from bedrock.

Archaeologists and Earth Mysteries Many archaeologists see it as part of their duty as rationalist academics to debunk fallacious ideas about the past with Rahtz (1991:128) describing the town as a ‘Mecca of all irrationality’ (See also Schadla-Hall 2004). Glastonbury has provided an example of many Earth Mysteries ideas and as such has provided an obvious arena for the war of words between those who have supported such ideas and those who have refuted them. Rahtz (1993:50), for example, cast doubt on the hypothesised Glastonbury zodiac. The Pagan assertion that Glastonbury was a Druid sanctuary bounded by the Ponters Ball earthwork (Ivakhiv 2001:105-106), presumably based on Rahtz’s (1993:2527) description of Iron Age pottery there, has also been called into question with a date for the earthwork no earlier than 1200 AD (Ivakhiv 2001:122). Field interviews and discourse analysis have confirmed that some within the Pagan community welcome new evidence and the

The Whispering Knights (fig. 23) constitute the earliest element of the Rollright Stones. Lambrick (1988:28, 32) explains that they were first interpreted as the megalithic chamber of a ploughed out long barrow but are now thought to have been a portal dolmen, the most easterly example of such a monument in southern Britain (Blain & Wallis 2007:174). Lambrick (1988:115-116) even suggests that they could predate Cotswold Severn Long Barrows such as West Kennett and Wayland’s Smithy. Burl (2000:29) describes an excavation by T.H. Ravenhill which located a piece of human cheekbone within the chamber but found that the presumed long barrow outline was a natural feature. Lambrick (1988:115-116) however,

Fig. 21. The Kings Men April 2009 (Author’s photograph)

64

Sites – Representation and Ownership

Fig. 22. The King Stone seen from the north. (Author’s photograph)

is open to the possibility of a kidney shaped cairn having once existed around the megaliths.

Lambrick (1988:48) suggests several possible interpretations of the King Stone: an outlying element of the Kings Men circle forming an alignment or a ritual element; a guide post to help locate the Kings Men; the sole survivor of a stone avenue; a grave stone or an element of a hypothetical long barrow. Uncalibrated radiocarbon dates from cremated remains found near to the King Stone gave dates ranging from 1540+/-70bc to 1370+/-90bc.

The Kings Men are thought to date from the later Neolithic (Lambrick 1988:121-124). As a child I was told that a person counting them will never reach the same total twice and antiquarian accounts of their number do indeed vary (Lambrick 1983:6). Unlike Stonehenge and Avebury there is no evidence for a surrounding earthwork. Instead the Kings Men stand on a broad low earthen bank with a wide entrance facing south-south-west (Lambrick 1988:37, 41 & 43). Lambrick (1988:41) suggests that when originally erected the stones were closer to forming a perfect circle than at present. His measurement of the circle provided a diameter of 33m but Burl (2000:31) cites Thom as measuring it at 31.6m with a circumference of 99m, equal to 120 of Thom’s hypothetical megalithic yards. Lambrick (1988:42) classifies the stones into two categories: pillars and the more plentiful slabs. This description correlates closely with Meaden’s (1999:2-6) analysis of the Avebury stones. Lambrick (1988:42) confirms earlier assertions that the inner surface of the Kings Men tends to be smoother than the outward facing surfaces, also suggesting that the stones would have originally constituted a continuous wall. Both Lambrick (1988:42) and Burl (2000:31) mention a possible alignment with the rise of the star Capella. Burl points out that the date for the circle suggested by Thom on this basis was only forty years earlier than subsequent radiocarbon dates but Lambrick still considers the alignment unlikely to be of significance to the builders of the circle.

Folklore of the Rollright Stones Local legend has it that the stones were once the Danish King Rollo and his army. Whilst camped for the night on campaign they met a witch, Mother Shipton, who prophesied that if the king could see the village of Long Compton in seven steps then he would rule all England. When it looked as though he might achieve this, the witch turned the king and his soldiers to stone and transformed herself into an Elder tree. The Whispering Knights are said to be the king’s traitorous lieutenants who were plotting to overthrow him as the curse was cast (Blain & Wallis 2007:175, Burl 2000:9, Cope 1998:238-239, Lambrick 1983:4-5). Ownership When I visited the Stones in the 1980s and early 1990s, they were owned by Pauline Flick who charged a nominal fee to enter (Blain & Wallis 2007:175). When her partner died in 1997 Ms Flick put them up for auction. Fearing 65

Contested Heritage

Fig. 23. Whispering Knights viewed from the north. Note vandalised remains of interpretation board. (Author’s photograph)

Fig. 24. The Kings Men June 2010 (Author’s photograph)

66

Sites – Representation and Ownership that the Stones would be commercially exploited in an insensitive way, a campaign to purchase the stones was undertaken and the Rollright Trust set up. Blain & Wallis (2007:176-177) cite Karin Attwood (one of the Trustees) explaining that people were afraid that the stones would be closed to the public or turned into an expensive and kitsch theme park. She explains that the Trust quickly received the full support not only of the Pagan community but of other groups including the Church of England. Despite prominent adverts in the Pagan Press and an enthusiastic fundraising campaign in the Pagan community, the Trust failed to raise sufficient funds and two local businessmen with aims similar to those of the Trust purchased the stones. In 2001 the businessmen sold the stones on to the Rollright Trust which has owned and managed them ever since (Blain & Wallis 2007:177). Pagan Activity at the Rollright Stones In the mid-1990s, when the site was still owned by Ms Flick, I overheard her partner explaining to an incredulous American tourist that the site was still in use by Witches Druids and Pagans. The only people he explained were not welcome were those he described as ‘nudists’. More recently, the Cotswold Order of Druids (COD) have used the site for ritual (Blain & Wallis 2007:188) and I attended their Summer Solstice ceremony there in June 2010. After my experiences at Stonehenge in December 2008 (see section 2.7.1) I decided to dress in Druid robes (See Fig. 3) I was greeted by and chatted to Pagan acquaintances of mine and to members of the Rollright Trust. Unlike Avebury where the size and topography almost suggests a processional initial phase of ritual, the group did not process around the much smaller Rollright Circle but rather entered directly into it. The lead celebrants positioned themselves in the centre and spirits of east, south, west and north were invoked so that the boundary represented by the stones should be empowered. The Summer Solstice was celebrated in poetry and song after which the spirits were thanked and bade farewell to before the circle was closed and the gathering broke up.

Fig. 25. Defaced interpretive board at the Kings Men (Author’s photograph)

5.2.3. Case Study 3: Interpreting Stonehenge I have described the contestation of access to Stonehenge in Section 3.3 but there have been other Pagan criticisms of the way Stonehenge has been managed relating to its interpretation and ownership. Whilst conducting ethnographic interviews with Solstice pilgrims at Stonehenge in December 2008, some Pagan interviewees (e.g. p.c. Grant 2011) voiced strong objection that the way English Heritage sets out the paths and the audio guide almost forcing visitors to circle the monument anticlockwise (in Pagan terminology widdershins) which they associated with destructive and disempowering magic (This is explained further in section 5.4.1, see also Somers & Pendragon 2010:13).

Vandalism at the Rollright Stones After the COD Solstice ritual in June 2010 described above, I was fortunate enough to interview one of the trustees of the Rollright Trust. This interviewee asked not to be named but explained that locals had held an unapproved rave there the night before. I was also told that there had been several cases of vandalism. The attendant’s hut which had been at the site when Ms Flick had owned the site was burned down. When this was replaced with a steel box, the lock was squirted with glue. Without a shelter for an attendant there is no way of ensuring the modest entrance fee of £1 is paid although an honesty box is chained to the gate. Interpretive panels had been destroyed (see fig. 26) thwarting attempts to disseminate information about the site. No group has claimed responsibility for these actions so the perpetrators and their agenda remain unknown.

Barbara Bender (1998:145-171) critiques the unilateral and androcentric interpretation of Stonehenge. The male focussed artwork she particularly deplores had been removed prior to my research visit in December 2008. Research interviewee Kim Payne (p.c. 2008) remarked that the public interpretation of Stonehenge sidelines or omits Pagan narratives of the site. Members of the public visiting Stonehenge can buy an official English Heritage guidebook (Richards 2005, 2013) or take out a rechargeable audio guide handset. The handset operates by 67

Contested Heritage Archaeologists including Daniel (1992:25, 28, 34, 42, 51, 59, 126, 130, 173) and, more recently, Schadla-Hall (2004:268) have argued that publicly acknowledging Earth Mysteries interpretations and contemporary Pagan stakeholdership would constitute a betrayal of rationality. However, the interpretation of a cathedral or synagogue would be impossible without referring to the spiritual beliefs surrounding them. Indeed I would argue that the suppression of narratives regarding the Free Festival and the exclusion zone are a negation of an important role the monument played in recent social and cultural history. Bearing in mind how many Pagans visit Stonehenge as pilgrims and as tourists, it seems absurd to assume there would be a lack of interest in such narratives so a politically driven motive for suppressing these narratives must remain plausible. This ties in closely with Smith & Waterton’s (2009:159) recognition that exclusion of historical narratives is exclusion and/or marginalisation of people and that this is often part of a broader social subordination or exclusion of these people.

using numbered markers to prompt visitors to access audio descriptions. The guidebook obtained in 2014 made brief mention of its use as a ‘living temple’ in ‘earth religions and new paganism’ and that it had been ‘a focus of conflict based on the Summer Solstice’ (Richards 2005:46, 2013:51). It also mentioned the association of modern Druids with the site for over a century (Richards 2005:46, 2013:51). The audio tour script in use in 2008 (English heritage unpublished), which was kindly given to me by Peter Carson (the site manager), began by explaining that the site has been extensively reconstructed in recent decades with stones re-erected and straightened in an attempt to turn back the ravages of time. The script went on to describe the elements which make up the site and archaeological determinations of their age. It included some speculation about the purpose of the Aubrey holes and the reasons for bringing the Preseli bluestones all the way from Wales. It explained some of the techniques hypothesised to have been used in erecting the stones. The script pointed out the midsummer sunrise alignment and remarked that measurement of time must have been important for our agrarian ancestors. It also remarked a little on the geometric layout of the site particularly regarding the station stones. It told a little about the lifestyle of Late Neolithic Britons and suggested that the stones were raised, at least in part, to emphasise the authority of the ruling elites of the time. The tour mentioned how Stonehenge was given to the nation by Cecil Chubb and described myths that the stones were brought by the wizard Merlin from Ireland as a memorial or that he persuaded the Devil do it for him. It also mentioned their place in Hardy’s Tess of the D’Urbervilles. The script mentioned that people have proposed many ideas about what the stones were for and mentioned ideas about Stonehenge as an observatory, a calendar, a healing shrine, even that they were brought by extra-terrestrials. The script however, made no mention of Ley Lines and spiritual ideas regarding earth energies. It recalled that John Aubrey connected the site to the Druids in the 17th century but dismissed any connection between Stonehenge and Druids. The 2008 Audio script made no mention of either contemporary Pagan use of the site or the Free Festival and its suppression. Its replacement has not rectified this omission.

Cooper (2010:153) quotes one of Arthur’s followers as saying ‘One day I’ll get a bunch of White Horses and me and my knights will ride over that ridge to knock down that fence and take our temple back’. Conversations with Pendragon himself lead me to conclude that he has felt keen to see the site in the control of Druids. The basis of Druidic claims for ownership of Stonehenge have not been clearly expressed or examined but have been built on a perception that English Heritage has abused and violated Chubb’s deed of gift through which the site was gifted to the nation and also on a perceived spiritual ownership through an elective connection with the builders of the monument. Much of the contestation of access described in section 3.3 has related to the public ownership of Stonehenge and the argument put forward by Druids and travellers (e.g. Maughfling 2000a:5) that it has been appropriated as a commodity by English Heritage contrary to the stipulation that the Ministry of Works might charge no more than a shilling per head if required for the upkeep and maintenance of the monument (Worthington 2005a:61). This contention has been implicitly supported by scholars (e.g. Bender 1998:122-123; Gilmour 2007:94) and has also been given weight by articles such as Catling’s (2014:23) assertion that Stonehenge accounts for 20% of EH’s revenue. My own estimate, based on a BBC News (2011c) report that EH made £50m profit over five years, is that Stonehenge provided 3.7% of English Heritage’s income. Although this is more modest, I still accept that Stonehenge provides significantly more money to EH then required for its upkeep. In section 3.3.5 I explained the lasting legacy of distrust and bitterness which the exclusion of Pagans at the Summer Solstice has left. It should therefore come as no surprise that some Pagans have been keen to see Stonehenge taken out of English Heritage’s hands.

The guidebook, written by Julian Richards (2005, 2013), provides a more extensive and in-depth description of Stonehenge than the audio tour and is illustrated with photographs, artwork and maps. The guidebook does make mention of the erroneous interpretation of the stones as a Druidic temple (Richards 2005:19, 2013:44). It makes brief mention of contemporary Pagans and Druids at Stonehenge and makes a highly oblique reference to the exclusion zone in one sentence (Richards 2005:46, 2013:51). However, it too makes absolutely no mention of the Free Festival or Earth Mysteries interpretations of the site. Although both the guide book and the audio script mention ideas relating to UFOs, neither of them mentions earth energies, sacred geometry or ley lines.

I argue that interpretation of Stonehenge could be a great deal more inclusive and multi-vocal without compromising English Heritage’s scientific epistemology. I suggest 68

Sites – Representation and Ownership Druids, Pagans and Earth Mystics would be satisfied for interpretive material to record that, for instance, ‘some people believe…’ rather than presenting their beliefs as uncontested fact. I would argue that Richards’ temporary exhibition on the recent social history of the site be permanently incorporated into the display. However, I am profoundly disinclined to support any contention that the ownership and management of Stonehenge might be better in the hands of the Druid leaders than in those of English Heritage. English Heritage is a public body managed by professionals with proven experience and improving multi-vocality while my experience of Druid orders suggests they have often been anarchic and some have lacked an awareness of broader issues and interpretations.

to historic or prehistoric connection of Druids with Stonehenge. They also objected to the fact that English Heritage has given them ‘no support whatsoever’ (Somers & Pendragon 2010:13) during open access times and, as previously mentioned in section 5.2.3, that the audio guide and path layout has encouraged visitors to circle the site anti-clockwise which they consider problematic for reasons laid out in section 5.4.1. below. However, following the opening of the new visitors centre in December 2013, a new audio guide has been provided which encourages visitors to circle the monument in a clockwise direction. Somers & Pendragon (2010:13) expressed an expectation that Druid groups should be notified well in advance of archaeological work undertaken there and be given a chance to challenge the scope of such work. They alleged that English Heritage have treated Druids and other Pagan pilgrims as a problem rather than an asset. Somers (p.c. 2010) also accused English Heritage of recruiting academics to their executive board to the exclusion of Pagans although he did acknowledge the presence of one academic he believed to be Pagan who has served on one of its oversight bodies.

5.3. Contesting Interpretations and Ownership It has been seen that Glastonbury has provided a subject of interpretive dispute between Earth Mysteries proponents (many of whom identify as Pagans) and archaeologists as well as being a case where heritage managers have found themselves caught between the desires of Pagans and those of locals and Christian groups. I have described how the Rollright Stones came into the ownership of a charitable trust but that persons unknown have successfully pursued a campaign of vandalism to prevent the trust charging admission or posting interpretive boards at the site. Finally I have described how the literature (written and recorded) which English Heritage has used to interpret Stonehenge to visitors has excluded beliefs and narratives important to many Pagans implying a marginalisation which some Pagan interviewees have felt discriminatory. Indeed Fiona McLean (2008:286) and the Museums Association (2008:12) suggest that it is an ethical imperative that heritage narratives need to be inclusive.

Lest it appear that all archaeologists and heritage professionals have been wedded to an absolute rejection of non-orthodox narratives, Carman (2005:86-99) describes how several archaeologists have sought to incorporate a plurality of interpretation into their work (See Coleman 2013:156-175; Carmichael et al 1994:5-7; Davidson 1995:3-5; McDavid 2002:310-312, 2009:217234; O’Regan 1994:95-106; Watkins 2012:663 for more detailed examples). We have also seen in section 4.3.1 how the display of Seahenge at Kings Lynn Museum has sought to include Pagan views as well as archaeological ones.

The Glastonbury case study illustrates how archaeologists and heritage professionals have found themselves caught in the middle between contesting religious groups. At Flag Fen in Peterborough Mike Webber (p.c. 2009) explained that plans for school activities had to be altered due to objections from two site volunteers on grounds of their Christian beliefs. He explained that they told him they would resign if he included Pagan elements such as the burning of a straw filled wicker man and issued a veiled threat that they were not the only Christians in Peterborough. He went on to say that this anti-Pagan feeling among some of his staff had been a factor in turning down a request to hold a Pagan event at the site although a Druidic eisteddfod (arts festival) did go ahead there in 2007. I do not envy him this decision but I argue that Christians uncomfortable with such an event can easily miss it but that for them to prevent others from doing it is absolutist, exclusionary and hence unethical.

5.4. Theorising Contestation of Ownership and Interpretation

Frank Somers and Arthur Pendragon (2010:13) argued that modern Druidry has a strong claim to be seen as a ‘descendant tradition’ from the Neolithic culture which constructed Stonehenge. They complained that the public interpretation of the site has given no acknowledgement

In section 5.3.3 I reported that some Pagans objected to the way the visiting public were spatially directed to circle the monument in an anti-clockwise (widdershins) direction which they saw as disempowering the monument or empowering it in a negative way. Some Pagans have

In this section I analyse the contestation of ownership and interpretation through the lens of anthropological/ sociological theory. In section 5.1.1 I discussed what is actually meant by ownership, stakeholdership and representation. 5.4.1. Why demand Ownership/Stakeholdership In this section I examine in detail why members of the Pagan community have contested ownership of sites or demanded recognition as stakeholders in heritage. For ease of examination, I have broken down these reasons into two sections: spiritual and political. Spiritual Reasons

69

Contested Heritage seen the positive empowerment of such sites as facilitating shifts in human consciousness or energizing their prayers and magical workings (Crowley 1989:114). At the heart of the issue has been the perception that these sites have been presented to visitors not as possessing any continuing sanctity but rather as only having had that status in the past. Recognition as stakeholders or owners of such sites has been seen by som Pagans as a means by which Pagan practices and sacred narratives may be respected.

are in storage rather than on display. As an academic I may be able to arrange special access, but not everyone with an interest can. Mark Graham (p.c. 2012) recounted a case where he and other Pagans were allowed access to human remains to perform ritual near them, however, most Pagans would be unlikely to know that such arrangements were even possible and such access appears unlikely to be permitted by all institutions. Fiona McLean (2008:286) asserts that heritage narratives need to be inclusive and the Museums Association (2008:12) sets out an ethical imperative to ‘develop and promote the museum to appeal to an ever broader and more varied audience. Aim to provide something of interest to every potential user’ and to ‘respond to the diverse requirements of different cultural groups’. Following these ideas, museums such as the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery have adjusted and set out their displays to appeal to a wider audience particularly immigrant and ethnic minority communities.

Political Reasons I would suggest that there has also been a desire to wrest control from hostile authority or at the very least to show those who do have decision making powers regarding these sites that any attempt to interfere with their freedom of religious expression would be met with vigorous protest. Magliocco (2004:185-204) argues that the perpetuation of a threatening authority and campaigns against it might provide degree of community cohesion. Furthermore, as seen in section 3.5.1, religious groups have interpreted hostility from outsiders as a validation of their religious values. In section 4.4 I stated that the more political counter-cultural Druid groups have expressed a strongly anti-capitalist stance. Thus, it should be no surprise that they have opposed the commodification of sacred sites as elements of the heritage/tourist industry. Their members have expressed distrust of big businesses and government. Some have been keen proponents of conspiracy theories and many have seen themselves in the role of poorly equipped tribal Britons facing the well organised, well equipped, massed legions of a soulless imperialist force bent on appropriating and commodifying what they have seen as their spiritual heritage.

5.4.3. Suggested Solutions Payne (p.c. 2009) explained to me that English Heritage viewed everyone as a stakeholder in heritage. He explained that English Heritage was responsible to the citizens of the UK via the elected government but that he would prefer to see heritage as the province of all humanity. He was keen to emphasise that this includes generations as yet unborn. This duty to provide access to the people of the future is at the heart of the preservation ethos and resonates strongly with the oft repeated (in Pagan circles) adage that we do not inherit the world from our parents but hold it in trust for our children.

Jarman (1995:135-136), in his study of sectarian division of space in Belfast, identifies a tendency among human beings to claim space as a group and to dominate and control that space. As individuals like to have a home or pied à terre, so, I suggest, do groups. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and others in the UK tend to use sacred sites owned and operated by their own religious organisations. In Jerusalem (BBC News 2008e) and Ayodhya (BBC News 2010b) ownership of sites has been contested violently. Very few Pagan sacred sites have been owned and managed by Pagans in the UK. Druids particularly have viewed Stonehenge as their temple and some have been keen to control it (Cooper 2010:153).

In the case of Stonehenge, the land on which the stones stand has been legally in the ownership of the government since the 1918 Deed of Gift by Cecil Chubb (Darvill 2007:273, Worthington 2005a:61). Boyd (2012:193) dismisses objections to legal or obligatory recognition of cognitive ownership as a sense of bureaucratic repugnance. However, the requirement to consider in detail what might frequently be a bewilderingly diverse array of requirements and agendas may be so time consuming and difficult to negotiate as to render any administration of heritage sites practically impossible. Carman’s (2005:117-121) proposal for the de-commodification of heritage assets including Stonehenge echoes calls by counter-cultural political Druid groups for free unrestricted access without fences (Loyal Arthurian Warband 2009; Rayner 2012:7273). However, this places such sites at risk of vandalism similar to that which has occurred at Avebury, as described in Section 3.4.3 (see also Antiquity 1996:501; Bender 1998:187-8; Blain and Wallis 2007:55; Green 1997:178), and The Rollright Stones, as described in section 5.2.2. Promoting the widest possible recognition of their value is perhaps the most important aim for archaeologists and heritage managers. Timothy (2007:xiii) points out that large numbers of visitors have a corrosive or erosive effect on monuments over long periods of time, that rubbish

5.4.2. Theorising Community Involvement and Stakeholdership Carman (2005:46) critiques Merriman’s (1991:1) assertion that the past is the property of everyone pointing out that not everyone is interested in the past. But should those without an expressed interest be excluded? Sebastian Payne (p.c. 2009), of English Heritage, said not. He argued that the remains of the past belong to all. Carman (2005:47) points out that interest does not guarantee access. Many items in museum collections which are of interest to me 70

Sites – Representation and Ownership left can also have a damaging effect and that vandalism, particularly graffiti, causes damage even when removed. Carman (2005:120) suggests that universal recognition of their social value might protect non-owned heritage sites from vandalism and wear. I have reservations about this suggestion because sites where access is unrestricted have suffered problems. Rubbish has been left, e.g. Waylands Smithy (Restall Orr 1996:26-8; Damh the Bard 2013), and vandalism has occured, e.g. the aforementioned painting of stones on the Avebury avenue (Antiquity 1996:501; Bender 1998:187-8; Blain & Wallis 2007:55; Green 1997:178) and the lighting of fires in West Kennett Long Barrow (Wallis 2003:169), I argue that universal acceptance of any idea is unlikely and that there will always be people who will damage monuments either deliberately, through selfishness, ignorance, or neglect. It therefore follows that if those alive today wish to pass on these monuments to generations yet to come they need to protect those monuments by preventing access for those who would damage them. This kind of protection costs money and that must be provided either by an entrance charge, sponsorship/advertising or from the public purse.

users’ ability and willingness to visit if admission or other charges are levied’ recognising that charges can exclude the poorer members of society. Carman (2005:30-31) suggests that private, government and even mutual ownership implies some degree of exclusion. Stonehenge has certainly been managed in an exclusionary way to varying extents at different times but although Carman’s (2005:120) non-property open access approach would allow absolute open access to all, I am concerned that recognition of its social value could never be universal and that hence damage to the site under such a management approach could not be prevented. I argue that such a management strategy would be likely to eventually degrade the site to the point where it would exclude future generations. Some interviewees have complained that the current solstice access arrangements are a free-for-all and thus favour the loudest and more aggressive over the more peaceful and spiritual in terms of using the space. Some kind of booking and short period exclusive use might therefore be seen as more inclusive in the broad overview.

I suspect that even Pendragon and his followers have recognised that they have no realistic hope of gaining exclusive control of the Stones. Somers (p.c. 2010) suggested that Stonehenge ought to be run co-operatively by ‘a combination of local and central and spiritual’. I understand this to mean a committee balanced between English Heritage, local council, Druid/Pagan/other spiritual users of Stonehenge, and other stakeholders. The hardest part of establishing such a committee would be deciding who the spiritual representatives would be. Perhaps the most obvious choice would be to ask Pagan representative bodies such as CoBDO and the Pagan Federation to elect one of their number to participate but there are large numbers of UK Druids and Pagans not affiliated to these bodies and the Pagan vs. Pagan contestation of sites like Avebury (see section 3.4.4) suggests that a consensus satisfactory to most might be impossible to achieve. 5.5. Conclusions Heritage specialists and professionals such as Payne (p.c. 2009), Merriman (1991:1), Harrison (2010:8), Carman (2005:95-98), Carver (2009:33) and Bender (1998:116131) have asserted that everyone is a stakeholder in heritage and it is widely accepted that excluding stakeholders is ethically questionable. Smith (2006:170171) suggests that omission of narratives relating to ethnic groups contributes to a sense of exclusion from heritage and I suggest that this is as true for spiritual or religious identity groups as it is for ethnic groups. Heritage consumers may support taxpayer funding but non-consumers may reject such a system. Right wing governments since 1979, favouring cuts in taxation, have tended towards limiting state funding (Timothy 2007:xiv). The Museums Association (2008:12) stipulates that museums should ‘take account of present and potential 71

6 Archaeologists, Museum professionals and Human Remains 6.1. Introduction

taken for analysis and/or to rebury previously excavated remains or to influence the way they are displayed.

In this chapter I examine why archaeologists and museum professionals are keen to excavate, analyse, store and display human remains, what can be learned from examining these remains and explore the laws, guidelines and policies in place to ensure that remains are treated ethically. I conclude with an examination of how archaeologists and museum professionals conduct their work regarding human remains and how they demonstrate respect for those whose remains they are working with. In chapter 7 I examine contemporary Pagan ideas about Ancestors (capitalised to denote the spiritually important dead), how contestation began and how it has been pursued. I shall then analyse the arguments for reburial and counter-arguments favouring retention of remains. In these chapters, I use the term ‘contestation of human remains’ to describe campaigns by contemporary Pagan (and other) groups to stop excavation of human remains, limit time

6.2. The Importance of Human Remains in Archaeology and Heritage In explaining Pagan and archaeological/heritage interactions over human remains, it is first necessary to examine the use of human remains in archaeology (particularly mortuary archaeology bioarchaeology and osteoarchaeology) and heritage (in the case of human remains, primarily the museum sector). Prehistoric bones in Britain are rare as only occasionally do the soil conditions (e.g. pH and moisture content) favour their preservation for more than two thousand years with preservation of soft tissue being even rarer (Mullhall 2010:34; Chamberlain & Parker Pearson 2004:181). Because of their rarity therefore prehistoric human remains are particularly treasured by archaeologists and museum professionals.

Fig. 26. The author’s daughter contemplates a Bronze Age skeleton in the British Museum (Author’s photograph)

73

Contested Heritage 6.2.1. What Human Remains Reveal About the Past

graphically that these individuals were killed violently (Faulkner 2009:25-26).

Archaeological examination of graves and human remains has already provided much information about humanity’s past. Examination of the remains and goods placed with them can provide evidence of a person’s life, religion, cultural affiliations and status (Parker Pearson 1982:101108; Binford 1972:233) whilst analysis of the grave and surrounding area can yield evidence of cremation, preservation or ritual of interment (Parker Pearson et al 2005:542). For example, examination of Neolithic communal tombs has enabled archaeologists to suggest that spiritual beliefs at the time, were focused on, or mediated through, spiritually important Ancestors (Darvill 2005:63-8; Whittle 2005:66-70; Lynch 2004:14-15; Malone 2004:144; Russell 2002:48; Reilly 2003:151). Parker Pearson (2005:89) suggests cultural change with the first chiefdoms in Britain beginning to emerge in the later Neolithic ca 3000 to 2500 BC on the basis of changes in burial practice. Careful measurement of even fragmentary skeletons can allow determination of sex, height and build (Roberts 2009:144-145). Where skulls are well preserved, an image of what the dead person’s face looked like may be created (Richards 1999:53-5, 32-4). Careful measurement and morphological analysis of bones can provide an estimate of age at death. Children’s ages can be determined with some accuracy using evidence from teeth and bones (Roberts & Manchester 2005:34-7; Roberts 2009:128-130, 130-136). However, Maples (1989:323) describes determination of age at death of adults as an art rather than a science. Roberts & Manchester (2005:35) suggest that determinations of age on remains of people aged over 70 are not currently possible due to the fact that changes to skeletons, usually degradation, do not occur in a uniform or predictable sequence. When a person died may be determined from typological dating of associated artefacts but the most important scientific technique of determining time of death for ancient remains is carbon 14 or radiocarbon dating (Roberts 2009:214-5). Until 1998 only unburnt bones could be radiocarbon dated but Parker Pearson (2012:200) explains that even cremated bones can now yield a date of death.

A person’s diet can be determined by chemical analysis of their bones. Park et al (2010:444) explain how an inadequate diet may leave traces on bones identifiable by osteoarchaeologists. Trace elements such as strontium and barium along with stable isotopes provide indications of a mainly vegetarian, carnivorous, aquatic or omnivorous diet. For example,Joy (2009:31) explains that hair samples gathered from Lindow Man provide evidence of his general diet through analysis of chemical isotopes indicative of plants, fish or meat. Analysis of preserved gut contents in well preserved bodies can even determine a person’s last meal, as with the Ötz valley Iceman (Dickson et al 2000:1844-7) and the Lindow Moss bog body (Joy 2009:29-31; Hillman 1986). Lead in the bones in RomanoBritish and Mediaeval skeletons has been interpreted as being from pewter and hence evidence of tableware an individual used in life. This in turn may indicate wealth and social status (Parker Pearson 2003:82). Stable isotopes of oxygen and strontium taken into the body as part of the water a person drank are laid down in layers of tooth enamel as a person grows and can provide a record of movement. Carol Chenery of the British Geological Survey (2008) conducted a stable Isotope analysis of tooth enamel from the Bronze Age Amesbury Archer skeleton. She concluded that the man had grown up in central Europe or eastern Scandinavia whilst a companion burial, genetically identified as a close relative (possibly son), was born in southern England and grew up in the Midlands. Therefore it can be seen that mortuary archaeology can provide increasingly detailed narratives of the lives of ancient people. Bryan Sykes (2002) has pioneered the use of the DNA in our cell nuclei and mitochondria to determine common ancestors. He has theorised that mutations tended to occur at more or less regular intervals allowing him to date divergences of populations and thus hypothesise the routes and timings of human colonisation of the planet in prehistory.

Park et al (2010:497) contend that paleopathology (the study of diseases, injuries and their treatment in the past) is one of the main foci of bioarchaeology in Britain. Perhaps the most obvious pathological evidence available from osteoarchaeological material (ancient bones) is that of fractures, although many other ailments including arthritis and osteoporosis can be diagnosed (Roberts & Manchester 2005:84). Where soft tissue survives more detail can be deduced. Bog bodies from Britain and Denmark were found to be carrying parasitic worms in their intestines (Joy 2009:32; Mullhall 2010). Miranda Aldhouse-Green (2001:87) explains that bog bodies such as those from Lindow Moss in Cheshire, Tollund and Grauballe in Denmark show signs of violence providing supporting evidence of tales of human sacrifice in Roman writings such as Lucanus (nd) and Caesar (1982:141). This evidence is not unequivocal and can equally be interpreted as evidence of banditry or blood feuds but it illustrates

Sometimes human remains can provide clues as to activities or professions undertaken in life. In the case of the Ötz valley Ice man, traces of copper, manganese, nickel and arsenic in his hair indicate that he was active in the smelting of copper and thus someone at the forefront of the technological revolution then beginning in that part of Europe (Fowler 2001:203). Likewise sturdy bone development in the arm bones of skeletons from a mass grave at Towton, where a battle was fought in AD1461 during the Wars of the Roses, suggests that at least some of the men were archers (Miller 2000:20-35). Chris Knusel and Dr Patrick Ander made magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of Simon Stanley, a modern day archer, and his bone density and size compared with those from the grave. Striking similarities allowed archaeologists to deduce that the dead men were indeed archers (Miller 2000:20-35). 74

Archaeologists, Museum professionals and Human Remains 6.2.2. Displaying Human Remains

museum curators go about working with human remains and how these remains are treated ethically. This will be approached in two sections: the first examines the statutory requirements relating to human remains and the Codes of Professional Ethics to which people working with human remains are expected to adhere; the second section explains, using interviews and participantobservation undertaken as part of the research subtending this book, how archaeologists and museum professionals actually deal with remains in practice. Archaeologists are primarily concerned with excavating and analysing bones whilst museum and other staff may be more concerned with curating, cataloguing, preserving, storing and interpreting them to the public hence there are different procedures, ethical guidelines and professional Codes of Practice for each.

In this section I examine the reasons for putting human remains on display in museums. Whilst religious authority demands that much is taken on faith, scientific and academic study is founded on reproducible or checkable chains of inference (Hitchens 2007:10-11). As academics operating within this scientific macro-methodology, archaeologists need to make data and conclusions available for checking. Remains are stored partially for this purpose with remains on display also being researched. However, the primary purpose of displaying human remains is educational. Ancient skeletons and bog bodies allow both the public and specialist researchers to see for themselves the evidence upon which the narratives archaeologists create are based. They also provide one of the very few socially acceptable contexts for the discussion of mortality, something which, if not a taboo, is seldom spoken of in contemporary British society (Walter 1991:307-8; Fox 2004:374-8). Teaching manuals (e.g. Jackson & Colwell 2002:47-48, 123-126) also suggest that museum displays of human remains such as Egyptian mummies help children to understand and discuss death. I also argue that putting prehistoric human remains on display in museums allows a sort of communion with the visitor’s distant ancestors thus providing a strong sense of connection which may be important in the construction of national and local identity. This is an argument I shall explore in more detail in chapter 7.

6.3.1. Law, Ethical Guidelines and Organisation Policies The way in which archaeologists and museum professionals treat human remains is regulated by law and by guidelines that are either generated by their own professional bodies, by government or by other agencies. Violation of ethical guidelines do not incur legal penalties imposed by the state but are likely to involve disapprobation within the professional community and may result in loss of employment and difficulty in finding other work in the same field. The fact that legislation exists to prevent unnecessary disturbance of graves and to regulate retention of human biological material is itself strongly suggestive of the values of the society that originated it. Parker Pearson’s (2003:183) remark that British attitudes to the dead are ‘ambivalent, contradictory and volatile’ is borne out by the recent changes in legislation and policy. The Human Tissue Act was framed and enacted in response to the public outcry over revelations that British hospitals including John Radcliffe in Oxford (Jenkins 2011:28-32; Taylor 2002:43) Bristol Royal Infirmary and Alder Hey had been retaining whole organs including hearts and brains without the knowledge or consent of the relatives of the deceased (BBC News 2003).

6.2.3. Why Are Remains Not on Display Retained in Storage? In this section I examine why museums retain stores of human remains that are unlikely ever to be placed on display. These stores were created and are maintained to facilitate research on past individuals and populations and to allow previous analyses and interpretations to be checked and either confirmed or rebutted (Cunliffe et al 2011; Fforde 2004:68-75; Jenkins 2011:1-3). Margaret Clegg (p.c. 2009) of the British Museum (Natural History), when interviewed, described a research project to reassess the widely accepted assumption that modern lifestyle factors such as pollution and diet were a dominant factor in the incidence of osteoporosis in menopausal women. Museum stores were able to supply a sufficient number of women’s skeletons from both the Mediaeval and Bronze Age periods to permit a representative sample to be analysed. This study showed that the incidence of osteoporosis in these populations was similar to that in contemporary British society, requiring a rethink of the causal factors of this disease. Cheek & Keel (1984:194) consider that ‘knowledge gained from scientific data retrieval is valuable to mankind in general’ and that therefore ‘destruction of the resource is unethical’.

Legal Requirements The most important pieces of legislation for archaeologists dealing with human remains in England and Wales are the 1857 Burial Act and the 2004 Human Tissue Act. In Scotland, Scottish criminal and civil law recognises a ‘right of sepulture’ (Tarlow 2001:58-59) and describes human remains as sacred no matter when or where they have been interred and tombs and graves are protected by law (Historic Scotland 1997:7; Roberts 2009:26). Archaeological examination of human remains in Northern Ireland is governed by the Historic Monuments and Archaeological Objects (Northern Ireland) Order for 1995 which requires a licence to be procured from the Environment and Heritage Service of Northern Ireland (Roberts 2009:27). Since contemporary Pagan contestation of human remains in the UK has so far been restricted to

6.3. How Are Remains Treated? Having assessed what can be learned from human remains, I now investigate how archaeologists and 75

Contested Heritage the jurisdiction of England and Wales, I will concentrate on the legal situation in this jurisdiction.

fossil hominids) shall be accorded when such value is demonstrated to exist. 5. Agreement on the disposition of fossil, skeletal, mummified and other remains shall be reached by negotiation on the basis of mutual respect for the legitimate concerns of communities for the proper disposition of their ancestors, as well as the legitimate concerns of science and education. 6. The express recognition that the concerns of various ethnic groups, as well as those of science, are legitimate and to be respected, will permit acceptable agreements to be reached and honoured. (World Archaeology Congress 1989)

The 1857 Burial Act was the culmination of a series of Acts of Parliament passed in reaction to the activities of body snatchers or resurrection men who excavated newly buried corpses to sell to anatomists (Fforde 2004:87; Parker Pearson 2003:181, 2012:173). The Act requires that licences to exhume remains from graveyards controlled by the Church of England be obtained from the Church’s Court of the Ordinary (i.e. ordained clergy). Remains not in a recognised burial ground require a government licence. Prior to 2008 such licences were issued by the Home Office but since then the Ministry of Justice has inherited responsibility for issuing them (Cunliffe et al 2011; Parker Pearson 2003:181; Roberts 2009:24). At the time of writing, the Ministry of Justice has been considerably stricter in the application of regulations limiting exhumation licenses than the Home Office had previously been, especially in the requirement to reinter after analysis. As will be seen in section 7.2.3, archaeologists have protested against this stricter application of the law.

From the text of the Vermillion Accord it can be seen that community involvement and consultation is paramount but that facilitation of research and the promotion of knowledge are also prioritised. With the Alder Hey scandal and the consequent passage of the 2004 Human Tissue Act, and also in response to claims for repatriation and reburial from overseas (DCMS 2005:79), the Department for Culture, Media and Sport set up a government Human Remains Working Group which issued guidance for the care of human remains in museums in Oct 2005. This has been the most important guidance document regarding Pagan claims and is cited in English Heritage and the National Trust’s response to the Alexander Keiller Museum claim (Thackray & Payne 2009, 2010) as will be explained in chapter 7. It defines its purpose as guiding museums in ‘good decision making about human remains’; encouraging ‘an ethical approach to the care and handling of human remains’, awareness of the consequences of decisions made and good communication between museums and interested parties/stakeholders (DCMS 2005:13). It expresses the view that whilst controversial to some, research on human remains is important and valuable and also enjoys the backing of government. It lists contributions to knowledge provided by such research as including data on health, disease, death and medicine; human evolution and adaptation; cultures, belief and attitudes (DCMS 2005:8). It explains the legal requirements for treatment of human remains primarily with regard to the Human Tissue Act 2004 (Her Majesty’s Government 2004) but also mentions that the influence of the Human Rights Act 1998 may have significance in the disposition of human remains (DCMS 2005:11-12) although Roberts (2009:25) asserts that the Human Rights Act applies only to the living. In particular the document explains that the principle enshrined in the Human Tissue Act, that possession and use of human tissue must always be with consent of the person whose tissue it is or their relatives, has exemptions regarding remains over 100 years old (DCMS 2005:11). It also explains that nine national museums have been given new powers to de-accession remains, but only those less than 1000 years old (DCMS 2005:12). The document goes on to examine the ethical framework within which it advises decisions regarding human remains should be made. These are explained as procedural responsibilities and ethical principles set out as follows:

The 2004 Human Tissue Act stipulates that the collection and analysis of human tissue for analysis requires informed consent of the person prior to death or that of their next of kin after death unless ordered by a Coroner. However, this legislation only relates to those bodies less than 100 years old (Her Majesty’s Government 2004). Ethical Guidelines and Professional Codes of Conduct Whilst legislation provides a framework for the licensing of exhumations, it is left to Codes of Conduct and guidelines to specify most of the detailed procedures for those archaeologists and museum professionals who deal with human remains. The Vermillion Accord is an international convention agreed at the first Inter-Congress of the World Archaeological Congress at Vermillion, South Dakota. Parker Pearson (2003:185) explains that it was held specifically to address archaeological ethics surrounding treatment of the dead. He records that a number of representatives of colonised ethnic groups were involved in the drafting of the six statements which form the Accord. These statements are: 1. Respect for the mortal remains of the dead shall be accorded to all irrespective of origin, race, religion, nationality, custom and tradition 2. Respect for the wishes of the dead concerning disposition shall be accorded whenever possible, reasonable and lawful, when they are known or can be reasonably inferred. 3. Respect for the wishes of the local community and of relatives or guardians of the dead shall be accorded whenever possible, reasonable and lawful. 4. Respect for scientific research value of skeletal, mummified and other human remains (including 76

Archaeologists, Museum professionals and Human Remains Procedural responsibilities

further claims (DCMS 2005:25). The guidance document (perhaps most importantly) provides recommendations on a selection of criteria, the presence of at least some of which should be required to uphold a claim. These comprise:

1. Rigour – rational, informed, skilled and careful action. 2. Honesty and Integrity – trustworthiness and acting with principles, declaring conflicts of interest, honest and full communication with all interested parties. 3. Sensitivity and cultural understanding – sensitivity and understanding of feelings as well as different religious, spiritual and cultural perspectives. 4. Respect for persons and communities – minimising adverse effects and respecting privacy and confidentiality. 5. Responsible communication, openness and transparency – listening informing and communicating clearly openly and honestly. 6. Fairness – Acting fairly and consistently, giving due weight to the interests of all parties.

• Genealogical descent – if remains are more than 100 years old a closer link than others may be required unless the other descendants support the claim. • Common cultural community affiliation – this requires claimants to demonstrate a shared (continued) belief, customs, dwelling place and/or language between the claimant and the source community of the remains. Without such a shared affiliation, the document states that it would be unusual to accept a claim. • Cultural, spiritual and religious significance of the remains – The guidelines suggest that a claim could be considered purely on these grounds especially if the remains were removed in violation of the claimant community’s laws, customs or traditions, or if the correct disposition of the dead is deemed important in that community or if the retention of the remains by the museum perpetuates continued grief or grievance in the claimant community. • The age of the remains – since it is deemed to be hard to demonstrate genealogical, ethnic or cultural continuity far into the past it is advised that claims for remains over 300 years might reasonably be denied and that claims for remains over 500 might reasonably be denied even consideration unless a ‘very close and continuous geographical, religious, spiritual and cultural link can be demonstrated’ (DCMS 2005:27). • Legal status of remains in the museum – The institution must be legally permitted to de-accession the remains. • Scientific, educational and historical value of the remains to the museum and the public – The guidance document advises that museums might consider that high research, educational or public interest override considerations in favour of de-accession. • Disposition of remains if de-accessioned – Whether remains will be reburied or kept in such a manner as to preserve them in a condition permitting the possibility of future research, education or display. • Other options – Museums are also advised to consider compromises whereby remains might be retained but with claimants exercising some control over their use and curation. • Precedent – Although the guidelines suggest claims be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, they suggest that past cases may be used to inform decision-making. (DCMS 2005:26-29)

Ethical Principles 1. Non-Maleficence – doing no harm. 2. Respect for diversity of belief – respect and tolerance for religious, spiritual and cultural beliefs. 3. Respect for the value of science – especially the scientific value of human remains and the benefits scientific enquiry provides for humanity. 4. Solidarity – co-operation and consensus building. 5. Beneficence – doing good and providing benefits to all. (DCMS 2005:14-15) I shall not attempt to précis the whole DCMS guidance document but rather to draw out those parts which are relevant to Pagan contestation of human remains and the considerations and procedures which museum professionals use to evaluate their claims. The DCMS (2005:18-19) document advises that human remains housed in museums should be stored in such a way as to prevent their loss, damage, deterioration or decay. Where culturally acceptable, it encourages marking of bones to ensure their integrity as parts of a skeletal set (DCMS 2005:19). It expresses the fact that members of the public expect and want to see human remains in museums but advises curators to display remains sensitively with due regard to the sensibilities of visitors who may not want to view remains and to ensure that remains are well labelled and protected from harm (DCMS 2005:20). The document encourages the use of remains for research with caveats that research should be done professionally to high standards by qualified persons and that any destructive sampling should only be carried out for good reasons, conforming to the highest standards and must be fully recorded (DCMS 2005:21-22). Regarding claims for repatriation or reburial of remains the guidance document encourages the institution to nominate an appropriately qualified individual to manage the claim and deal with the claimant(s). The museum is advised to obtain full details of the claim especially the identity of the claimant(s), their connection to the remains, which remains are being claimed, the claimant’s wishes for the disposition of the remains along with any additional information regarding

The Institute for Archaeologists (formerly the Institute of Field Archaeologists and now Chartered Institute for Archaeologists) published a Code of Conduct as part of its byelaws. This Code of Conduct is based on five principles: 1. A member shall adhere to high standards of ethical and responsible behaviour in the conduct of archaeological affairs. 77

Contested Heritage 2. The member has a responsibility for the conservation of the historic environment. 3. The member shall conduct his/her work in such a way that reliable information about the past may be acquired, and shall ensure that the results be properly recorded. 4. The member has responsibility for making available the results of archaeological work with reasonable dispatch. 5. The member shall recognise the aspirations of employees, colleagues and helpers with regard to all matters relating to employment, including career development, health and safety, terms and conditions of employment and equality of opportunity. (IfA 2010)

3. Museums hold primary evidence for establishing and furthering knowledge. 4. Museums provide opportunities for the appreciation, understanding and management of the natural and cultural heritage. 5. Museums hold resources that provide opportunities for other public services and benefits. 6. Museums work in close collaboration with the communities from which their collections originate as well as those they serve. 7. Museums operate in a legal manner. 8. Museums operate in a professional manner. (ICOM 2006:1) The Code has specific stipulations pertaining to human remains. It states that human remains should only be acquired if they can be accommodated securely and in a manner respectful by both the standards of the society within which the museum is situated and those of the society or group from which the remains were sourced (ICOM 2006:3). Any research undertaken on human remains in museum collections is required to be conducted in a professional and similarly respectful manner. Human remains may only be exhibited with ‘great tact and respect for the feelings of human dignity held by all peoples’ (ICOM 2006:8). The Code states that museums should be ‘prepared to initiate dialogues for the return of cultural property’ (ICOM 2006:9). It also requires that if it can be shown that an item in a museum’s collection has been acquired in a manner contravening ‘international and national conventions’ and if that item constitutes part of the source country’s cultural heritage, then the museum should actively co-operate in the return of the item if legally permitted to do so (ICOM 2006:10). The Code also stipulates that museums must ‘refrain from any activity that might result in the loss of... scientific data’ (ICOM 2006:12).

The first of these principles has the most obvious relevance to ethical treatment of human remains as it requires archaeologists to refrain from behaving in a way liable to bring the discipline into disrepute and to comply with all laws (as well as treaties, conventions and charters where required) concerning the conduct of archaeological work (section 1.6). Principles 3 and 4 are also relevant since they require archaeologists to manage remains in such a way as to maximise the data obtained from them, facilitate further research and disseminate analysis results quickly. Adherence to this Code of Conduct is a requirement of membership of the IfA and breaches of it, if upheld by an investigation, may result in the transgressor being expelled. This in turn may have consequences for continued employment if an employer requires membership. The British Association of Biological Anthropologists and Osteoarchaeologists has produced both a Code of Practice and a Code of Ethics. The Code of Practice focuses primarily on how research should be conducted within the bounds of legal requirements, especially health and safety, and to minimise loss of data. However, it does mention that research needs to be conducted with mindfulness of ethics and in a fashion respectful of the remains themselves and of any living descendants. The Code of Ethics (BABAO ndb) emphasises that human remains need to be treated with care, dignity and respect but does not explain how this ought to be achieved.

More specifically relevant for the UK, another Code of Ethics is published by the Museums Association (MA) (Museums Association 2008). The MA describes its purpose as ‘to enhance the value of museums to society by sharing knowledge, developing skills, inspiring innovation, and providing leadership’ (Museums Association nda). It also aims to ‘advocate for museums, set ethical standards and run essential training and professional development for members’ (Museums Association nda). It states that British society can expect UK museums to:

Museum professionals in the UK can look to two ethical codes. The International Council of Museums (ICOM) publishes an international Code of Ethics (ICOM 2006). ICOM exists to provide representation and communication for and between museums around the world. It also describes itself as ‘a leading force in ethical matters’ (ICOM nd). The Code of Ethics runs to sixteen pages and describes itself as a ‘minimum standard’ (ICOM 2006:iv) but the key points are as follows:

• hold collections in trust on behalf of society • focus on public service • encourage people to explore collections for inspiration and enjoyment • consult and involve communities, users and supporters • acquire items honestly and responsibly • safeguard the long-term public interest in the collections • recognise the interests of people who made, used, owned, collected or gave items to the collections • support the protection of natural and human environments

1. Museums preserve interpret and promote the natural and cultural inheritance of humanity. 2. Museums that maintain collections hold them in trust for the benefit of society and its development.

78

Archaeologists, Museum professionals and Human Remains • research, share and interpret information related to collections, reflecting diverse views • review performance to innovate and improve (Museums Association 2008:9)

the DCMS (2005) guidelines on human remains. They emphasise openness on holdings and conduct of research. The museum guarantees that human remains will only be displayed in a ‘culturally appropriate, sensitive and informative manner’ (National Museum of Wales 2006). The museum not only states that it is open to claims on foreign remains but intends to be pro-active in repatriating remains. However, it does state that all claims will be assessed according to the DCMS guidelines.

The Code of Ethics describes itself as being consistent with the ICOM Code of Ethics and states that the MA supports ICOM (Museums Association 2008:5). It requires museums and their staff to operate within the law (Museums Association 2008:8). It also requires museums to respond to claims regarding human remains in a respectful and understanding fashion, citing the DCMS (2005) guidance on Human Remains as the primary source for procedures to assess such claims (Museums Association 2008:17, 18).

Oxford Archaeology is a contract archaeology company specialising in rescue digs prior to development. Their policy for the treatment of human remains (Loe 2008) is comprehensive and detailed. It covers Health and Safety issues and professional standards in data collection. As to ethics, it recognises the culturally sensitive nature of human remains (Loe 2008:5) and requires staff to treat remains with care, respect and in a manner that does not cause offence (Loe 2008:3). It makes reference to IfA and BABAO standards requiring its staff to follow these guidelines as well as legislation. The policy requires unstratified remains to be reburied after a basic examination. It promises to deal with reburial claims in accordance with the DCMS guidelines (2005) consulting all interested parties and permitting ceremony where practicable (Loe 2008:5-6). The policy stresses a willingness to work in close consultation with any and all interested parties including religious groups and to be pro-active in keeping them informed (Loe 2008:5-7). Overall the policy document demonstrates a strong desire to deal ethically with remains and with the people who feel a strong connection to them. However, those who oppose reburial (e.g. Jenkins and Aburrow) may argue that this puts too much power in the hands of groups and individuals who represent unusual and what they may regard as extreme views.

the Advisory Panel on Archaeology of Christian Burials in England (APACBE) was formed in 2005 to provide guidelines on excavation of Christian remains and subsequently morphed into the Advisory Panel on the Archaeology of Burials in England (APABE) to provide a more universally applicable set of guidelines (Mays nd). Organisational Policies on Human Remains There are far too many organisation specific policies on the treatment of human remains to attempt an exhaustive analysis. To do so might be more than a single book could reasonably contain. I have chosen to exemplify policies used by archaeologists using documents from The British Museum (2006), the National Museum Wales (2006), Oxford Archaeology (Loe 2008) and The Poulton research project (2010). The British Museum policy (2006) concentrates almost exclusively on dealing with claims for de-accession. It does state that remains on display should always be accompanied by explanatory and contextual information and that in the case of remains over 100 years old only communities with demonstrable cultural continuity may be consulted on whether or not to display remains (British Museum 2006:4). The policy document also requires the museum to publish an inventory of holdings and to ensure research is conducted ethically (British Museum 2006:4). It states that assessment of claims for de-accession of remains over 500 years old should very strongly favour retention since cultural continuity cannot be assumed that far back (British Museum 2006:6) and it implies that any claim on remains over 1000 years old will be rejected (British Museum 2006:2). Overall the policy favours retention of remains and appears to imply that remains will only be deaccessioned if legally required to do so or in exceptional circumstances supported by very strong evidence.

The Poulton Research Project’s Golden Rules For Human Remains (2010) begins by asserting that the project will comply with all relevant legislation. It expresses an ideal that remains should not be disturbed or excavated unnecessarily and provides an assurance that all remains that are excavated will be reburied. It requires all participants in the project to handle remains with care and sensitivity both to ensure that data are not compromised and to respect the dignity of the remains. Based on conversations with a number of Pagan campaigners I would expect this policy to be acceptable to almost all of them. However, some archaeologists (e.g. Cunliffe et al 2011) argue that the blanket reburial assurance is problematic since it prevents new specimens entering the research material archive and thus limits the research that may be carried out upon them which they regard as being contrary to the public interest.

The National Museum Wales (2006) requires its staff to observe the requirements of the Human Tissue Act (HM Government 2004), to acknowledge that human remains were once part of living people and to care for them in a culturally respectful manner. They also endorse

Implications of Laws, Codes and Policies All restrictions limit what is done within the disciplines of archaeology and heritage. Section 6.2.3 and the previous

79

Contested Heritage paragraph demonstrate that many archaeologists consider the requirement always to rebury remains excavated to be damaging to future research. However, I suggest that laws are not only shaped by public expectations but also shape public expectations of social behaviour. The term ‘culturally respectful’ (National Museum of Wales 2006) is an interesting one. One may ask if the culture from which the curators draw their concept of respect is their own or that of the people whose bones they are handling. Ideally both should be considered but in the case of prehistoric remains it cannot be ascertained what these ancient cultures deemed to be respectful behaviour to the dead.

out research plan (Collis 2004:21-45; Parker Pearson 2003:198), the old army adage about the importance of prior planning quoted at the beginning of chapter 2 being relevant once again. Regarding the actual excavation of human remains the most important point to note is the fragility of the remains (Parker Pearson 2003:199; Collis 2004:150). In my own field research, participating in the excavation of Bronze Age cremated bone (described in detail later in this section) I found that some of the bone was actually less cohesive than the soil surrounding it. Collis (2004:68), Parker Pearson (2003:202) and Roberts (2009:77) all state that skeletons must always be recorded as specific contexts rather than as small finds within a larger context (See also BABAO nda). However, complete skeletons are the exception rather than the rule and disarticulated bones are comparatively common. These disarticulated bones are not considered a full context but rather treated as small finds. Parker Pearson (2003:202) suggests that burials should be planned at a scale of 1:10 as opposed to other features, which are normally planned at 1:20. He cautions that gluing fragmentary bones together may affect subsequent chemical analysis and fragile bones are best dried and very gently brushed free of earth while more sturdy bones can be washed with tepid water. For recording purposes he recommends that bones must be marked and labelled with context and skeleton number prior to being bagged (with acid free packing paper if necessary) and placed in special acid free boxes prior to transportation for further analysis (see fig. 27).

6.3.2. How Human Remains Are Treated in Practice Having examined the rules, guidelines and policies for treating human remains, I sought to examine how they were treated in practice. I shall begin by examining how excavation of human remains is carried out firstly by examining how archaeological textbooks such as Collis 2004 and Parker Pearson 2003 specify the practice should be conducted and then by using participant observation fieldwork of an excavation of Bronze Age cremated remains to provide an experiential (if somewhat anecdotal) account of the process. I shall also use interviewees’ accounts of excavation of human remains to provide a broader sample of practices. Unfortunately I was unable to secure a position working with human remains in an analytical or museum context so I am entirely reliant on accounts from interviewees and published material to illustrate how remains are treated in these contexts. Excavating Human Remains

Julian Richards (1999:26) wrote ‘No matter how many ancient burials you have dealt with, and how professionally detached you are supposed to be, there is always something about a child’s grave which provokes feelings of great sadness’. Most archaeologists interviewed were at pains to stress that they were very aware of the humanity of the remains being excavated.

There are several text books on the archaeological excavation of human remains, most notably Roberts’ (2009) Human remains in Archaeology: A Handbook and Brickley & McKinley’s (2004) Guidelines to the Standards of Recording Human Remains. Other sources include John Collis’ field manual Digging Up the Past (2004:149-57) and Parker Pearson’s Archaeology of Death and Burial (2003:193-7). Excavation of human remains has become far more carefully organised and disciplined than in the past. Bones of individuals are no longer separated but kept together to maintain corporeal integrity (Collis 2004:149). This maintenance of individuality is of course one of the most vital principles of mortuary archaeology today and an important ethical principle in dealing with human remains (Collis 2004; Parker Pearson 2003; p.c. Walker 2010, p.c. Clegg 2009). Archaeological context is largely determined by spatial positioning juxtaposed with associated and nearby artefacts and features (Collis 2004:64-68). It therefore follows that their excavation and removal takes them out of their context; thus this needs to be carefully recorded to avoid losing such critically important information. Archaeological excavation may therefore be seen as a destructive process and hence one only to be undertaken when there is an important research aim or the threat of loss or destruction. In turn it follows that archaeological excavations require a well thought

In excavating and analysing human remains, the most important consideration is to avoid loss of any data. A great deal of care is therefore taken to avoid missing any pieces of evidence as well as to avoid accidentally modifying or damaging remains or artefacts (Collis 2004:150). In order to maximise the amount of human biological material available for research and to preserve the integrity of the remains as representing a human individual care is taken to minimise destructive and invasive analytical techniques. For example, especially with preserved bodies, procedures such as computerised tomography (CT) scans and magnetic resonance imagery (MRI) scans are utilised. By using these three-dimensional internal imaging techniques alongside surgical techniques such as endoscopy dissection becomes largely redundant (Mullhall 2010:35; Bourke 1986:46). The development of accelerator mass spectroscopy enables radiocarbon analysis to be undertaken using far smaller samples than previously. All radiocarbon dating requires destruction of the samples so this advance means that far less of a person’s 80

Archaeologists, Museum professionals and Human Remains remains now need to be sacrificed to determine the date of death: for example Aldhouse-Green (2000:71) records that samples weighing 300-500mg were used to determine the date of death of the Red Lady of Paviland. Even if the techniques are not destructive, but most especially when they are, one ethical imperative is to record accurately the results of the analysis (Collis 2004:150).

subsequently that a large amount of bone had been found in two distinct contextual layers and removed for analysis along with some Bronze Age pottery sherds. Most of the rest of the dig was spent working on the other barrow where a possible standing stone had been incorporated into the matrix of the mound but no human remains were discovered. My own feelings while excavating these remains were that there was little of the person or people, whose bones they were, left in them. I didn’t feel I was in any way violating their privacy or dignity.

As explained in Chapter 2, I decided to employ a combined ethnographic and literary approach to data gathering for this book. As part of the ethnographic side of this strategy I considered it important that I should experience excavation of prehistoric human remains. I therefore volunteered to assist on the excavation of a pair of Bronze Age barrows near Cardigan in West Wales at a place called Pant-yButler (National Grid Reference SN214466). The research project was designed to record details of the two barrows both threatened by ploughing. The northern barrow was still noticeable but the southern one had already been completely ploughed out (Murphy et al 2010). I joined the dig as a volunteer explaining from the outset my research interests. I was particularly keen to observe and record my own feelings as both an archaeologist and a Pagan in excavating ancient human remains. I was slightly disappointed to be assigned to work on the ploughed out southern barrow but by the second day we were starting to find fragments of cremated bone including a possible ball joint from a femur. The cremated fragments were extremely fragile, in some cases less cohesive than the clay soil surrounding them. I also found a piece of stone in the shape of a truncated gently tapering cone which I immediately thought might be a phallic symbol. Aware of a possible excess of imagination on my own part I showed it to some of the other volunteers who came to the same conclusion. However, the dig directors did not agree and have labelled the stone (find number 104 in the report) as a rubbing stone (Murphy et al 2004:6). I found, to my slight surprise, that I didn’t feel much of a connection to the person whose remains I was handling. I am inclined to believe that this was due to the fragmentary nature of the remains, hardly any being more than a couple of centimetres across. On the third day the site was visited by a couple of metal detectorists who asked ‘Are they still there?’ in a manner indicating they were referring to the souls, ghosts or spirits of the deceased. I replied that I didn’t think so myself, asking what they thought. The man who had asked the original question replied ‘I don’t know, spend the night camping here and tell me’. I asked a fellow volunteer, also a Lampeter graduate and also inclined to Pagan spirituality what she thought. She replied ‘No, Bone is just matter’. On the fourth day Fran Murphy (Dig Director) noticed a linear feature of shale on edge where I had been trowelling and suggested a grave pit might be present. By the end of the fifth day we had excavated the half of the pit which lay in our original trench, removing large amounts of cremated bone in two distinct layers, and opened an extension to the north of the trench outlining the full extent of the burial pit. Unfortunately I was not able to be present when the remainder of the grave pit was excavated on the sixth day, a Sunday. I was told

Analysis of Human Remains Margaret Clegg, of London’s Natural History Museum, (p.c. 2009) explained that staff there were careful to treat remains with dignity when analysing them. She explained that they avoid bringing out more than one set of remains at a time to prevent mixing of skeletons. She explained that they consider it respectful to be careful who obtains access to remains. It is not only the remains of people of the remote past that are subject to scientific examination. Analysis of the recently deceased is described as an autopsy or a post-mortem. In England and Wales, these have been carried out by Home Office pathologists to provide a report for a Coroner’s Court or alternatively for research purposes (Williams 2010:18). Since the enactment of the 2004 Human Tissue Act, research autopsies have become rare (Williams 2010:18). It is the task of the Coroner to establish cause of death if there is any doubt or if the death is considered unnatural (Williams 2010:18; Directgov nd) and for this reason they have the authority to overrule the wishes of the deceased’s next of kin (Williams 2010:124). Michelle Williams, in her book Down Among the Dead Men (2010) describes her role as a hospital mortuary attendant. Kris Hughes (founder of the Anglesey Druid Order) is also employed as an anatomical pathology technologist and has suggested that Williams’ writing be treated with some caution. Nevertheless he confirms that part of the attendants’ job involves making arrangements for next of kin to view the body of the deceased. Williams describes a series of important ethical imperatives in her work. Perhaps the most important of these is the correct identification of bodies (Williams 2010:12). She describes the standard autopsy process as involving removal of the internal organs from the abdomen and thorax for weighing and, if necessary dissection and further analysis (Williams 2010:12-17). The scalp is peeled back and the skull sawn open to remove the brain, which is also weighed and analysed. She describes an atmosphere of relaxed professionalism with normal social conversation and occasional humorous banter during the post mortems. She suggests the banter between staff is a strategy for coping with stress but that mortuary staff are always careful to treat remains with respect (Williams 2010:227, 117). She explains that banter ceased abruptly when it was discovered that a certain elderly woman had not died naturally (Williams 2010:19) and did not take place at all when a small child was brought in after having been killed in a car accident (Williams 2010:94-5). 81

Contested Heritage find any evidence that museum professionals considered remains to be of little value nor that remains were ever treated with deliberate disrespect. Even those who felt that the bones were inanimate remains of a shell long since vacated expressed a belief that the remains were important by virtue of their rarity and what might be learned from them.

Hughes explains that he feels obliged, as a servant of the Crown, to perform his mortuary duties to the best of his professional ability but also feels a spiritual duty of care to the dead themselves. He feels the two are not exclusive and no tension exists between his Pagan spirituality and his job (p.c. Hughes 2011). Storage

Other locations where human remains may be stored include religious sites. Clegg (p.c. 2009) remarked that most churches include crypts where the dead are placed. Human remains are also stored in morgues at hospitals for a short while (Hughes 2011; Williams 2010).

Within the archaeology and museum sector, perhaps the most important issue in the storage of human remains is to keep them in such a way that the remains are safe from decay, deterioration and contamination, the remains also need to be stored in a way that specific remains can be located and easily accessed for research display etc. Collections are often stored in special acid-free cardboard boxes as I was shown in the bone store of one National Museum and as may be seen in the laboratory of the University of Wales: Trinity Saint David (fig. 27 below).

When a body is released from the hospital mortuary, it is likely to be taken to an undertaker who may have to store the body for a couple of days until arrangements are finalised and the funeral rites enacted. Undertakers also have a professional Code of Conduct (National Association of Funeral Directors 1990) but this emphasises duties to the bereaved rather than to the dead themselves. Williams (2010:240) however, describes the best and most respectful undertakers as talking to the deceased.

Interviews with museum professionals reveal that most, but not all, members of staff are well aware of the association of the remains with a human individual. They are therefore careful to treat remains with dignity. One informant described a colleague as speaking to bones when transporting them from the bone store to the laboratory. Whilst the contributor who mentioned this seemed to consider such behaviour a little odd, she certainly didn’t disapprove of it. I was certainly unable to

Display It is not only in museums of archaeology that human remains may be placed on display. Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches will often display relics of saints,

Fig. 27. Osteological specimen boxes in the UWL labs 2009 (Author’s photograph)

82

Archaeologists, Museum professionals and Human Remains the two were different since the motivation of museum display was secular and intended to promote a scientific worldview whereas the use of relics in churches was religiously inspired to promote emulation of saintly behaviour or to facilitate the intercession of the saint in the life of the worshipper. In spite of their objections, I still maintain that the parallel is a significant one since I do not see the secular and spiritual realms as entirely separate. I would argue that the display of human remains in both cases can be seen as educational, promoting a worldview and shared identity. The display of human relics is not the only parallel between museums and churches or temples. Susan Sheets-Pyenson (1988:5), for example, describes the British Museum (Natural History) in London as ‘a Gothic “Temple to Science”’. Indeed to myself, and I suspect to many others, visiting a museum feels somewhat like a pilgrimage.

which may consist of bones or body parts (Crook 2000:1218). These relics are displayed to the faithful to encourage faith and devotion and sometimes in the expectation of miracles (Crook 2000:1-2). When discussing my research, family members described an old convent in Sicily where preserved human bodies of wealthy people from the 18th century were displayed to visitors. This site is not unique. The ossuary at Sedlec in the Czech Republic exhibits the bones of Capuchin monks which have been used to make objets d’art which are now on display to paying visitors. The Capuchin ossuary in Rome also displays artworks made from of the bones of dead monks to tourists (Winton 2003:3). Fig. 28 (below) shows the interior of a Bone Chapel at Evora in Portugal where tourists pay to see bones. Both Catholic and Orthodox churches will often display relics of saints which may consist of preserved flesh or bone but equally may be artefacts associated with the saint (Crook 2000:12-18). Walsham (2010:13) describes saintly relics as having a ‘capacity to operate as a locus and conduit of power’ and asserts that ‘they channel redemptive and intercessory forces’. I asked two Roman Catholic interviewees (one an archaeologist, the other a historian) to comment on the parallels between museum display of ancient human remains and the ecclesiastical display of saintly relics. They both explained that they felt

Public access ossuaries are not restricted to ancient remains. The siege of Verdun in 1916 was among the bloodiest battles of World War 1. At Douamont near Verdun, the bones of 130,000 French and German soldiers who died in this battle were placed in an ossuary where visitors may view the bones of these dead soldiers through windows (Holt & Holt 1998:62-3). This example demonstrates that even the honoured war dead may be

Fig. 28. Bone chapel at Evora in Portugal (Author’s Photograph)

83

Contested Heritage Since I was unable to secure a work placement working with human remains in a museum context I was forced to rely on information from interviewees for an insight into how display is organised. Elizabeth Walker of the National Museum Wales in Cardiff explained to me (p.c. 2010) that they demonstrated respect for the remains in the way they were carefully laid out anatomically (unless they had been originally deposited otherwise) and that the museum forbade photography of remains. She told me that any photography of remains was done professionally and that the use of these photographs was carefully controlled.

placed on public display contradicting the idea that public display is inherently disrespectful. Other organisations also preserve and display human remains. One celebrated example is that of Jeremy Bentham, a utilitarian philosopher and philanthropist. In his will he stipulated that his body should be publicly dissected after which his remains should be preserved and brought to committee meetings at University College London. His head is preserved but kept locked away. The rest of his skeleton encased in a wax body is kept on display and is brought to meetings as specified in his will (Chamberlaine & Parker Pearson 2004:169).

Archaeological excavations seldom permit public viewing of remains as they emerge. Indeed the standard exhumation licences issued by the Ministry of Justice (previously by the Home Office) require that the excavation is screened (Parker Pearson 2003:198-9; Sayer & Symonds 2004; Collis 2004:149). In his Theoretical Archaeology Group conference paper, Duncan Sayer (2010) explained that he was able to obtain a special Ministry of Justice licence that permitted him to allow members of the public to view the excavation of skeletons in an Anglo-Saxon cemetery. Furthermore Sayer explained that the response from the public at the site was almost universally positive. It may also be argued that the opportunity for the public to witness archaeological digs in this way provides a context to the remains, which helps to tell their story thus humanising the dead.

Hospitals and medical schools also keep preserved specimens of human tissue, organs and cadavers for training and research. One of the largest of these is the Hunterian Museum of the Royal College of Physicians in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London. I visited the museum with Emily Porth, a researcher comparing the display of human remains with that of animal remains in museums, on the 3rd of August 2010 where she introduced me to Jane Hughes, one of the curatorial staff (Head of Learning and Access). On a tour of the Museum the guide, retired surgeon Lewis Spitz, explained that an unusually large human skeleton belonged to an Irishman named Charles Byrne who had specifically wanted to avoid his body being put on display when he died and had therefore paid a boatman to dispose of it at sea after his death. John Hunter, founder of the Hunterian Museum, however, had paid the boatman more and so obtained possession of Byrne’s body. Ms Hughes explained that the museum had received approaches to repatriate and inter Byrne’s bones but that the claimants had been unable to demonstrate a familial link: and hence the museum decided the claim did not override the educational and research importance of the skeleton (see also Alberti et al 2009).

De-accessioning, Disposal and Reburial Many remains excavated by archaeologists are reburied after analysis. By no means all remains go into museum stores. What then are the criteria on which the fate of excavated remains is judged? Many museums have uncontextualised remains in their collections, which were acquired at a time when curators were less selective or which have become decontextualised due to administrative errors or disasters such as wartime bombing. Bearing in mind the consequent difficulties in making any use of these remains coupled with the fact that storage of human remains represents an ongoing investment in financial terms, climate controlled storage facilities are not cheap and museums have to operate within limited budgets. De-accession (removing from the museum’s collection) is therefore an obvious solution subject to due process to ensure that removal from the collection is justified (ICOM 2006:5; Museum of London 2006:5).

A recent development in the display of human remains is Gunther von Hagens’ Bodyworlds Exhibition. This comprises human corpses, acquired by him with the stated aim of preservation as anatomical specimens for educational purposes. His ‘plastination’ process is used to preserve tissue which would otherwise decay making possible a large permanent travelling display of dissected, preserved human bodies. He states that his show aims to ‘democratise anatomy’ (BBC News 2002b).The major controversy surrounds allegations the bodies may have been procured less than ethically either from prisons in countries with a poor human rights record (BBC News 2004) or by dishonestly overemphasising the educational nature of the display to potential donors (BBC News 2002a). Von Hagens was also criticised for the general layout and presentation of his exhibition which was likened rather to an art installation than a scientific display (Jenkins 2011:113). This perception of the Bodyworlds display as art rather than science is exemplified by bodies in the display being placed in positions such as fencing, doing a high jump and playing a guitar (BBC News 2002a; BBC News 2008c).

The sale of de-accessioned bones would be problematic both ethically and legally since the Law considers human remains as a non-commodity unless subjected to some process of craft or skill (DCMS 2005:12). Sale of remains or discarding de-accessioned human remains as rubbish would feel wrong and result in negative publicity for any institution doing so. Thus it would rather be a case of finding a suitable guardian for the remains or of cremating 84

Archaeologists, Museum professionals and Human Remains 6.4. Conclusion

or burying them. One anonymous informant explained that, having decided to de-accession bones, a museum may approach other museums to ascertain if they would take over guardianship (Society for Museum Archaeologists 1993:10, 22).

In the next chapter I examine how Pagans have interacted with human remains and how remains have been contested. This chapter has examined how archaeologists and museum professionals (part of the heritage sector) use and interact with human remains. I explained how archaeologists and other specialists in related fields can provide much information about a person’s life from excavation and analysis of that person’s remains. The accuracy and scope of these data are dependent on the greatest care being taken in meticulous excavation, recording, cleaning, sampling and analysing the remains. Surgical techniques have been employed to protect the appearance and corporeal integrity of curated preserved bodies.

Deposition of bones in an ossuary whilst not unknown in British history has not been common in recent times (Roberts 2009:50; Parker Pearson 2003:50). Parker Pearson (2003:41) asserted that nearly three quarters (72%) of British people were cremated at the beginning of the 21st century (see also Chamberlaine & Parker Pearson 2004:175) but an interviewee working as an undertaker reported that burial is now becoming more popular due to rising costs of cremation and falling burial costs. Cremation is a recent preference; less than two hundred years ago Dr William Price (a self-identified Druid) found himself in court for cremating the body of his son Iesu Grist (Green 1997:132). It could therefore be deemed inappropriate for us to cremate remains of mediaeval and early modern people who lived at a time when cremation was considered so aberrant as to be illegal. But what of older remains dating to a time when cremation was practised? The fact that the remains are uncremated may indicate a preference either of the dead individual or, more likely, of their social group. Reburial is therefore the fate of most remains de-accessioned as being of little or no research value.

Archaeologists and Museum professionals interviewed expressed a strong awareness that excavated bones were once part of a living person and I was able to experience this awareness in action by participating in the excavation of a pair of Bronze Age barrows. Whilst archaeologists and museum professionals exhibit meticulous care in the disinterment of human remains of all ages, some recent remains are extracted with little care or consideration by cemetery clearance contractors. It is also significant that museums are not the only context in which human remains may be displayed. Crypts, ossuaries, churches and even war memorials may permit visitors to view the remains of the honoured dead. Display in such instances is usually characterised as an act of reverence although, in at least some cases this may be more due to curiosity or even some kind of entertainment.

Fox (2004:374-8) argues that the ‘default position’ of the English, at least those not firmly of another faith, is to entrust the dead to the Church of England. The Church’s position as the state religion of England is probably a significant reason for this. If so, this may explain why some remains have been given Anglican burials (e.g. Servini 1999; BBC News 1999b). I have found few instances of pre-Christian remains being reburied after analysis. I suggest this is because ancient remains are seldom deemed to be without research value. Shallcrass (2004:28-29) describes one case where a woman’s remains found in Wiltshire and excavated by Wessex Archaeology were reburied. This individual was buried face down in a wooden plank coffin but the timber proved impossible to date by the tree rings so a radiocarbon determination was made providing a date circa AD500. The Home Office exhumation licence permitted the remains to be ‘conveyed to a museum or archive if deemed to be of scientific importance, or reburied in a cemetery. Since these remains were interpreted as being non-Christian, it was successfully argued that a Christian consecrated graveyard was inappropriate and the remains were reinterred in a place close to the original burial site. Jenkins (2011:15-16) points out that much is made of the ethical correctness of reburial and news items (BBC News 2008a, 2009) confirm her assertion that these reburials are generally ritualised. Collections containing sufficient numbers of remains to form a useful sample for statistical research are rare. When large numbers of remains are excavated, e.g. post mediaeval graveyard clearances, they seldom enter museum stores for long if at all.

This chapter has shown that not all human remains excavated by archaeologists are kept in museum or excavation contractors’ stores; many are reburied at or near the locations from which they were excavated. This may be publicised as an ethical act but is usually done to avoid the increased storage costs of larger collections. Excavation, analysis, curation and display or reburial of human remains is an emotive issue so it should not be surprising that there are several pieces of legislation and ethical guidelines covering the treatment of remains. These generally forbid unauthorised and unnecessary disturbance of human remains whilst permitting the archaeological examination of remains if necessary or desirable. Remains are required to be treated respectfully and in a manner which maintains their safety, skeletal or bodily integrity, context and hence their research potential as well as perhaps some vestige of personhood (an issue which is explored in more detail in chapter 7). Chapter 7 also explores how human remains from overseas have been contested but in this chapter guidelines on how claims on human remains received by museums are expected to be dealt with have been analysed. These guidelines are intended to help museum professionals to balance the interests of claimants, who may feel that remains have been unacceptably appropriated by strangers and treated in an inappropriate manner by them, against the interests of scientists and academics seeking to expand 85

Contested Heritage human knowledge. Importantly the criteria emphasise continuity of affiliation and demonstrable cultural affinity or importance. In conclusion archaeologists and Museum professionals value human remains highly for the large amount of information they can provide about the lives of people in the past. Their careful and sensitive treatment of these remains is informed and shaped by this desire for reproducible knowledge and also by recognition of their human value. Treatment of human remains is also governed by legal and professional codes which shape the attitudes and practices involved in their treatment.

86

7 Contemporary Pagans and Ancestors 7.1. Introduction

3. Ancestors of tradition – those people who have influenced the thinking and spirituality of the believer and those who share a perceived identity of Pagan spirituality.

In this chapter I examine contemporary Pagan attitudes to ancient human remains and their interactions with archaeologists and museum professionals regarding them. I explain how the pre-Christian dead have become conceptualised as Ancestors and have therefore become foci of reverence and respect. In order to provide a context and to explain the origins of Pagan contestation, I investigate the contestation of human remains in Australia and the United States. I then use the four main instances of Pagan contestion of human remains as case studies to examine how contestation has taken place in recent years. The tactics and approaches to contestation by different Pagan groups are analysed and I complete the chapter with a critical evaluation of the arguments and counterarguments regarding reburial and display of human remains. I also analyse non-reburial challenges to the way remains are displayed in museums and examine two case studies to reveal how museum professionals have attempted to display remains more sensitively.

In the literature of the Pagan community there is variation on how these categories are defined. For example, the British Druid Order speaks of ‘ancestors of blood’ (unpublished:6) and ‘ancestors of spirit’ (unpublished:21) in part nine of the Bardic section of the Druidic study course that the order runs. Restall Orr (2007b:34) acknowledges that Lindow Man may not be a genetic ancestor to most modern Pagans but described him as being ‘a part of their ancestral environment and as such is one of our dead’. Blain and Wallis (2006:6) describe contemporary Pagans as ‘spiritually allied’ to prehistoric people. Moshenska (2009:818) describes Pagan ideas of Ancestors as ‘an idealised amorphous conglomeration of the dead’. Field interviews suggest this is not inaccurate, although the language seems somewhat pejorative, and it provides a starting point for some unpicking of ideas and beliefs supporting conceptualisation of Ancestors. Conversations with Pagans have suggested an idea that death allows an individual or his/her soul to transcend the limits of the senses and become linked into a wider spiritual reality. Most Pagans have not subscribed to the Abrahamic concept of evil but rather that evil derives from imbalance or ignorance (Crowley 1989:202, 1995:174176; Jennings 2002:9; Pagan Federation 1992:4). The idea that the Ancestors form an unregimented group of idealised entities is in keeping with Pagan worldviews and not an ill thought out piece of wishful thinking as Moshenska’s use of language might be interpreted as suggesting.

7.2. British Pagans and the Concept of Ancestors The Oxford English Reference Dictionary (Pearsall & Trumble 2003:48) defines an ancestor as ‘any (esp. remote) person from whom one is descended’. In common usage, the living are seldom referred to as ancestors. However, in this and subsequent chapters, I am using the capitalised form, Ancestors, to refer to those among the dead who are particularly venerated or who are worshipped or interacted with on a spiritual level. Hardacre (2005:320) explains Ancestor worship as ‘rites and beliefs concerning dead kinsmen’ but also allows that some groups, including some in Japan, include non-kin among the Ancestors (Hardacre 1987:267). Hall (1995:95, 101-102) describes South African sangomas interacting with lidlotis, which he describes (1995:x) as ancestral spirits, not of their kin group. Contemporary Pagans are therefore not unique in holding such a concept of Ancestors.

7.2.2. Origins of Ancestor Veneration in Contemporary Paganism Philip Shallcrass (p.c. 2011) states that Ancestors have always played an important part in his spirituality going back into the late 1960s. However, I have been unable to find reference to ancestors in Druid and Wiccan liturgies and theologies prior to the 1990s. Certainly Shamans, drawing on American Indian and Australian Aboriginal ideas (Day 1995:14; Hardacre 2005:323; Wallis 2003:7071), and Asatruar/Heathens (Gundarsson 1993:106-10) made Ancestors an important part of their spirituality prior to that time. However, as Shamanic techniques and historical authenticity became increasingly popular across the contemporary Pagan scene through the 1990s, the concept of Ancestors and ideas of how to interact with them became more important. Hutton once addressed Shallcrass as ‘a Shaman at the core of your being, quite convincingly dressed as a Druid’ (Shallcrass 2008). It should therefore

7.2.1. Who Are the Ancestors? Pagan writer Brynneth Nimue Brown, formerly Colvin (Brown 2012:6-24; Colvin 2006:16), and Restall Orr (2000b:90) divide Ancestors in contemporary Pagan traditions into three categories: 1. Ancestors of blood – kin ancestors who are spiritually significant Ancestors as well; 2. Ancestors of place – people who lived in the same place as the present believer and whose ghosts and memories may be said to echo there; 87

Contested Heritage be no surprise that along with Emma Restall Orr he was a prominent advocate of Shamanic practices in Druidry. This work was subsequently advanced by John and Caitlin Matthews as ‘awenyddion’ (which I was fortunate enough to observe circa 2001). They describe awenyddion as early mediaeval Welsh Shamanic practitioners using a trance state for divinatory insights. Within heathenry Shamanic approaches have been championed by Jenny Blain with her book The Nine Worlds of Seidr Magic (2002) and by Brian Bates (1996) in his Way of Wyrd. Shamanic trance work and otherworld journeys has sometimes involved Ancestors but the most common reference to them is in the form of a simple invocation as I have witnessed in many Pagan rituals and as mentioned by Brown (2012:4). Archaeological interpretations of ancient sites such as barrows and stone circles as monuments to ancestors since the 1990s (e.g. Pryor 2003:157, 190-213; Parker Pearson 2012:6-8, 343; Whitley 2002:119) have also contributed to Pagan ideas about Ancestor veneration. Whitley (2002:1920) argues that the importance of Ancestors in British prehistory has been overemphasised and that it is part of a nationalist discourse which provides a sense of comfort and continuity with the past. He accuses archaeologists of applying a misunderstood concept of ancestors from Australian Aboriginal Culture to the British Neolithic (Whitley 2002:121) but I would argue that this neglects the great effort required to make megalithic tombs and barrows and evidence of bones being stored and periodically removed from them (Hutton 1997a:31; Pryor 2003:190-202).

ancient pre-Christian people as Ancestors provides both a legitimating connection with the Paganisms of the past and is an expression of perceived shared identity as Pagans. 7.2.4. Implications of Pagan Ancestor ‘Worship’ If one then accepts that Pagans are sincere in their devotion to the Ancestors, and I see no reason to doubt that they are, what are the implications? Fox (2004:357) argues that the English are generally suspicious of strong religious faith but religion is still frequently a deeply felt and important motivating factor for human behaviour (e.g. Nagata 2001:493). I argue that contemporary Pagans think of themselves as different from the rest of the UK population in their religiosity, many preferring to speak of spirituality rather than religion. There is still a lingering stigma in some quarters to Paganism with atheists dismissing Pagans as irrational (Hutton p.c. 2010) and Evangelical or fundamentalist Christians accusing them of idolatry or Satanism (Hutton 2001:255, 259-60, 319). Also few (although this is changing) Pagans were raised as Pagans by their families but have chosen or discovered their Pagan spirituality (Day 1995:11; Jennings 2002:15). It is therefore a more difficult choice involving more effort to be a Pagan than to be, for example, an Anglican. Nevertheless some are more devout and more likely to have their spirituality strongly influence their thinking and behaviour. Where such a pervasive faith exists, there is often a deep devotion to related causes such as ecological conservation (Partridge 2004:76). However, conversations over some years lead me to believe that in the case of Pagans (especially Druids) there is often a desire to philosophise (albeit without academic discipline in most cases) hence some room for debate may exist. What contemporary Pagan ideas about Ancestors imply for archaeologists and museum professionals, however, is that there is an absolutely genuine care for the Ancestors and their material remains, unlike the broader apathetic attitude to the dead in British society; which has seen councils selling off cemeteries for £1 (Parker Pearson 2003:125). While many Pagans revere the Ancestors, I have witnessed significant variation on how that reverence is manifested.

7.2.3. Why Are They the Ancestors? If one accepts that Hardacre (2005:321) is correct that almost all spiritualities which have venerated Ancestors have restricted their definition of Ancestors to lineal kin, then why should contemporary Pagans be different? Perhaps one answer lies with the narratives of Christian oppression of Pagans (see chapter 1) and that many Pagans would assume their Christian ancestors to be hostile to their spirituality (See Brown 2012:4-5, 113-116). These Christian ancestors therefore become problematic as Ancestors. I would not be surprised if rituals and practices to placate these Christian ancestors emerge over the coming decades but I consider they are less likely to be revered and held up as examples as positive ancestors. Lewis & Hammer (2007:15) have suggested that contemporary Paganism may be the only religion which does not attempt to give itself authority through historical lineage. I disagree and I would suggest that the adoption of pre-Christian human remains would have, to some degree, a functional purpose of legitimating contemporary Pagans as heirs to the paganisms of the ancient past. Indeed, in her somewhat satirical look at the varieties of contemporary Pagans, Julia Day (1995:11) observes drily that ‘For every ounce of hereditary witch you can have several pounds of pretend ones’. This desire to be seen as a descendant of older Pagans may be construed as an attempt to be more Pagan than others or to claim a position of authority or respect. I would suggest that claiming the remains of

7.3. Contestation Overseas Cressida Fforde (2004:7) suggests that the earliest recorded interest in human origins may be traced back to the works attributed to Hippocrates of Kos dating to the 4th century BC. She describes the heyday of human remains collection as lasting from the late 18th century to early 20th century (Fforde 2004:1). Permission to remove remains of colonised subjects was not deemed important and was seldom sought (Fforde 2004:1). Anatomical samples including skeletons were frequently obtained under circumstances which were, even then, seen as ethically dubious. Although former Spanish colonies in South America began to gain independence in the 19th century (Phillips & Phillips 2010:211), the French and British Empires only really crumbled after World War 2 (Parker 88

Contemporary Pagans and Ancestors Pearson 2003:171). Following post-colonial challenges to European cultural hegemony in newly independent African and Asian nations, indigenous peoples of former colonies where European incomers had become a majority such as Australia, the United States and New Zealand began to press for equal rights with white immigrant populations (Fforde 2004:89-103; Jenkins 2011:13-28; Simpson 2001:178-181). First Nations advocacy groups initially concentrated on political self-determination, land ownership and challenging ethnocidal policies of ‘Stolen Generations’ in Australia (Reid 2006) and ‘Boarding Schools’ in the USA (Walker & Maynard 1997:338-42). From the 1960s Australian Aboriginal groups began to demand the return for reburial of aboriginal human remains held in museums in Australia and abroad (Fforde 2004:89; Parker Pearson 2003:171). American Indian repatriation and reburial movements were campaigning for legislation from at least 1971 (Fforde 2004:92; Thomas 2000:198-199, 209).

Society of Tasmania instructed Dr George Stockell, the house surgeon, to take Lanne’s hands and feet (Fforde 2004:45). The remainder of Lanne’s body was buried, possibly with another man’s skull, on the 6th of March. Stockell is believed to have carefully excavated the grave and removed the body, carefully replacing the coffin. However, later that night Crowther was alleged to have disinterred the coffin and, finding that he was too late, left the grave open with the replacement skull on top of the coffin. Crowther subsequently raided a room in the hospital where Stockell had removed the bones from the flesh of Lanne’s body (Fforde 2004:45) and it was even alleged that he had a tobacco pouch made from his skin (Fforde 2004:45; Parker Pearson 2003:176). A court case against Stockell ensued but was dismissed when Crowther refused to give evidence. What ultimately became of Lanne’s remains is unclear but a skull believed to be his had been brought to London and thence to Edinburgh. Records exist describing Lanne’s hands and feet being exhibited in Hobart (Fforde 2004:47) but little is certain and it may be hoped that his remains have now been laid to rest in Tasmania, although it seems unlikely that his remains were ever reunited in a single grave.

7.3.1. Australian Aboriginal Contestation The Aboriginal populations of Australia and Tasmania were described by early physical anthropologists in pejorative and racist terms, e.g “amongst the most primitive races on earth”. It was even suggested that they were survivals of Neanderthal populations, based on measurement and highly flawed morphological analysis of skulls (Fforde 2004:30, 79). Aboriginal people were often treated as less than fully human, and in some instances were hunted like animals (Fforde 2004:32). Large numbers of skeletons were appropriated for anatomical collections and museums by scientific adventurers including Klaatsch, Macgillivray and Stirling without any permission from the communities from whom the remains were sourced, in the full knowledge of the distress their actions caused to those communities (Fforde 2004:61). Convincing arguments have been made that the policy of the later colonial and post-independence government up until 1969 was ethnocidal if not genocidal (Reid 2006:6). Perhaps the most infamous instances of treatment of human remains relate to the last two Tasmanian Aboriginal people without any European ancestry.

Truganini died on the 8th of May 1876 having expressed a fervent desire for her remains not fall into the hands of scientists. Fforde (2004:97) asserts that she asked to have her body cast into the sea at the deepest part of the D’Entrecasteaux Channel but Parker Pearson (2003:176) suggests she asked for her corpse to be cremated. Either way, neither her wishes nor her body were respected. The Colonial Secretary, anxious to avoid a repetition of the events surrounding William Lanne’s burial, but conscious of the perceived importance of preserving the last member of a disappearing people, ordered that she be buried safely but accessibly. After repeated requests by the Royal Society of Tasmania, Truganini’s remains were permitted to be disinterred and removed to a place where they could be made available for scientific study (Fforde 2004:98). However, Fforde also records reports that Truganini’s body had already been illegally exhumed by the Royal Society before the Colonial Secretary had given his permission in December 1878. In violation of the terms by which permission had been given to excavate her remains, Truganini’s skeleton was put on display at the Royal Society’s museum. During the 1950s the Anglican Church in Tasmania twice approached the museum asking to rebury the bones but was told that the trustees had no authority to release the skeleton: indeed one of them argued that it would be condemned around the world as a crime against science to dispose of such a rare specimen. In the late 1960s a law student of aboriginal ancestry, Burnum Burnum campaigned to have Truganini’s remains released for reburial; accusing the museum of violating her wishes as well as perpetuating oppression of Aboriginal people (Fforde 2004:99). In 1974 the museum offered to have Truganini’s bones placed in a mausoleum, where they could still be made available for scientific study; but the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies pushed for her wishes and those of her descendants to be respected

Truganini and William Lanne William Lanne and Truganini have been described as the last two wholly (i.e. without any European ancestry) aboriginal Tasmanians or Palawa people (Parker Pearson 2003:176; Fforde 2004:45 & 97; Smith 2004:175). Describing them as such now, with overtones of racial purity, seems ethically problematic but they undoubtedly lived through a time when the Palawa were experiencing genocide at the hands of British settlers in Tasmania. William Lanne died on the 5th of March 1869 and despite instructions from the Colonial Secretary that Lanne’s body be ‘protected from mutilation’ (Fforde 2004:45), Dr William Crowther, of the Hobart General Hospital, appropriated Lanne’s skull. Fearing that Crowther would steal the rest of the skeleton members of the Royal 89

Contested Heritage committed. James Chatters, a physical anthropologist was called in to analyse the skull and assess its age. The shape of the jaw and cranium along with the proximity to a known historic settlement led Chatters to suggest that the skull belonged to a settler of European origin. However, the skull was quickly identified as not having died in the last two hundred years or so. Archaeological survey of the site turned up 350 pieces of bone representing an almost complete skeleton. The skeleton was carefully examined providing an age at death of forty to fifty-five years old, male sex and a height of 170 to 176 cm. Stable isotope analysis provided evidence that Kennewick Man, as the media named him, had subsisted largely on fish. DNA analysis was inconclusive but a stone projectile point associated with a half healed wound in the man’s hip was dated to 8500-4500BP (Burke et al 2008:26).

(Fforde 2004:99). By 1976 however, increasing pressure from the Tasmanian Aboriginal community and, more broadly, within the Commonwealth had resulted in a change in the law which permitted the museum to release Truganini’s bones which were cremated and scattered in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel as she had requested (Fforde 2004:100). Legal Changes Mulvaney (1991:14) records that by 1975 Australian legislation covering Aboriginal remains, relics and sites was enacted on a state by state basis but in 1984 the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill was passed into federal law. It was updated in 1987 to ensure that Aboriginal elders decided the fate of all archaeological remains excavated in Australia and its dependant territories.

A newspaper report on the 30th of July 1996 prompted the first contact from local American Indian groups but it was not until the 9th of September that the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, the Wanapum Band, the Nez Percé Tribe and the Yakama Nation lodged a formal claim under the provisions of NAGPRA. By this time the bones had been radiocarbon dated to 8410 +/- 60 years BP establishing it as one of the five oldest skeletons in North America (Burke et al 2008:27). Since the skeleton was found on land belonging to the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), it was within the jurisdiction of NAGPRA to require the skeleton to be handed over to the American Indian claimants 30 days after the second public notice unless a counterclaim was lodged. The public notice was issued on the 24th of September 1996 but within a week the New York Times published an article describing the skeleton as Caucasian. On the 16th of October eight anthropologists took legal action to prevent the US government handing the bones over to the claimants, on the basis that there was insufficient evidence that the remains were of a American Indian person. The following week the Asatru Folk Assembly (a white supremacist Pagan group) filed a claim for possession of the remains (Burke et al 2008:28 Blain & Wallis 2006:5). This group may have been involved in one of the five rituals conducted with the bones which the USACE confirmed to the media in October 1997 and they are recorded as having conducted a ritual at the find site in August 1997 (Burke et al 2008:29). Asatruar withdrew their claim on the 14th of January 2000 and in 2013 DNA analysis demonstrated a close connection with local American Indians. The skeleton was subsequently reburied in 2017.

7.3.2. American Indians and NAGPRA Echo-Hawk, a Pawnee Indian spokesman once made the accusation that ‘if you desecrate a white grave you wind up sitting in prison but desecrate an Indian grave, you get a PhD’ (Thomas 2000:210). From 1971 organisations such as the American Indian Movement (AIM) and American Indians Against Desecration (AIAD) were contesting archaeological excavation of American Indian funerary sites (Jenkins 2011:14, Thomas 2000:198-199, 209). Thomas (2000:210) also remarks that all 50 US states had laws protecting the graveyards used by white people but until the 1990s no protection was afforded to American Indian graves. Fforde (2004:92-94) records how protests and political pressure for federal legislation to protect American Indian graves grew through the 1970s and 1980s. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was passed and signed into federal law (overriding state laws) by President George H.W. Bush in 1990. This was seen as a great move forward in acknowledging equal rights and human rights for American Indians (Thomas 2000:214). The legislation made tribal consent mandatory for archaeological excavations of human remains on federal land not securely identified as being of European ancestry. Museums receiving federal funding were required to compile detailed inventories of all American Indian human remains, grave goods, funerary and ceremonial objects which were required to be shared with tribal groups who would then be entitled to claim back those remains and items (Thomas 2000:214). Kennewick Man

7.3.3. Critiques of Repatriation and Reburial Claims for Remains from Abroad

On the 28th of July 1996 a couple of spectators at a watersport event found a human skull by the Columbia River near Kennewick in Washington State, USA. The skull was taken to the local police station and then passed on to the County Coroner to establish if a crime had been

Having briefly looked into the origins of overseas contestation of ancestral remains and examined case study examples, and before proceeding to analyse reasons for Pagan contestation of human remains, I shall briefly set out some of the reasons put forward by Australian Aboriginal 90

Contemporary Pagans and Ancestors Political Reasons

and American Indian campaigners for reburial and arguments against by their critics. I encourage the reader to compare these with the Pagan reasons for contestation set out in sections 7.7 and 7.8.

Thomas (2000:211) records that some archaeologists were dismissive of American Indian reburial claims, believing the activists to be insincere, inauthentic opportunists seeking personal profit. This impression is not restricted purely to archaeologists, a part Cherokee lady attending a UK Pagan camp explained to me that the Cherokee had always engaged co-operatively with people of European ancestry. Their nation she explained was divided into Western and Eastern Bands with the Eastern being more traditional and the Western more ‘Westernised’. She agreed with another interviewee that the Cherokee had profited from constructive dialogue with white people while the Navajo and Lakota had come to be seen by some as bigots. She explained that the elders she knew saw the reburial campaigners as ‘neo-Indians’ rather than being driven by traditional values and beliefs. I feel that one must be willing to ask oneself if the political motivation of contestation is any reason to ignore or to devalue those arguments.

Identity Based Reasons Fforde (2004:159) records that some repatriation claims have been rejected on the basis that they were seen as politically motivated. She counters these criteria for rejecting claims by emphasising the importance to emancipated groups of reasserting a collective identity after colonial oppression and challenging the racial subordination of the colonial era with regard to contestation of human remains (Fforde 2004:157-160). However, Jenkins (2011:37) challenges these criteria as continuing what she sees as the erroneous concept of dividing humans into discrete races. However, native/aboriginal groups are bounded and separated from people of European descent in countries such as Australia and the USA, not just by skin colour and details of body morphology but also by cultural identity (Smith 2004:169; Dick 2011:72).

7.4. Contesting Human Remains in the UK

Certainly such groups have justified grievances, not least in the manner of collection of biological samples for research as seen in section 7.3. It therefore follows that claims to recover remains from museum collections can and have been presented as regaining legitimate control of their own heritage, restitution, and an assertion of native rights in a post-colonial world (Fforde 2004:159-160; Jenkins 2011:63-69; Simpson 2001:178-181). Armand Minthorne (2008:42) of the Umatilla Indians described the excavation of the skeleton from Kennewick as a desecration and the analysis of the bones as a further violation. He states that the elders of his tribe teach that ‘once a body goes into the ground, it is meant to stay there until the end of time’. Minthorne (2008:43) also asserts that American Indians do not need archaeologists to tell them their own history as it is already known.

Marsden and Nurse (2007:104) point out, referencing a cartoon from 1816, that criticism of archaeological, or rather antiquarian, investigation of the dead is nothing new. Sociologists such as Jenkins (2011:81) and archaeologists such as Parker Pearson (2012:175) have noted that current contestation of human remains by contemporary Pagans has been inspired by aboriginal groups overseas. The following section will examine how Pagans in the UK came to adopt the idea and comparisons between the British Pagan campaigns and the American Indian and Australian Aboriginal campaigns will demonstrate some common aims and motivations. 7.4.1. Origins of Contestation in the UK In 1997 the body of the Sioux chief Long Wolf who had died in London whilst performing with Buffalo Bill’s Wild West show was repatriated to the United States (Blystone 1997; Hooper-Greenhill 2007:89). Shallcrass (p.c. 2011) explained to me that this campaign made him aware of American Indian campaigns to repatriate and rebury their ancestors. This reinforced his desire to see the lost bones of a Neolithic woman reburied at the southern entrance to Avebury. He explained that this seemed to him to demonstrate a respect for and love of the ancestors that British Pagans would do well to emulate.

Spiritual Reasons An important part of the cultural identity mentioned in the previous section has often been a set of spiritual beliefs and practices relating to death and the dead. These may or may not have been and aspect imported world religions, most commonly Christianity (e.g. Reyes-Cortez 2012:108). A common belief around the world is that souls or spirits of the dead or at least of some of them can adversely affect the living if they are not treated with respect and/or love (Hardacre 1987:264-267; King 2008:139). Spiritualities such as American Indian traditions (King 2008:139) incorporate belief that disturbance of remains can affect the afterlife being experienced by the soul or spirit who once inhabited or animated those remains. Not all American Indians support reburial arguments. Thomas (2000:210-211) cites the case of Arthur Parker, a Seneca Indian and an archaeologist, who has asserted that American Indians have been disturbing their own peoples’ graves all along.

Meanwhile at the University of Wales Lampeter, another Druid, Paul Davies was studying for a joint honours BA in Archaeology and Anthropology. One of the modules he undertook examined contemporary issues with archaeology and heritage. He explained that while undertaking a module on death and commemoration he was made aware of American Indian and Australian Aboriginal contestation of their ancestral human remains (p.c. Davies 2009). He spoke of a realisation that ‘Bones 91

Contested Heritage the reaction by the archaeological and heritage/museum professions I examine the four most prominent cases to emerge over the last decade as detailed case studies. These case studies comprise: Charlie the Neolithic child’s skeleton at Avebury, The Aubrey Hole 7 or Stonehenge Guardians cremated remains, The Red Lady of Paviland and finally Lindow Man.

are people… The bones need to be in the ground because the spirit of the ancestors comes through the bones to help the living’ (p.c. Davies 2009). Davies also felt that UK contemporary Pagans should emulate the respect and reverence of American Indian and Australian Aboriginal campaigners and start to move for reburial of pre-Christian human remains. Davies therefore wrote two articles which Shallcrass published in The Druid’s Voice which was the journal of the Council of British Druid Orders (CoBDO) (Davies 1997, 1998). In 2002, Shallcrass and Restall Orr agreed to close the BDO. At that time Shallcrass stepped back from a leading role in the Druid community but has since revived the BDO. In 2003 Restall Orr created a new organisation, The Druid Network (TDN). The following year she started a new organisation focusing on respect for the ancestors which she named Honouring the Ancient Dead (HAD). HAD has described itself (via its website) as creating relationships to ensure that pre-Christian remains are treated with respect (HAD et al 2004-2008). Kit Warwick (p.c. 2009), explained that he had not been aware of other campaigns when he began his campaign to reinter the ‘Red Lady of Paviland’ in 2006. Paul Davies had been networking for some years and at the same time studying for a postgraduate degree but in 2006 to 2007 was brought to CoBDO by Tim Sebastian to be reburial officer and began his Avebury campaign. Each of the specific campaigns will now be examined as detailed case studies.

7.5.1. Case Study 1: Charlie at Avebury Charlie is the name given to a three year old child’s skeleton excavated by Alexander Keiller from the outer ditch of the causewayed enclosure on Windmill Hill and dated to the earlier Neolithic ca 4000 to 3000BC (Cleal 2008:2; Malone 1989:54-55; Smith 1965:9) (see section 3.4.1 for description of Avebury). Smith (1965:136) attributes deformation of the skull to the pressure of the earth but Malone (1989:55) describes its enlargement as indicative of hydrocephalous (water on the brain). Hers was not the only skeleton found in the ditches of Windmill Hill; another child’s and a dog’s skeletons were found elsewhere but Charlie herself was buried alongside the bones of a young pig and a young goat (Malone 1989:54). As shown in fig. 29, ‘Charlie’ is displayed laid out on a white cloth surrounded by chalk in a glass case at the Alexander Keiller Museum at Avebury (NGR SU099700). The skeleton has been placed in the crouched position in which she was found. The museum is owned and run by the National Trust. Its purpose is to house and display finds made by Keiller during his excavations in the Avebury

7.5. Case Studies To illustrate how contestation of human remains in the UK by contemporary Pagan groups has developed and

Fig. 29. Charlie at the Alexander Keiller Museum 2009 (Author’s photograph)

92

Contemporary Pagans and Ancestors area and to inform, educate and entertain the public (Cleal 1996:192-195).

3.4.3 for an explanation of the nature of the ceremony) at Avebury. He felt encouraged by the response from the assembled pilgrims and so he contacted the Alexander Keiller Museum in writing to request the burial of the Neolithic skeletons in the collection.

Charlie has been considered an important human element of the narrative of the area leading up to the construction of the henge and stone circle of Avebury (Gillings & Pollard 2004:28). She has also provided fascinating clues as to the status of children in the early Neolithic with Gillings and Pollard (2004:28) speculating that her unusual placement in the ditch of a causewayed enclosure in amongst animal remains and fragmentary human remains is suggestive of ‘relationships between socialised and unsocialised realms’.

Davies took nine years between conceiving the idea and beginning his campaign. He explained to me that it didn’t feel right or there were other priorities during this time. In my interview with him he mentions that he wanted to avoid ‘culture-stealing’. Davies (p.c. 2009) stated that, having previously been elected reburial officer of CoBDO, he contacted Ros Cleal at the Alexander Keiller Museum on the 24th of June 2006. Maughfling (2009) however, asserts that Davies was specifically requested not to represent CoBDO as reburial officer. Cleal passed the matter on to David Thackray and Sebastian Payne (Chief Archaeologist of the National Trust and Chief Scientist at English Heritage respectively) and several meetings were held with Davies and colleagues representing CoBDO and Thackray and Payne representing the NT and English Heritage between January 2007 and August 2008 (Thackray & Payne 2008:2), At a later CoBDO meeting a dispute between Archdruids came to blows (Fryer 2009). The result of this conflict was a split in CoBDO with Sebastion (until his death in February 2009), Steve Best and Denise Price forming their own council. Davies decided to join this faction since Sebastion had been particularly supportive of his role. If Davies had been CoBDO’s reburial officer previously as he claims, that position ended from this point and Maughfling quickly took action to disavow Davies and his campaign (Maughfling 2009).

The campaign to have Charlie, and several other sets of remains (Cleal 2008:1), taken off display and reburied was begun by Paul Davies. Davies had been a member of the Druid community for some years prior to the start of this campaign and was most closely associated with Sebastion’s Secular Order of Druids. As previously stated in section 7.4.1, Davies studied post colonial reburial campaigns by indigenous groups in Australia and the United States at Lampeter and felt that prehistoric British human remains were equally deserving of care and reverence by members of the Pagan community and by British society at large. Davies’ two articles for The Druids Voice, the journal of the Council of British Druid Orders (CoBDO), then edited by Shallcrass (Davies 1997, 1998), seem to have met with some enthusiasm which encouraged Davies to begin his campaign. Davies (p.c. 2009) explained that he was proposed to represent CoBDO as reburial officer by Sebastion and made what he described as a statement of intent at a seasonal Gorsedd ceremony (see section

Fig. 30. The Alexander Keiller Museum at Avebury (Author’s Photo)

93

Contested Heritage After this incident, an alternative Council of British Druid Orders presenting itself as ‘CoBDO West’ was set up. The response of the original CoBDO was to copyright their name and threaten legal action (Maughfling 2009). CoBDO, in its statement (Maughfling 2009) on the process, favoured reburial in such a way as to make it possible to re-exhume remains for further research should the need arise. They asserted that all world cultures bury bodies or cremated ashes even though there are a number of cultural groups who do not. Excarnation is practised in several cultures including Buddhists living in the high Himalayas who employ non-Buddhists to butcher bodies and set them out for the vultures to eat (Human Planet 2011), Parsis or Zoroastrians who consider fire, earth and water to be sacred and corpses to be polluting, place them in structures called towers of silence where the bones can be picked clean by vultures and the bones stored (Choksy 2005:10001). Hindus generally desire to have their bodies cremated on the banks of the River Ganges and the ashes then cast into that sacred river (Fuller 1992:207). Cunliffe (2000:108-109) explains that the evidence for treatment of the dead during the Iron Age heyday of the ancient Druids is sparse and contradictory. He acknowledges the possibility that the predominant method employed in the late Iron Age was cremation followed by river deposition but favours excarnation followed by thorough cremation or curation of bones.

while the claimants might be able to demonstrate cultural significance to the contemporary Pagan community, they were unable to demonstrate cultural continuity between the Neolithic Britons who buried Charlie and that community (Thackray & Payne 2009:11-13, 2010:56). There was also strong agreement that the remains had importance for research with 92% of individuals and 81% of groups supporting this position (Thackray & Payne 2009:13-14). The report also described maintaining the remains on display as ‘more easily reversible’ (English Heritage 2009a) than reburial. It recorded that 9% of individual respondents and 15% of group respondents favoured reburial while 89% of individual respondents and 81% of group respondents favoured retention in the museum allowing access where reasonable for Druid and other groups. Retention with denial of access to groups was not listed as an option (Thackray & Payne 2009:15). Thackray & Payne (2010:5) point out that the consultation responders are a self-selecting sample and Payne (p.c. 2009) expressed the opinion that human remains are the concern and responsibility of the nation (or even all humanity) collectively. A survey was therefore commissioned in which a random sample of UK residents was contacted and interviewed by telephone (BDRC nd). This report shows that 91% of respondents agreed that museums should be allowed to display human remains (BDRC nd:7) and the same percentage agreed that further remains may kept in storage for research (BDRC nd:12). These results are in stark contrast to a much smaller local survey in Cambridgeshire (Carroll 2009:95) which returned 70% in favour of reburial, although of those 71% said that the remains ought to be buried when archaeologists decided they were of no further research value. However, the Cambridgeshire survey did reveal that 79% of respondents expected to see remains in museums and 73% thought it was appropriate (Carroll 2009:95).

Shallcrass, who as editor of the Druids Voice had published Davies’ original articles on the subject and had maintained a friendship with him, put the matter to a gathering of his order. The assembled members unanimously voted to support the reburial campaign and Shallcrass (2009) consequently wrote to Sebastian Payne at English Heritage expressing the support of his order for Charlie’s reburial. HAD, on the other hand, was not able to achieve a consensus among its council members and therefore only issued a vague document expressing a desire to see the remains treated with respect. Pagans, being a diverse community, did not all agree with Davies’s campaign. Indeed Yvonne Aburrow disagreed sufficiently strongly to start a pressure group opposed to the campaigns of HAD and Davies’ CoBDO West faction. This group was named Pagans for Archaeology (PfA) and will be examined in more detail in section 7.6.5.

Rollo Maughfling (2009) of CoBDO responded to the report to make it absolutely clear that Davies did not represent CoBDO. He suggested that the findings were flawed, in that the division of permanent reburial and reburial with access was unnecessary, with the unwritten implication that this might have been done to split the vote. However, the vote against any kind of reburial was so overwhelming that it would scarcely matter.

English Heritage and the National Trust responded to Davies’ campaign by launching a public consultation process to gain an understanding of opinion on the matter. The results of the consultation demonstrated a large majority (89% of individuals and 81% of groups) in favour of retaining the remains on display (Thackray & Payne 2009:15). The consultation also returned a majority in favour of using the DCMS guidelines to assess such claims with 68% of individuals and 56% of groups supporting the use of these criteria (Thackray & Payne 2009:4-5, 2010:6). Davies’ claim failed to meet the criteria for de-accession as laid out in the DCMS guidelines (2005) because: the claimants were unable to show a direct and close genetic connection to Charlie (Thackray & Payne 2009:10);

Davies (p.c. 2009), Shallcrass (p.c. 2014) and others are firmly of the opinion that the manner in which the questions had been framed was designed to encourage respondents to support continued display of human remains, although I remain unconvinced of this. He pointed out that the DCMS guidelines used to assess the claim made it inevitable that the claim would be refused and were therefore unfair. He has pledged to continue his campaign but has not made any headlines in so doing. 7.5.2. Case Study 2: Stonehenge Human Remains The Stonehenge Guardians is a name given to an assembly of cremated human remains excavated from Aubrey 94

Contemporary Pagans and Ancestors Hole 7 at Stonehenge which have been the subject of a reburial campaign by Druid groups who hold ceremonies there. Stonehenge has been described in chapter 3 but its archaeological significance in terms of Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Britain and its status as, arguably, the most sacred site in contemporary British Paganism merit reiterating. Mike Pitts (2000:103) explains that the archaeological investigation of the site has been somewhat haphazard and not particularly well recorded. Prior to recent scientific developments in the field of bio-archaeology, human remains, especially those which were fragmentary or cremated were generally deemed to be of little interest and were usually reinterred. In 1919 an archaeological excavation of Stonehenge led by Col. William Hawley and Robert Newell uncovered several sets of cremated human remains which were stored by Newell until he gained permission to reinter them. These cremated remains were then reburied in Aubrey Hole 7, which he had previously excavated, in January 1935.

from where they originated. Parker Pearson’s team hoped to be able to establish if the remains associated with new material culture in the late Neolithic were native Britons, or migrants from Europe. In 1950 Atkinson discovered cremated remains among crushed chalk at the bottom of Aubrey Hole 32 and these were curated at Salisbury Museum (Parker Pearson 2012:184-185). From the location among the crushed chalk, Parker Pearson (2012:183-186) presents a strong case that these cremated remains were deposited during the erection of a bluestone circle in the Aubrey Holes. Radiocarbon dating of these remains returned a date of 3030-2880 Cal BC, making this circle coeval with the henge ditch and bank (Parker Pearson 2012:185) and hence part of the earliest phase of Stonehenge itself. The radiocarbon dates from the Aubrey hole 7 remains, whose precise context has been lost, may still serve to support or contest this interpretation but ongoing visual analysis of them may yield data relating to the ages, sexes, pathologies and traumas experienced by the individuals whose bones they were (Parker Pearson 2012:199-202).

The re-excavation of Aubrey Hole 7 (see section 3.3.1 for explanation of Aubrey Holes) and analysis of the cremated remains therein was undertaken as part of the Stonehenge riverside project which was designed to test hypotheses on the use and symbolism of the wider Stonehenge landscape. These hypotheses, proposed by Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina (1998; see also Parker Pearson 2012:913), centre on the idea that Stonehenge was the central monument of a ‘Domain of the Ancestors’ with Durrington Walls being the centre of the ‘Domain of the Living’. They postulated a funerary and initiatory route running from Durrington Walls, along the River Avon to the Stonehenge Avenue then along that avenue to Stonehenge itself. The Stonehenge Riverside Project (SRP) has supported this hypothesis by uncovering a settlement with signs of feasting just outside the Durrington Henge and a track to the river. They also found settings for standing stones where the Stonehenge Avenue meets the River Avon confirming a stepping off place from the river at the end of the avenue as predicted (Parker Pearson 2012:92; University of Sheffield 2009).

Pat Shelley (2010), a member of the SRP staff and tour guide at the stones themselves, explained that prior to the excavation of Aubrey Hole 7, it had been arranged that Frank Somers and another member of Stonehenge Druids would bless the dig on the 18th of August. Parker Pearson (2012:173), however, described the ritual as being to placate the spirits of the ancestors (p.c. Grant 2011) and involving Druids from HAD. They been told of the excavation by Carson, English Heritage’s site manager at Stonehenge, and the ritual was scheduled for 4 o’clock on the 25th of August, prior to the commencement of the Aubrey Hole excavation. This was not at all unusual as the attitude of the archaeologists to this appears from interviews to have been one of polite tolerance, exemplified by statements such as ‘we just let them get on with it’ (anonymous informant). This ritual was disrupted by Arthur Pendragon (see section 3.2.4 for more information on Pendragon), who telephoned some of his comrades and before long a noisy and aggressive protest was under way (MagicOak 2009). It has been suggested by an anonymous Pagan interviewee, who was present as a tourist, that Arthur was angry at being left out of this and felt that HAD members were in some way trespassing on his territory. According to three informants, two of whom were participating in the excavation and the third was the Pagan tourist, some of the protestors were extremely abusive to the archaeologists. They explained that comments such as ‘Grave robbers’ and ‘How would you like it if we came and dug up your granny?’ were shouted at the diggers. One protestor was heard to shout ‘There will be blood spilled over this’. Indeed this outburst was acknowledged by Frank Sommers, of the Stonehenge Druids, in my interview with him (p.c. Somers 2010) although he dismissed the incident as being from a peripheral hanger-on who identified himself as modern Templar rather than as a Druid or a Pagan. Parker Pearson (2012:180) writes that visitors were visibly upset by the protests and records that one group of Druids publicly

Cultural-historical archaeological theorists of the nineteenth and earlier twentieth centuries had hypothesised that the appearance of individual burials under round barrows demonstrated an invasion or at least a mass immigration of ‘Beaker people’ into Britain, In the Processual paradigm of the 1960s and 1970s, this began to be increasingly called into question so that by 1991 Hutton (1997a:16) was confident enough to dismiss the idea of a mass migration of Beaker People as being as absurd as a mass migration of ‘Japanese washing machine people in the mid-20th century’. However, after the results of the stable isotope analysis of the Amesbury Archer’s teeth revealed that he had originated in central Europe, the Beaker People concept was back in contention. Professor Mike Parker Pearson (p.c. 2006) proposed to carry out similar analyses on as many beaker-associated sets of human remains as possible to provide information on how many people with beaker graves were immigrants and 95

Contested Heritage cursed Julian Richards. My Pagan informant told me that he was very upset about such behaviour and made a point of apologising to Parker Pearson for the behaviour of his co-religionists and expressing his hopes that the archaeologists would understand that most Pagans were not like the protestors. Meanwhile Arthur Pendragon was addressing his followers outside the circle with a tirade filmed and posted on the Youtube website (MagicOak 2009). In this speech he acknowledged the importance of using new techniques but expressed vehement opposition to the removal and retention of all the remains. He described anyone who would bless the dig as a ‘Quisling’ (i.e. a traitor after the Norwegian Nazi collaborator Vidkun Quisling). He went on to assert that the remains were those of great warriors, who were ‘talismen’ for the site and threatened to ‘excommunicate’ any Druids who did bless the dig. This threat has not proved to be the anathema to Pagans I had originally expected it to be when I first heard it. The idea that one Pagan can cut others off from their gods was described to me as impossible by several Pagans I spoke to. Even though it was perceived to be doomed to failure if attempted, the idea was considered anathema. However, the people who were willing to discuss it in these terms were already opposed to Arthur. His followers refused to speak about it, dismissed it as rhetoric or suggested it meant that transgressors would be expelled from his group.

ancestors from there’ (Somers & Pendragon 2011) and that their human rights have been ignored. Stonehenge Druids and the Loyal Arthurian Warband have therefore been actively campaigning to have the remains reburied since they were first excavated. In my first field research trip to Stonehenge at Winter Solstice 2008 I was asked by a Druid, identified to me as Nick Branson, to sign a petition to limit the research time prior to the reburial of these remains to two years. I explained that I was researching the issue and felt I needed to maintain a neutral position and that to sign such a petition might compromise my neutrality. I found Branson’s approach persistent and insistent and interviewees have characterised solicitations for signatures on the petition as aggressive. Such highpressure petition signing has been shown to be problematic on the basis that signatories do not always understand what they are signing to support. This is well illustrated in a television experiment in which people were persuaded to sign a petition to ban water (SuperSteve9219 2006) Arthur Pendragon had previously picketed Stonehenge requesting visitors to examine the site from the roadside rather than pay English Heritage for entry until the Druids and other revellers were allowed in amongst the stones without restrictions or charge at the Summer Solstice (Pendragon & Stone 2003:85; section 3.3.5). Following the excavation of the Aubrey Hole remains he mounted a new picket soliciting signatures for a petition to reinter the remains. Pendragon also met with Parker Pearson to discuss the issue and has presented a paper to the UCL student archaeological society (Pendragon nd).

Campaigners for the reburial of these remains have repeatedly asserted that the archaeologists intend to retain remains indefinitely (BBC News 2011b MagicOak 2009, Somers & Pendragon 2011). I have been unable to ascertain how the campaigners received this impression but it was certainly there from the time the remains were excavated as protests began at the commencement of the dig (MagicOak 2009 & anonymous Interviewee). The campaigners were at pains to point out that they were not opposed to the excavation and analysis of remains provided they were reinterred immediately afterwards. They were also keen from the outset to limit analysis time to two years. Somers & Pendragon (2011) explain that the remains should be reburied at Stonehenge for the following reasons: • • • • • • • • •

The original human remains excavation license issued by the Ministry of Justice when the remains were excavated in 2008 allowed their retention for two years and expired in 2010. The archaeologists sought a five year extension but LAW and Stonehenge Druids opposed the extension writing a detailed submission to the Ministry of Justice (Somers & Pendragon 2010). In this document they claimed that refusal to recognise their claim on the remains constituted religious discrimination and hence breached their human rights (Somers & Pendragon 2010:12). They also claimed to enjoy considerable public support as evidenced by their petition (Somers & Pendragon 2010:6). They alleged institutional prejudice against Druids from archaeologists, government departments, English Heritage and the Church of England, and that the archaeologists holding the bones were abusing their scientific credentials to suppress challenges to their conduct (Somers & Pendragon 2010:11). They criticised the time taken for analysis, suggesting Sheffield University had failed in a perceived duty to arrange sufficient funding, but demonstrated no understanding of the processes involved in analysis or acquisition of research funding. Restall Orr (2010) also wrote to the Ministry of Justice to oppose the extension asserting that it was unnecessary and that reburial of the remains would not prejudice the findings of the analysis. Following the granting of the extension LAW and Stonehenge Druids sought a judicial review but

they are the most famous ancestors in Europe the site is secure with guards on site 24/7 the soil is non-corrosive the burials are already uncontextualised due to previous excavation their cremation limits the data which can be extracted other remains from Aubrey Hole 32 are available for research ancestors are still actively researched Parker Pearson has identified Stonehenge as a realm of the ancestors About half the bones have been lost by archaeologists since 1925

He also asserted that the Druids who practise at Stonehenge have been ‘most directly harmed by the absence of our 96

Contemporary Pagans and Ancestors this was denied by the High Court in August 2011 (BBC News 2011b).

Joshua Pollard at the Theoretical Archaeology Conference at Bristol University in December 2010. This campaign appears to have been successful: Pitts (2011b) reported in his blog that the Ministry of Justice revised its policy on licensing the excavation and retention of human remains in the light of the campaign by Cunliffe et al (2011). Pendragon (2011b) attempted to have the decision to extend the licence for retention of the remains subjected to a judicial review but this was rejected (BBC News 2011b).

I put it to Somers that he and Pendragon might have their campaign priorities wrong, since Pitts (2009:188) points out that under the current regulations the remains would have to be reburied ‘in a burial ground where interments may legally take place’ which does not include Stonehenge. He explained that he had established that Wiltshire County Council considered it appropriate to rebury the remains there and that this was backed up by guidelines deriving from the 1857 Burial Act (Her Majesty’s Government 1857). Somers & Pendragon (2010:18) suggested that samples totalling no more than 20% of the mass of each individual bone might be retained by the archaeologists as long as the rest was ‘returned to the earth at Stonehenge’. My experience of excavating ancient cremated bone at Pant-y-Butler leads me to suggest that decay and the fragility of the fragments while being excavated makes it unlikely that the samples in the hands of the archaeologists have totalled as much as 20% of the original mass of the bones. Thus more than 80% of that mass has remained in the soil of Stonehenge. If one argues that 20% of the whole original body might be retained then the cremated fragments make up significantly less than this amount. Whilst interviewing Frank Somers of the Stonehenge Druids at the Red Lion Pub in Avebury during the Summer Solstice of 2010, he informed me about allegations that archaeologists had negligently damaged the skull of the Amesbury Archer, destroying the facial bones, implying that archaeologists were unfit to be custodians for prehistoric human remains. Somers’ website (2010) connects these allegations to Dennis Price, whose ‘Eternal Idol’ Blog (Price 2010) describes the allegations in detail, with pictures showing a skull being excavated in a complete condition and (allegedly) the same skull with the facial bones having been broken away. A brief examination of Price’s (2010) blog indicates his willingness to champion highly speculative ideas and extreme possibilities, which writers such as Schadla Hall (2004) dismiss as alternative or fringe archaeology. It should also be noted that Roberts (2009:85) points out the extreme fragility of facial bones, suggesting that their collapse should not be taken as evidence of misconduct by the excavators.

Whilst the new Stonehenge visitors centre was being built news emerged that human remains would form part of the display there and campaigners attention shifted to this issue. These remains had been excavated decades earlier and have been loaned by the museums of whose collections they are part. In August 2013, Pendragon took legal action against English Heritage to prevent them putting the remains on display but this was unsuccessful (BBC News 2013c). When the visitors centre opened in December 2013 Pendragon led a picket numbering about sixty people (BBC News 2013c; Western Daily Press 2013). They demanded that the remains be replaced by replicas and reburied. However, since the bones have been on loan to EH, rather in their legal custodianship, any decision to de-accession and rebury them would need to be taken by the museums that have loaned them for the display. 7.5.3. Case Study 3: The Red Lady of Paviland The Red Lady of Paviland is the name given to a partial Upper Palaeolithic skeleton found in Goats Hole, Paviland Caves, on the Gower Peninsula, situated in South Wales to the west of Swansea and south of Llanelli. Investigation of the skeleton can be traced back to the early 19th century when a group of local antiquarians invited William Buckland, Oxford’s first Professor of Geology, Curate of Christchurch and Dean of Westminster, to examine the site. In 1823 he discovered, in a pit of red ochre (iron oxide, which had been sourced locally) a partial skeleton consisting of four ribs, the left humerus, radius and ulna (arm bones), the left side of the pelvis, most of the bones from the left leg along with some lower fragments from the right leg (Aldhouse-Green 2000:21, plate11.1a, plate 11.1b). No vertebrae or skull fragments associated with the skeleton have been found. The bones were accompanied by periwinkle shells and rods and rings of ivory and mammoth bones were found nearby (Aldhouse-Green 2000:21). The skeleton was taken to the ‘Oxford Museum Collection’ in whose care it remains (Sommer 2007:267). Buckland initially interpreted the bones as belonging to an excise man or tax collector overpowered by smugglers, however, the interpretation was quickly changed to that of a Roman era prostitute or witch describing the skeleton as ‘the Red Lady of Paviland’ (Sommer 2007:13).

Parker Pearson (2012:184-185) has stated that there is already a set of contextualised remains from Aubrey Hole 32 curated by Salisbury Museum. Frank Somers (Somers & Pendragon 2011) made reference to these remains alleging dishonesty against the Riverside Project and suggesting that the Aubrey Hole 7 remains are not needed since the Hole 32 remains are available. I believe there was something of a backlash against Arthur’s attempts to ensure that the two year maximum time for examination is rigorously enforced, in that a group of senior archaeologists petitioned the Ministry of Justice to be less rigorous in requiring archaeological remains to be reinterred (Cunliffe et al 2011). This campaign was also publicised in the broader archaeological community by

It was towards the end of the 19th century that William Sollas, a successor of Buckland’s, identified the Red Lady as a man and as deriving from the same period 97

Contested Heritage Sommer (2007:267) remarks that ‘The dispute about where the red lady belongs, in the Oxford University Museum of Natural History or in a museum in Wales, is not yet over’. However, this dispute is largely a nationalist issue in Wales rather than a Pagan one. The Oxford Natural History Museum considers the remains to be a valuable part of its collection and is unwilling to de-accession them (Turner 2004). Sommer (2007:265-268) acknowledges that the Red Lady was interred long before Wales became a nation and that the land is likely to have been completely depopulated between the interglacial warm phase when he was laid to rest and the repopulation of Britain after the last glaciation. This, therefore, weakens the claim for the Red Lady to be considered Welsh. Brian Sykes has conducted tests on the Red Lady’s Mitochondrial DNA (MtDNA) and declared the ancestry to be a common one in ancient and modern Europe (Aldhouse-Green 2000:77).

as the remains from Cro Magnon in France (Sommer 2007:121). At around the same time Edouard Lartet, a French palaeontologist, used chemical tests to analyse nitrogen levels in the bones. He identified similarities between artefacts associated with the Red Lady and finds from Perigord and Cro Magnon (Sommer 2007:125, 167). Further work by Sollas and Breuil identified the Paviland artefacts as belonging to the Upper Aurignacian and Early Solutrean cultures of the Upper Palaeolithic (about 22,000 to 19,000 years BP) (Sommer 2007:168). Further research was conducted on the Red Lady from 1995-1999 and was published as Paviland Cave and the ‘Red Lady’: A Definitive Report by Stephen AldhouseGreen in 2000. This research project included a multidisciplinary team and provided much new evidence. One of the most important discoveries made was a new calibrated radiocarbon date of about 29,000 years BP (Aldhouse-Green 2000:64). It is significant that his research was based at Newport University and the book includes a forward by the then First Secretary of the Welsh Assembly. This both exemplifies and strengthens the importance of the Red Lady to Wales and Marianne

In 2008 the Red Lady of Paviland was loaned to the National Museum Wales, at Cathays Park in Cardiff, as part of a major gallery redevelopment covering the archaeology of Wales. Julia Edge, writing for an audience of museum professionals (2008), and Mike Pitts, writing

Fig. 31. Facsimile of the bones of the Red Lady on display at the National Museum Wales Cardiff (Author’s photograph)

98

Contemporary Pagans and Ancestors for an audience of archaeologists and enthusiasts (2008), both gave the exhibition positive reviews. However, Dan Carpenter’s (2008) report published on the HAD website was considerably less complimentary. He begins by criticising the exhibition for not stating explicitly at the door that it contains human remains, before remarking that the display of reproduction skulls demonstrating human evolution are not marked as such and might be taken for the real thing. His paragraphs on the display of the Red Lady are largely descriptive, though he does suggest that more could have been made of the landscape of the Upper Palaeolithic to help visitors to contextualise him as a living person. Perhaps the most significant criticism of the Red Lady’s display is that the fact that he was a man was not made sufficiently clear to visitors.

Chris Warwick began a campaign to return the Red Lady to Paviland Cave (BBC News 2006). Warwick (p.c. 2009) explained to me that he considered the removal of the bones as an act of desecration and that it violated the wishes of the people who placed the body there. He argued that the only ethical disposition of the bones is to place them back in Goats Cave. Warwick does not oppose display of the remains. He advocates the placement of the bones in a secure glass covered concrete box with access provided by a steel staircase set into the cliff face. Elizabeth Walker, the collections manager at the National Museum Wales, told me (p.c. 2010) that neither she nor her colleagues had been contacted by Warwick although Warwick (2013) has stated otherwise. The strongest objection to Warwick’s proposals centre on the considerable expense of creating a concrete sarcophagus in Paviland cave. However, there are also problems of ensuring security of the remains in such an isolated location, possible dangers from weathering and erosion, as well as the extreme difficulty of providing disabled access to the remains. Warwick has not discussed this possibility with the Christopher Beynon and the National Trust who own the land (Aldhouse-Green 2000:xxv) and it is unknown if they would be willing to support the idea.

Carpenter then goes on to describe an Early Neolithic bone assemblage from the Penywyrlod burial chamber near Brecon as the most disturbing display. He describes the bones as a haphazard pile of bones with largely illegible descriptive cards tied to them, which he alleges dehumanises the dead. In this I argue that Carpenter displays ignorance of Early Neolithic communal burial practices, since defleshed bones were placed in tombs according to type of bone rather than individual person. Furthermore, I argue that his criticisms are founded on a profoundly ethnocentric set of values on what constitutes respectful and honourable treatment of the dead. Carpenter criticises the display of a Beaker burial and a Roman sarcophagus for not displaying sufficient information about the people whose bones are displayed but fails to pick up on the fact that while the facial reconstructions of four people from an early Christian cemetery are displayed only photographs of their bones are on show. Carpenter’s criticisms contrast with Edge’s review (2008), which seems to suggest that too much emphasis is placed on individuals.

Between the end of March 2008 and May 2011 the Dead to Rights Yahoo group has only had one post relevant to

The actual bones of the ‘red lady’ were returned to Oxford in 2009 and facsimile bones were subsequently put on display in the National Museum Wales in their place (p.c. Walker 2010). The exhibition prohibited photography of the actual human remains on display but the signs are small and easily missed. The different modes of display in Oxford (fig. 32) where the skeleton has been displayed as semi articulated bones and at Cardiff (fig. 31) where the facsimiles have been presented as an articulated skeleton on a body outline feeds into debates regarding personhood and objectification (section 7.7.3) and respectful display (section 7.8.1). It bears mention that this is the oldest known burial in the UK (Aldhouse-Green 2000:xxxiii; Hutton 1997a:2) and as such is the earliest set of remains to be contested by Pagans. Aldhouse-Green’s (2000:xxxii) assertion that the Paviland skeleton exemplifies a ‘founding lineage in palaeolithic Britain’ suggests a similar view of the importance of the bones to that demonstrated by Pagan activists. In 2006, two years prior to the opening of the ‘origins’ gallery, Druid and Pagan Federation regional organiser

Fig. 32. Red Lady of Paviland skeleton on display in Oxford (Author’s photograph)

99

Contested Heritage was severed (Glob 2004:48). It was therefore an obvious line of enquiry to see if Lindow man had met his death in a similar way.

the Red Lady, by another researcher, although four other posts relevant to reburial discourse have been posted there. This low level of activity suggested a shift of focus on the part of campaigners to more high-profile groups such as HAD and CoBDO/LAW. Warwick’s suggestion that he did not contact the Oxford Museum because HAD had already tried unsuccessfully to speak to them on the subject supported this interpretation.

Joy (2009:27) describes Lindow Man as a healthy, wellgroomed individual, five foot eight inches tall and aged about 25 when he was killed. Stead et al (1986:46) describe the analysis of Lindow man using X-rays, CT scans and MRI scans and endoscopic cameras and probes. These investigations showed a catalogue of traumas consisting of a wound to the top of the head resulting in a depressed fracture of the skull penetrating into the brain, possible laceration on the scalp towards the back of the neck, ligature injuries to the neck consistent with garrotting with a twisted thong of sinew discovered around the neck, possible incised wound to the right hand front of the neck, possible stab wound on right upper chest as well as neck and rib fractures (Faulkener 2009:25). Connolly (1985:1617) argues that doubts over the sinew garrotte and ritualised final meal make combat or robbery equally plausible as a cause of death. However, Faulkener (2009:26-27) Aldhouse-Green (2001:51) and Joy (2009:48-52) argue that the similarity of Lindow Man’s death and deposition to European bog bodies makes human sacrifice the most likely interpretation.

7.5.4. Case Study 4: Lindow Man Lindow Man is the name given to a head, torso and part of a leg found preserved in peat at Lindow Moss in Cheshire. On the 1st of August 1984 Andy Mould was checking the peat on the conveyor belt prior to processing when he noticed an unusual object, which turned out to be a human leg. The peat cutting operation in that area was immediately stopped and the police notified. Further examination of the area quickly located the torso of a man (Joy 2009:5). Just over a year previously the skull of a woman had been found at the site (Joy 2009:23). The police were keen to investigate these remains as Peter Reyn-Bardt, a man in prison for another offence, had bragged to another prisoner that he had murdered his wife and buried her dismembered corpse at the end of his garden, which backed onto Lindow Moss. When interviewed by the police he initially denied the murder but when presented with the evidence of the skull he gave a full confession (Joy 2009:17; Glob 2004:vii). However, subsequent radiocarbon dating of the skull gave a date of AD 90-440 (Joy 2009:23). The torso provided a radiocarbon date of 2 BC to AD129. Since the Lindow I skull has not been the focus of any contestation I focus exclusively on the Lindow II torso and leg in this case study and hereinafter I refer to it as Lindow man. Lindow man’s remains are part of a class of archaeological human remains known as bog bodies. Aldhouse Green (2001:13), Joy (2009:20) and Glob (2004:15, 144-192) describe them as human bodies deposited in bogs and preserved by the waterlogged conditions therein. Early mediaeval and prehistoric bog bodies have often been interpreted as being human sacrifices.

In previous years I have seen images of Richard Neave’s facial reconstruction (Faulkener 2009:28; Richards 1999:53) of Lindow Man on display at the British Museum. On recent visits this image is nowhere to be seen perhaps because Joy (2009:27) questions its accuracy. Even if the accuracy of the image is arguable, I would argue that, unless it is demonstrably unlike our current best estimate of Lindow Man’s appearance, the image should be displayed since observation of museum visitors suggests that they spend longer looking at bones with a facial construction than those without them or at facial reconstructions without the bones. Although quantitative data were not recorded, observation took place over a total of about twelve hours at the British museum, Museum of London and National Museum Wales. Typically a visitor might gaze at bones without facial reconstructions for five to ten seconds, and reconstructions without bones for ten to fifteen but bones with reconstructions generally held the gaze for upwards of thirty seconds.

Jody Joy, who curated the Lindow Moss body at the British Museum, (2009:32) explains that raised or blanket bogs provide an environment in which sphagnum moss grows. When this moss dies, it releases sphagnan (a sugar) which acts as a natural tanning agent. The oxygen starved (anaerobic) environment of the bog, coupled with the acidic (low pH) of the bog water, acts to preserve soft tissue although the acids tend to eat at the bones.

At the time of writing, the permanent display of Lindow Man in the British Museum occupied a corner of the hall containing the museum’s Iron Age British collection (figs. 33 & 34). He lay on what looked like a gravel surface within a Perspex case which was turned towards the corner so that he was not directly visible from other parts of the room. The visitor was therefore obliged to make a conscious decision to view the body. The extent to which this was a conscious decision based on ethics is debatable since the Barnack skeleton in the adjoining gallery (see Fig. 26) and the Egyptian mummies in another part of the museum were in plain view.

The date determination places Lindow Man’s death at the close of the Iron Age and the beginning of the Roman occupation of Britain. Many continental bog bodies have been identified as human sacrifices (Aldhouse-Green 2001:116-120; Faulkener 2009:26-28; Glob 2004:147; Joy 2009:44-52; Ross 1986:168) e.g. Tollund Man who was found with a noosed leather rope around his neck (Glob 2004:20) and Grauballe Man, whose throat had been cut practically from ear to ear and so deeply that the gullet 100

Contemporary Pagans and Ancestors

Fig. 33. Lindow Man on display in the British Museum (Author’s photograph)

Fig. 34. Lindow Man display at the British Museum (Author’s photograph)

101

Contested Heritage museum was keen for stakeholders to meet and speak to one another and that he was pleasantly surprised that everyone got on well. He explained that the involvement of the Pagan community was criticised on a website entitled Manchester confidential, with contributors describing it as ‘airy fairy hippy nonsense’ and ‘political correctness gone mad’ (Sitch 2010) but that he did not share these views. The aims of the exhibition were as follows:

In my interview with Jody Joy, the British Museum curator then responsible Lindow Man (p.c. 2009) he explained that he would have liked to have been able to display Lindow Man in a similar way to Tollund Man in Denmark, using low light levels, and the Bog bodies display in Dublin (described in more detail in section 8.3.2), so that visitors make an informed decision to see the remains. He explained that the British Prehistory gallery had been set out in 1997 by a predecessor of his just before retirement and that it was done in a traditional style he would not have chosen.

1. to engage a new generation of people from Manchester and the north-west with one of Britain’s most famous archaeological discoveries 2. to stimulate public debate about how human remains are treated in museums and other public institutions 3. to display the body in a respectful and sensitive manner 4. to explore different interpretations of the body 5. the museum also wanted to reflect recent discussion about Lindow Man’s dating, the circumstances of his violent death and the interpretation of the evidence. (Sitch 2010)

Between 19 April 2008 and 19 April 2009 Lindow Man was on display at the Manchester University Museum, on loan from the British Museum (Manchester Museum nd). Jenkins (2011:122-123) explains that this was the third time the body had been displayed there, but that on this occasion the museum’s deputy director, Piotr Bienkowski, and Head of Human Cultures, Bryan Sitch, were particularly keen to provide a display which was as inclusive as possible. BBC News (2008b) suggests that the reason for this caution was related to Manchester Museum of Science and Industry’s display of Gunther Von Hagens Bodyworlds 4 Exhibition. Bienkowski and Sitch invited stakeholders, including Restall Orr (p.c. 2009) representing HAD, to attend planning meetings about the design of the exhibition.

I asked him how successful he felt the display had been in achieving these aims and he replied that he felt that it had been particularly successful since 190,000 people had attended; they had received 12,500 feedback cards and seen 25,000 hits on the exhibition blog. He explained that not all the consultees were entirely happy citing lack of space as a principal reason for this disappointment (Sitch 2010).

Sitch (2010) explained to me that the museum had already had communications with HAD and that Restall Orr had addressed a conference held there. He explained that the

Stuart Burch’s (2008:46-49) review of the exhibition for the Museums Journal praised the exhibitions attempt to

Fig. 35. Lindow Man exhibition at Manchester University Museum (Photograph by Bryan Sitch, available from Manchester Museum 2007)

102

Contemporary Pagans and Ancestors Gordon ‘the Toad’ MacLellan. Other votive items included a bent 2p coin wrapped with wire, a replica Roman coin, feathers, seeds, stones and crystals, a painted plaster/ dough fish, a Thor’s hammer, a clay model of a recumbent woman (see fig. 36) badges and items of jewellery (Sitch 2010). Several of these offerings are noticeably Pagan in character particularly many of the notes and poems. The recumbent female figure and the Thor’s hammer are likely to be Pagan, whilst items like feathers and flowers may or may not have been left by people identifying as Pagan. It also bears consideration that people who do not identify themselves as Pagan may have left offerings of a Pagan character, on the basis that Lindow Man came from a preChristian culture. The meticulous record of the deposits made by Sitch and his staff is fascinating evidence of how people, and I would argue especially Pagans, interact with human remains in museums. Only a few monetarily valuable items were left, so one may conclude that token gifts were considered acceptable. This echoes Barley’s (1995:77-78) descriptions of an African boy shouting about a (non-existent) offering of a cow and a Chinese informant offering the head and tail of a pig to the ancestors in place of a complete animal. This parallel demonstrates not that contemporary Pagans are insincere in their relationship with the ancestors but rather a widespread

draw interest by relating the initial discovery of the body to the lives of local people. He described it as ‘fittingly human’ and a ‘rich display’ and welcomed the invitation to debate the ethics of displaying bodies and bones in museum collections. However he suggested more information about the body should have been included and that the exhibition lacked an ‘overarching voice’. One particularly interesting feature of the Lindow Man exhibition was the provision of a box for visitors to place ‘offerings’ in (fig. 36). This was presented not for granting wishes but rather as a means of showing respect to the remains. Some items deposited appeared to be rubbish (including bottle tops, travel tickets, sweet wrappers, a tissue and pieces of crumpled paper). Sitch (2010) records that the most common form of offering was in the form of money, amounting to a total of over £300, but there were also many comments on the display. These included: a criticism of the low lighting levels; one visitor wrote ‘Really sorry they dug you mate – hope they put you back soon’; another, identifying him/herself as ‘Phoenix of Druids’ wrote ‘Blessings Oh Ancient One May the Gods and Goddesses be with you always’; several others expressed sentiments of rest in peace. There were several poems including two signed by well-known Pagan Shaman

Fig. 36. Offerings box at the Manchester display of Lindow Man (Manchester Museum 2007)

103

Contested Heritage human inclination to give no more than is necessary or easily affordable. It also suggests that people tend to prioritise the allocation of wealth to provably beneficial projects over the intangible placation or solicitation of the dead. One might argue that the paucity of valuable offerings is explicable by the likelihood that few, if any, museum visitors came with the explicit aim of making offerings and were thus restricted to what they happened to be carrying. This argument makes perfect sense but if anyone felt the need or desire to make a more important offering they were easily able to return with one. The rarity of valuable offerings may also be explained by concerns over the security of such gifts but I argue that this is not likely to be of concern to those motivated by spirituality since the purpose of the gift is twofold: to demonstrate piety by doing without something of use or value, in which case the fate of the offering is unimportant save that the donor does not reclaim it; or to provide the ancestor with something useful to him in which case it is the spiritual analogue of the gift rather than its material manifestation which is important (Barley 1995:85). Godelier (2002:24) suggests that the utility of offerings is unimportant and that it is more important that offerers give to the recipient something of themselves.

preference would be for reburial. However, no group has, to my knowledge, specifically called for Lindow Man to be reburied. 7.6. Modes of Contestation by Pagans In this section I characterise the Pagan activist groups who have contested excavation, analysis, curation, display, and/or reburial of human remains by their protest tactics and ideologies. 7.6.1. CoBDO West After the ejection of Davies from the Council of British Druid Orders (CoBDO) a new organisation calling itself CoBDO West was set up (Fryer 2009). Davies was reluctant to describe in detail the circumstances surrounding the group when I interviewed him but it appears to have disbanded under the threat of legal action from CoBDO over the use of their name. The approaches to contestation adopted by this group in the case of the skeleton known as Charlie in the Alexander Keiller Museum involved attracting media publicity, a protest visit to the museum, newspaper interviews, internet networking and dialogue with other Druid organisations.

The provision of the offerings box at Manchester Museum may be seen as an initiative to provide opportunities for interactivity with displays but it has provided an interesting opportunity for Pagans to demonstrate their devotion to the ancestors and for academics to study what kinds of offerings are made. There are, however, problems with the widespread provision of such a facility. What would be done with the offerings? I was told that Manchester have stored the items offered in this case as part of their collection but with limited space and funding common use of this practice could easily become problematic. Offerings could be treated as waste and recycled or sent to landfill but this may be seen as offensive to some. Burying offerings at sacred places is likely to become problematic quickly too. Pagan community leaders and polytheologians or thealogians such as Restall Orr (1996) have already considered this and have urged people not to leave offerings at sacred places (see section 3.4.4).

7.6.2. HAD In an article in the Pagan Press, Restall Orr (2006:40-42) explains that HAD came about in response to the public consultation process over the new Stonehenge visitors centre and associated road modifications. Its aims are explained in a ‘statement of intentions’ in which HAD (2004-2008) explains that it does not consider reburial to be mandatory but campaigns to promote respect and honourable treatment for pre-Christian British human remains. It was set up with a structure consisting of three layers (Restall Orr 2006): it was governed by a council of Pagan theologians who decided policy; then there is a group of advisors both Pagan and non-Pagan but all professionals who advise the council; the remainder were described as project groups consisting of both members and affiliates. When I spoke to Restall Orr (p.c. 2009), she explained that Paul Davies, Rollo Maughfling and Frank Summers all favoured mandatory reburial; she stressed that this was not HAD’s position. She asserted that Pagans for Archaeology (see section 7.6.5) were at the opposite extreme, supporting the status quo and described HAD as being in the middle. She admitted that her own feelings favoured reburial but that HAD is about a nondidactic approach aimed at building a consensus through negotiation. She did suggest that ‘non-iconic’ remains without context or having been exposed to contamination ought to be reburied. She described HAD as trying to be a voice for Paganism.

Jenkins (2011:125) argues that the consultation process on the display of Lindow man at Manchester was less about the ethics of displaying and more an opportunity for political posturing. However, Restall Orr describes the importance of Lindow Man to contemporary Pagans by saying ‘even if he is not a genetic ancestor, he is a part of their ancestral environment and as such he is one of our dead. He falls within our spiritual duty of care’ (Restall Orr 2007b). However, I believe that the process was a valuable exercise in polyvocality and inclusivity. There have been few people going on record to say that the Lindow Moss bog body should not be displayed at all. Davies’s approach to pre-Christian human remains would certainly not countenance its display and at least one other campaigner has privately explained that their

HAD has been keen to recruit experts within and outside the Pagan community and to communicate with organisations 104

Contemporary Pagans and Ancestors holding human remains directly and via public media. One such direct contact was in the form of the ‘Your Local Museum Project’ in which activists were asked to contact their local museum to ask for information on their holdings of human remains. Restall Orr encouraged attendees at the Rainbow 2000 Druid camp 2009, which she had helped start, to get involved and approach museums. She explained that between a third and a half of museums written to had replied. This direct contact with institutions has met with varied success. Manchester Museum has included HAD representatives in the planning of the Lindow Man exhibition as seen in section 7.5.4 but the activist who contacted the Wiltshire Heritage Museum in Devizes seems to have succeeded only in upsetting and alienating the staff there (anonymous informant) although Restall Orr (p.c. 2009) confidently claimed that the museum had large quantities of uncatalogued remains. In talks regarding the work of HAD at Druid events, Restall Orr has emphasised networking with Pagan and non-Pagan groups and individuals with the aim of raising awareness and building consensus. HAD has also hosted conferences, including one I attended on the 17th of October 2009 in Leicester featuring speakers from the archaeological and museum professions.

(Pendragon & Stone 2003:106), chaining themselves to vehicles (Pendragon & Stone 2003:126) and courting media attention (Hutton 2007:200; Pendragon & Stone 2003:101, 249). They have aimed to operate within the letter of the law, but such a way as to hamper operations and maximise bad publicity for the organisations they oppose. As described in section 7.5.2, the campaign for reburial and against retention of the Aubrey Hole cremations began when the remains were being excavated. A group described as being from HAD had arranged to perform a ritual prior to their excavation (p.c. Grant 2011). When, Arthur Pendragon and some of his followers arrived. Arthur, apparently misunderstanding the purpose of the HAD ritual, pronounced that he, his order and CoBDO viewed any attempt to bless the dig as a Quisling action and that he would ‘excommunicate’ anyone so doing (MagicOak 2009). This was followed by vocal protests alongside the dig in which Arthur’s followers were reported as behaving abusively towards archaeologists, students and volunteers (Shelley 2010 and two anonymous interviewees). A shout that blood would be spilled if the ancestors were disturbed (Pitts 2009:189; anonymous interviewee; p.c. Sommers 2011) was construed by some as a threat of violence.

HAD have come in for criticism by those who consider them to have spread themselves too thinly in terms of their intellectual position. Restall Orr’s insistence that the organisation should represent a broad a range of opinion has meant that there has been difficulty agreeing positions on issues. It has therefore lost members and found itself the subject of hostility from Frank Sommers of the Stonehenge order of Druids and the Loyal Arthurian Warband (Pendragon 2011a).

Arthur and his followers have courted media attention in their campaigns (e.g. BBC News 2011b, Pendragon & Stone 2003:101-104) and Arthur has described himself as a ‘media tart’ (Pendragon & Stone 2003:249). The Loyal Arthurian Warband and associated individuals have maintained a strong and visible presence on social networking sites such as Facebook, where notes were posted for followers and allies to read. Pendragon & Stone (2003:149) characterise LAW’s approach as nonviolent but prediction of blood being spilled at Stonehenge and ‘naming and shaming’ of people within the Pagan community who have opposed or even failed to support their stance on reburial (Pendragon 2011b) have shown that intimidation and implications of possible violence are not unknown from them. In sections 7.5.2 and 7.6.3 it was recorded that the LAW/CoBDO/Stonehenge Druids campaign to rebury the Aubrey hole cremation remains involved noisy and aggressive protests involving verbal abuse of archaeologists. Since the excavation of these remains, they have solicited signatures for a petition, sometimes in a manner which might be considered pushy or aggressive. However, it is also worth remembering from section 7.5.2 that petitions may be unreliable measures of popular support for causes (see SuperSteve9219 2006). Possibly Arthur Pendragon’s favourite protest tactic has been legal challenges through the courts (e.g. BBC News 2011b; Pendragon 2011b). Even when unsuccessful, such challenges have inevitably proven costly in time and money to his opponents. Lest it appear that Pendragon’s tactics have been exclusively confrontational, it should be noted that he has engaged in direct talks with Mike Parker Pearson and has also addressed conferences including one by UCL’s archaeological society (Pendragon nd).

7.6.3. LAW, Stonehenge Druids and CoBDO The Council of British Druid Orders (CoBDO) claims to represent ‘all those Druids and Druid pagan groups involved in the rekindling of Druidry as a public national religion’ (Maughfling 2007). However, the Order of Bards, Ovates and Druids (OBOD), British Druid Order (BDO) and The Druid Network (TDN), three large Druid organisations were not members at the time of writing. It appeared to be largely run by Rollo Maughfling with support from Arthur Pendragon, and appeared to have a fairly strong anarchistic political agenda. LAW was Arthur Pendragon’s group of followers. Its purpose was to campaign or ‘fight’, through legal means for ecological and Pagan issues. Stonehenge Druids was a group, apparently led by Frank Sommers, which described itself as existing to provide a communal identity for Druids who regularly celebrated seasonal and other festivals at Stonehenge. Arthur Pendragon has described his approach to direct action protests as ‘Fluffy but firm’ (Pendragon and Stone 2003:149) meaning that he and his followers have been avowedly non-violent but willing to obstruct the operations of their opponents by actions such as picketing (Pendragon & Stone 2003:85), squatting in high profile locations 105

Contested Heritage 7.6.4. Dead to Rights

contestation, has not shared all the same motivational factors. Many Pagans have been keen to incorporate archaeologically evidenced beliefs and practices into their own beliefs and practices. As such most Pagans, unlike Minthorne’s (2008:43) Umatilla elders, look to archaeologists to provide narratives of their ancient past and hence activists are willing to support archaeology in general even if they have problems with funerary archaeology. For ease of reference I have collected the arguments presented by Pagan activists opposed to excavation, analysis, display and/or retention of human remains into three broad categories: spiritual, identity based and ethical.

Dead to Rights seems to have been a single issue campaign set up by Kit Warwick focusing on the Red Lady of Paviland skeleton (see section 7.5.3). The campaign had lost momentum by 2010 but had involved Warwick spending a weekend vigil in Paviland cave and a regional radio interview there (BBC News 2006). Warwick (2013) claimed that he had spoken to the National Museum Wales although Walker (p.c. 2010) claimed she had not been approached. In 2009 he explained that he had not been aware of organisations such as HAD (p.c. Warwick 2009) indicating that he was pursuing the matter through HAD or leaving the campaign to them. He informed me that he had not contacted the Oxford Natural History Museum because HAD had already tried unsuccessfully to speak to them (Warwick 2013).

7.7.1. Spiritual Arguments The spiritual reasons and arguments supporting and opposing reburial may be subdivided into four categories: those rooted in a dualistic division of body and soul in which the soul’s afterlife may be affected by disturbance of remains; monist ideas in which the spirit is indivisible from the corporeal remains; beliefs involving the dead interacting with the sites where they lie; and compliance with the beliefs and wishes of the dead. I also examine counter-arguments to these points as well as a broader critique of using spiritual arguments in the contestation of human remains.

7.6.5. Pagans for Archaeology ‘Pagans for Archaeology’ was a pressure group against reburial of pre-Christian human remains. It was set up by Yvonne Aburrow in 2008 in response to Davies’ campaign to rebury Charlie. Discussions with members revealed a range of motivations from a desire to connect spiritually with the Ancestors through direct visual contact with their bones to a feeling that the reburial lobby is bringing Paganism into disrepute. The group has promoted itself through a blog and through Facebook1 where it has received over 10,001 ‘likes’ (as at 06 Aug 2012), as opposed to ‘The quest for common decency & dignity and honouring our ancient ancestors’ which had 5,378 likes2 and HAD who had received 1,629 likes3 by the same date. On 27th June 2009 PfA held a conference at Bristol University involving archaeologists (such as Josh Pollard) and academic researchers of Paganism (including Jenny Blain, Rob Wallis, Graham Harvey and Ronald Hutton) some of whom would consider themselves Pagan. Pagans for Archaeology also wrote a letter to the Minister of Justice (Aburrow 2012) in support of the campaign to relax restrictions on retention of excavated human remains (Cunliffe et al 2011). Pagans for Archaeology was especially popular among those who lean towards reconstructionism rather than eclecticism, since they tend to want to learn about the past from the dead. They therefore are more likely to actively support the archaeologists and museums professionals who wish to retain human remains and to continue to excavate them.

Affecting a Dualist Afterlife Many spiritual reasons for reburial are based on a belief (or perhaps fear) that what is done to their remains can affect the afterlife of the dead. Many, perhaps most, religions and spiritualities in the world espouse a belief that some spirit, soul or consciousness survives death and will experience some kind of afterlife (e.g. Barley 1995:80-83). This afterlife may be immediate, as most contemporary Pagans, and Anglicans, of my acquaintance believe (Luke XXIII.43), or deferred until some future time requiring the spirit to ‘sleep’ in the deceased body in the meantime (John XI.21-24). Definitely in the latter case it would make sense for there to be consequences for the dead if their remains are broken up or destroyed. However, even if the soul or spirit has left the cadaver behind, the principle of sympathetic magic4 may suggest that disturbance of remains may have consequences for the soul of the deceased. Sympathetic magic is one of several beliefs described in Frazer’s (2000) Golden Bough which Hutton (2001:113-117) argues Gerald Gardner incorporated into Wicca. From there it has become a feature of other Pagan spiritualities. In section 3.3.5 I reported that Arthur Pendragon perceives himself to be the reincarnation of the historical/mythological character of King Arthur (Pendragon & Stone 2003:38-41, 44-57). The

7.7. Reasons and Arguments For and Against Reburial The contestation of human remains by contemporary Pagans in the UK, despite being inspired by overseas http://www.facebook.com/?ref=tn_tnmn#!/pages/Pagans-for-Archaeology/ 32777950029 2 http://www.facebook.com/?ref=tn_tnmn#!/pages/The-quest-for-commondecency-dignity-and-honouring-our-ancient-ancestors/22420949759 5583 3 http://www.facebook.com/groups/75701374731/#!/pages/Honouring-theAncient-Dead/82516967114 1

4 Sympathetic magic is the principle whereby ritually (or otherwise) doing something to an object closely associated with the intended victim, an image of them or a sample of tissue such as hair or fingernail clippings (which may be incorporated into an image for added potency) is believed to bring about a similar or symbolised action occurring to the individual depicted or sampled (Greenwood 2009:46-49, Frazer 2000:38).

106

Contemporary Pagans and Ancestors belief in reincarnation is common, although not universal, in contemporary Paganism (Crowley 1995:152) and I therefore question that if the soul is reincarnated in another body how can it be affected by what happens to a body it inhabited in a previous life?

to the body and soul dualism they see as a problematic element of Abrahamic religions. Restall Orr (2005) acknowledges that dualism featured in Classical paganism (see also Hardacre 1987:264) and that unity of body and soul is also implied in the gospel of John (XI:21-24) within Christianity. In this book I refer to this doctrine as neoanimism because, as York (2005:40) points out, traditional animist practices such as otherworld journeying, spirit guides or servants and soul retrieval only make sense within dualist worldviews. Thus I argue that monist neo-animism is unlikely to have played a part in the pagan spiritualities of the past. Within this neo-animist metaphysical worldview, bones are seen as containing part of the dead person’s consciousness until it dissipates into the earth. They view the retention and curation of bones as interfering with this process, which they consider necessary for consciousness held in the matter of the body to dissipate through decay (p.c. Grant 2011; Restall Orr 2012; p.c. Restall Orr 2012; HAD 2012). Aburrow (p.c. 2009) suggests that nature itself preserves remains on occasion and archaeologists and curators are merely continuing what has occurred naturally prior to excavation. Additionally, if all matter has soul or consciousness then animal remains and other nonhuman beings in museums and elsewhere are, perhaps, equally worthy of special treatment as human remains. Monist ideas of the indivisibility of matter and spirit and especially the implied delocalisation of a person’s soul can be critiqued on the basis that amputees do not report severance of part of their soul.

Parker Pearson (2003:171) argues that the dead do not care what is done with their remains but how can such a claim be evidenced if we cannot firmly disprove the existence of an afterlife? The idea that ghost stories support the contention that the dead need to be laid to rest correctly to find peace will tend to be greeted with varying degrees of scepticism, according to each individual’s willingness to believe in the existence of ghosts and in an afterlife. However, a common theme in many ghost stories is that of a restless spirit haunting the place where their remains lie until they are given a proper burial (e.g. Bardens 1997:4854; Holland 2008:23). If one were to accept such tales as factual then it might be deemed to support the hypothesis that disturbance of remains can affect the afterlife a person experiences. Whether or not remains are disturbed, some people live in fear of the dead. In section 7.5.4 I recalled Barley’s (1995:77-78) description of placation of the dead in Africa and China (see also Hardacre 1987:264-267). Metcalf & Huntington (1991:101) and Parker Pearson (2012:158) also point out that some rituals are intended to confuse the dead to make it harder for them to return to harm the living. I have referred to contemporary spiritual beliefs but it may be argued that the beliefs which should be taken into account regarding a person’s remains are those of the person him/herself. In the case of remains of preChristian people, evidence regarding the beliefs of their cultures must be examined. Both Strabo (nd) and Caesar (1914) described the Gauls as believing that the human soul was indestructible and travelled to another body at death. Samuel Alberti, Piotr Bienkowski, Malcolm J. Chapman, Rose Drew, (2009:140) in their article on the ethics of displaying human remains in museums entitled ‘Should we display the dead?’ cite the Egyptian story of an exile name Sinuhe, who desires to return to Egypt to die and indeed is exhorted to return for his corpse’s sake by the new pharaoh (Hubert 1994:162-163). This implies a belief that only with his body in the land of Egypt could Sinuhe access a desirable afterlife. Although this example suggests that Egyptian people would have objected to having their remains placed on display in other countries, it does not follow that prehistoric Britons would have had similar beliefs.

Sacred Sites and the Dead Not all spiritual arguments for the reburial of human remains focus on the afterlife of the person whose remains have been excavated. In section 5.6.2, I have shown that campaigns by LAW, CoBDO and Stonehenge Druids have asserted that the cremated remains excavated from Aubrey Hole 7 served as talismanic guardians, suggesting that Stonehenge would only work with its full spiritual/ magical efficacy when the remains of ‘The Guardians’ were reinterred there (MagicOak 2009). Pagan Values and Aspirations Does reburial or non-disturbance comply with the hopes and aspirations of the dead? Leahy (2009:10) argues that funerary archaeology serves the interests of the dead by restoring them to memory. Aburrow (2008c) provides evidence from Celtic mythology that the pre-Christian dead wanted to be remembered. One of the most significant epics of ‘Celtic’ mythology is the Ulster cycle, which chronicles the life of the great Irish hero Cuchulainn. The core text of this saga is the Tain Bo Cuilgne in which it is written:

Disturbing the Monist Soul As explained in section 1.2.1, recently a new Pagan doctrine claiming the term animism has emerged. Restall Orr (2012:104), building on ideas put forward by Harvey (2005 192-193), and Angela Grant (a former HAD activist) have explained this belief system in interviews as matter being indivisible from spirit, body inseparable from soul. They situate this metaphysical worldview in opposition

‘One day a pupil asked him [Cathbad the Druid] what this day would be lucky for. Cathbad said that if a warrior took up arms for the first time that day his name would endure in Ireland as a word signifying mighty acts, and stories about him would last forever. 107

Contested Heritage Spiritual Authority

Cuchulainn overheard this. He went to Conchobor [the King of Ulster] and claimed his weapons.’ (Kinsella 1970:84)

As stated in section 1.2.1, Paganism constitutes a diverse family of spiritualities honouring many different gods in many different ways. It therefore follows to many Pagans that theirs should be a pluralistic, non-dogmatic, nonevangelical spirituality (Crowley 1995:21-24; Harvey 1997:1-2, 216, 223; Shallcrass 2000:3). This may be seen as relativist or pluralist, i.e. all beliefs are equally valid (Blackburn 2003:17-26; Partridge 2002:13; Vardy & Grosch 1999:125-126); or inclusivist/particularist, in the religious meaning all belief systems have value but that one’s own is superior (Partridge 2002:12-13). Most of the Pagans I spoke to agreed that intolerance and absolutism have no place in Paganism (Crowley 1995:24; Harvey 1997:1-2, 216, 223; Restall Orr 2007a:118). The reburial campaign surrounding the Stonehenge guardians or Aubrey Hole 7 remains has not required others to adopt their beliefs and values (evangelical) but has required others to act according to them. This behaviour implies an ideology which is most commonly referred to as fundamentalist but might be better described as anti-secular, quasi-dominionist, absolutist, or totalitarian. I argue that this is the same ideology which prompts fundamentalist Christians in the United States to oppose marriage equality and campaign for abortion to be banned (BBC News 2012a) as well as cases of Islamist vigilantes harassing others for not following Islamic rules of behaviour in an area they describe as a Muslim neighbourhood (BBC News 2013b). Ford (2009) questions the right of any minority group to have its views privileged above what he describes as ‘the prevailing social consensus’. Consciousness raising and consensus building as advocated by HAD could not be classed as absolutist since there is no coercion. However, campaigns such as the Stonehenge Guardians campaign have involved recourse to law and abusive behaviour which are coercive and could therefore be classed as absolutist and thus incompatible with the core Pagan value of pluralism.

Additionally in the Poetic Edda, a corpus of poems from Iceland there is a poem called the Havamal meaning ‘The Sayings of the Most High One’ that is to say of the chief god Odin. Two verses are relevant to this study: 77 Cattle die and kinsmen die, and so one dies oneself But a noble name will never die, if good renown one gets 78 Cattle die and kinsmen die, and so one dies oneself One thing I know that never dies, the fame of a dead man’s deeds (Bellows 1991:33) These two quotes demonstrate a desire to be remembered among the male dominated aristocratic elite and arguably throughout pre-Christian northern Europe. I have found little evidence to suggest any different desires among women or the poor but it is at least possible that the aspirations of the male aristocracy may have been shared, albeit with much less expectation of fulfilment, throughout those societies. Tombs, barrows, mounds and other funerary monuments may be interpreted as emphasising continuity, especially of lineages (Fleming 1972:65) but I favour the idea that their primary purpose was memorialising the dead (Parker Pearson 1982:99, 108) and, perhaps, emphasising their role as Ancestors. Once the cultural narratives surrounding these monuments were forgotten, the associated narratives of the ancestors were lost with them. I would argue that the only way the narratives, which the above excerpts demonstrate were important to the people of the past, can be at least partially resurrected is through scientific archaeological analysis of their remains. Furthermore, the display of the remains in museums serves to keep the resurrected partial narrative in the minds of people far better than if they were reburied (Bibby 1957:432). Thus, archaeological analysis and display of human remains may be argued to serve the desires of the dead and the Ancestors rather than offending against them.

Bearing in mind the anti-dogmatic ideal and the lack of universally recognised ‘scriptures’ (Harvey 2005:84; Jennings 2002:7-8; York 2005:33), how have Pagans constructed their doctrines and values? One can determine several sources including mythology from ancient pagan cultures (albeit generally written down and preserved by Christians), humanist philosophy and the living tradition passed from initiator to initiate (Filan & Kaldera 2013:37-55; Magliocco 2004:24-56). However, the original initiator(s) must have sourced his or her material from somewhere. Hutton (2001:3-204) describes the origins of Wicca as being drawn from a wide variety of sources by Gerald Gardner and his collaborators. These included Classical mythology, traditions of secret societies and ritual magic, folklore of magic and some deliberate invention. Additional sources used by Pagans have included archaeological interpretation of pre-Christian societies and ethnographic borrowings from contemporary and recent non-Christian spiritualities. However, the common tendency towards mysticism means that sources of information on belief, cosmology and praxis have included spiritual revelation,

Although reburial campaigners have opposed curation of human remains in museums, at least two Pagan interviewees pointed out to me that the word museum has its origin as name for a Pagan Greek temple shrine or temple dedicated to the Muses, a sisterhood of goddesses who governed the arts. As such they felt that museums were highly appropriate places for the remains of dead Pagans to be kept. Museum display may also be argued to democratise access to the ancestors in the same way that Von Hagens claims to democratise anatomy (BBC News 2002b). Remains that are buried in the earth might possibly still be accessible to commune with by those with some kind of spiritual knowledge or skill but not everyone is able to commune in this way. Museum display definitely provides a kind of communion with the dead available to everyone, including those who do not claim such abilities. 108

Contemporary Pagans and Ancestors epiphany or personal gnosis (Cowan 2005:39; Filan & Kaldera 2013:9-29 Van Gulik 2009:12, 14). Discussions and interviews with Pagans reveal a hierarchy of such revelations. Unsubstantiated personal Gnosis or UPG has been seen as least reliable since it is simply one person’s testimony. Shared personal gnosis, shared gnosis or peer-corroborated personal gnosis whereby two or more people independently experienced the same revelation has been deemed to carry far more weight (Filan & Kaldera 2013:26-29). If a revelation was subsequently verified it may then be deemed a confirmed gnosis, for example if a person experienced a revelation that a relationship was about to break up and it subsequently did, this would then seen as a confirmed gnosis. Confirmed gnosis has been seen as conferring a greater reliability in such matters on the person who experienced the revelation (Filan & Kaldera 2013:25). Problems have arisen in persuading people outside the belief system of the validity of a personal gnosis and dealing with conflicting revelations. Where conflicting gnoses have been espoused conflict and schism have ensued (Pizza 2009) but most Pagans are unlikely to be dogmatic about gnoses (Crowley 1995:24).

21). It can also be argued that exclusion of widely held but non-majority spiritual views is a deficit in the rights of citizenship unjustifiable while those involved still bear the responsibilities of citizens. This could be seen as violating the principle of ‘no taxation without representation’. Finally the UK has become increasingly multicultural over the last sixty years or so and bearing these issues in mind this argument can be considered a weak one. 7.7.2. Identity Based Reasons In section 1.2 community was explained as being selfdefined and elective with a shared sense of identity. The contemporary Pagan community’s sense of identity has been characterised, to some extent at least, in section 1.2.1. After Hutton’s (1996, 2001, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009) works covering the history of contemporary Paganism (see section 1.2.1 for more details) few, if any, Pagans believe that they have a closer genetic relationship to the ancient dead than the majority of native Britons alive today (e.g. Thackray & Payne 2008:3-4). Ideas of shared identity between pre-Christian people whose remains are excavated analysed, stored and/or displayed and contemporary Pagans are based on a perception that contemporary Pagans share a sense of identity with pre-Christian Britons and that they therefore have a stronger connection to the ancient dead than other UK citizens (e.g. Davies 1997:12). These perceptions have been intrinsically linked in with the ideas of Ancestors of place and of tradition previously described in section 7.2.1. The other major influence in these arguments has been the narrative of oppression and victimisation detailed in section 1.2.1.

The arguments about the validity of sources for spiritual doctrine and beliefs lead neatly to the debate over the perceived rationality or irrationality over these doctrines and beliefs. Archaeologists such as Daniel (1992:28, 51, 59, 126, 173) and Schadla Hall (2004:24) have dismissed Pagan claims regarding sites on the basis of their perceived irrationality. I would argue that dismissal of ideas as irrational implies that the beliefs in question lack a logical thought in their construction and are consequently valueless or absurd. Sperber (1994:40) points out that all worldviews are constructed on fundamental assumptions or beliefs and that perceiving other people’s worldviews as irrational is generally due to differences in those basic assumptions or beliefs. Religious faith is generally based, sooner or later, on unprovable assumptions but with the exception of literalist scriptural believers (often referred to in the Christian tradition as fundamentalists) most people in my experience have tended to adapt their beliefs to include accepted scientific facts and extrapolate their personal beliefs in a fairly logical fashion. Bearing in mind that religious belief has been noted to provide succour to those in difficulty and inspiration to good works, I argue that even if religious beliefs are founded on assumptions that defy a rational reductionist worldview, then they should not be assumed to be without value.

It is also significant that some contemporary Pagans consider themselves in a similar position to American Indian and Australian Aboriginal groups (e.g. Davies 1998:12), seeing themselves as reviving indigenous pre-Christian spiritualities (Blain & Wallis 2007:9-11). Although I didn’t find Pagans willing to say so on the record, some have expressed a view of non-Pagans as oppressive incomers and converts who have cast aside their Pagan heritage and thus have no claim to stakeholdership of the Pagan past. These individuals seem to have conceptualised Christians as oppressive colonialists and thus felt it is wrong to see the remains of their ancestors in their hands. Therefore, they have seen ‘return’ of Ancestors as part of restitution for perceived colonial oppression. Interviews suggested that this was an unusual view and was felt to be somewhat extreme even by many of those who supported reburial although the idea that Pagans and Druids have a stronger connection to the ancient dead and may therefore speak for them seemed to have slightly more support. The arguments that archaeological excavation and museum storage or display of human remains have failed to show appropriate respect and reverence may also be considered a cultural issue but I examine these under the heading of ethical contestation.

One conservative Christian interviewee argued that since the official religion of England is Anglican Christianity and other religions, including Pagan ones, are tolerated but have no official status, it is unconstitutional for Pagan views to influence public policy. His argument would require a fundamental change to the ethos of the British state to allow this degree of influence to be wielded. However, the UK consists of more than just England and its constitution is not a single written document but rather comprises many elements including legislation, legal precedent, treaties, charters and tradition (Wade & Bradley 1965:2-

Colvin (2006:17) acknowledges that the Pagan concept of Ancestors of tradition could be considered problematic 109

Contested Heritage appreciate that they need broad public support to influence government and institutional policies. The approaches taken by campaigners for reburial of the Aubrey Hole 7 remains have suggested that they believed most non-Pagan British people unlikely to be sympathetic to the spiritual arguments for reburial, since they have chosen to concentrate on ethical arguments in their publicity.

as they have been elective and unprovable affiliations. Hence it can be argued that claims to speak on behalf of the ancestors such as that made by Davies (1998:10) and others might be seen as unworthy of consideration. This claim has been made on the basis of the belief that contemporary Pagans have a stronger identity connection to the ancient dead than anyone else. Generally speaking, in genetic terms this argument is unsustainable as ancient Britons are genetic ancestors of most modern native Britons whatever their religious or spiritual affiliation. However, in cultural terms, the issue is less clear. Payne (p.c. 2009) accepts that there is likely to be some cultural legacy of pre-Christian beliefs and practices in folklore but that these, like the genetic legacy of ancient Britons, are not restricted to the contemporary Pagan community but rather a part of British society in general. However, in later Roman Britain where Christianity was an important part of society, the elective identification as Pagan in contrast to Christian may be deemed to have a commonality with contemporary Paganism.

One solution put forward by groups including CoBDO and LAW has been that replicas could be displayed in museums and the actual remains taken off display and reburied in sealed boxes to prevent further deterioration (Maughfling 2009). Roberts (2009:29) points out that essential evidence is not recorded in replicas and Goodnow (2006:18-19) argues that museum visitors might feel cheated by being shown pictures or replicas rather than original remains. More importantly (as seen in section 6.2.3) museum stores containing large numbers of human remains have facilitated epidemiological research (Steckel et al 2006:6070). Section 6.2.3 includes reference to statistical research on ancient human remains with important consequences to health provision to the living. Cheek and Keel (1984:194) argue that ‘Knowledge gained from scientific data retrieval is valuable to mankind in general... destruction of the resource is unethical... At issue is the freedom to pursue knowledge and scientific enquiry without political pressures and legal restraints’. Lack of legal and ethical research restraints has led to unacceptable human rights abuses such as chemical weapons research on conscripts at Porton Down (Harris & Paxman 1982:176-177); Japanese experiments on Chinese prisoners (Williams & Wallace 1990:50-116) and most infamously the work of SS doctors like Josef Mengele in Nazi concentration camps (Nyiszli 1985; Weigman 2001). However, it has been shown in section 7.7.1 that the contention that the dead may suffer as a result of analysis of their remains is not supported by strong, widely accepted evidence.

To what extent has non-disturbance of the dead been a Pagan value? Indeed, bearing in mind that many contemporary Pagans constructed their identity in opposition to what they perceived as an Abrahamic mainstream, what if the principle of non-disturbance turned out to be a Christian or Roman value? Bahn (1984:129-130) records that Greek and Roman Legal systems outlawed disturbance of graves but there is no evidence that such a tradition held in prehistoric Britain. Indeed, there is a substantial body of archaeological evidence that human remains were not always left to rest in peace in pre-Christian Britain. Excarnation, secondary deposition in chambered tombs with subsequent removal seems to have been common in the earlier Neolithic (Hutton 1997a:30-33; Pryor 2003:190-191; Reilly 2003:149, 150). Pryor (2003:190191) argues that the term tomb is misapplied to megalithic monuments of the Neolithic. He suggests that they should be thought of as shrines or temples, rather than final resting places for the dead. Both Parker Pearson (2012:119) and Pryor (2003:155) point out that human bone has often been recovered from domestic contexts in prehistoric archaeology. This has been in stark contrast to the response of 21st century journalists describing a Swedish woman keeping human bones purchased online in her home as ‘creepy’ (The Sun 2012). There was certainly an element of salacious sensationalism in the reporting of this story but I argue such would not be the case if this behaviour were not considered deviant. Plutarch (1920) records Gaulish mercenaries in the pay of King Pyrrhus of Epirus pillaging the tombs and scattering the bones of the dead which suggests that Celtic peoples may not have shared the Roman disinclination to disturb the dead. It would be ironic if contemporary Druids were unwittingly pursuing a Roman or Christian cultural tradition.

A significant argument against the large-scale reburial of ancient human remains has been that their availability for research is highly beneficial to society as a whole. The best example of this argument is the epidemiological study into the causes of osteoporosis mentioned by Margaret Clegg of the Natural History Museum when I interviewed her (See section 6.2.3).

7.7.3. Ethical

Alberti et al (2009:136) cite an American Psychiatric Association paper which asserts that the denial and taboo against display of death is likely to exacerbate posttraumatic stress when a loved one dies. It can therefore be argued that museum display of human remains is beneficial to the living in promoting mental as well as physical health. Jenkins (2011:124) describes archaeologists and some Pagans (possibly members of HAD) as being in agreement that museum display of human remains helps people to confront this perceived death taboo in contemporary British society.

Some campaigners have accepted that non-Pagans are just as much stakeholders in the fate of ancient human remains and

The Pagan (or Wiccan) ethic usually phrased as ‘An it harm none, do what thou wilt’ (Crowley 1989:78) or 110

Contemporary Pagans and Ancestors variants thereupon, requires all actions including doing nothing to be considered and assessed. This may be considered to be close to Bentham’s (Vardy & Grosch 1999:65) utilitarian ethics which extol choices which bring the greatest pleasure and least pain. Other religions tend towards ethical systems (including ancient pre-Christian ones) which extol adherence to virtues or duties such as those put forward by Kant (1963:36-47), Marcus Aurelius (1998:3-9) and Aristotle (1999:37-40).

credence in the Pagan community, since several Pagan interviewees expressed a belief that Christian remains are treated with much greater respect than those identified as pre-Christian (see also Brown 2012:193). There has appeared to be a greater willingness among museums to put pre-Christian remains on display. I was unable to find Christian remains on display at the Museum of London or the British Museum although pre-Christian remains were on show at both. The National Museum Wales displayed the bones of pre-Christian people in its ‘Origins – In Search of Early Wales’ gallery but only photographs of the bones of four people thought to have been Christian along with bronze heads based on facial reconstructions taken from the bones (see fig. 37).

Equality with Other Religions A key ethical point regarding the treatment of human remains is the one that demands equal respect for and treatment of remains identified as pre-Christian to those identified as Christian. Warwick (Moss 2011) asserted that Christian remains were not disturbed and Shallcrass (2004:28-29), Brown (2012:193) and Davies (1998:12) have both asserted that remains identified as Christian have routinely been re-buried after excavation, which Shallcrass (2004:29) described as ‘discrimination against ancient Pagans’. This belief seems to have found some

My observations of museum visitors at Cardiff, the British Museum and the Museum of London lead me to believe that they are more likely to stay longer with an exhibit and read more of the information panels, if both bones and facial reconstructions are on display. Bones alone appear to be more attention grabbing than just the facial reconstructions on display in Cardiff. However,

Fig. 37. Bronze facial reconstructions of Early Mediaeval people with photographs of their bones in the ‘Origins’ gallery of the National Museum Wales (Author’s photographs)

111

Contested Heritage the assumption attested to by several Pagan interviewees that all remains identified as Christian are automatically reburied is clearly incorrect, since Elizabeth Walker at the National Museum Wales, Cardiff was able to show me that most of their stored human remains come from Mediaeval contexts. Likewise much of the human remains stored at the Museum of London were also Mediaeval. It therefore seems that museums have been willing to store Christian remains but have been more reluctant to put them on display than they are to display pre-Christian remains.

were placed in refuse sacks before being thrown into the back of a van. Adults bodies, since they would not fit in a single bin bag were cut in half at the waist by blows from spades before being placed in a pair of bin bags and thrown into the van. Presumably this clearance contractor had obtained the same Home Office licence to remove human remains with the same stipulation of due care and attention to decency. I am certain that no archaeologist of my acquaintance would countenance such treatment of human remains and indeed would consider anyone who did to be unworthy of the title archaeologist. According to my informant, a complaint was made to the retired brigadier who was managing the project on behalf of the Church of England, only be told to ‘show a little Dunkirk spirit’. Archaeologists proceeded to complain to the deacon overseeing the area who explained that the church felt that once the soul had departed, what happened to the body was not of much importance.

The assumption that Christian remains have been treated with more dignity and respect than those of the pre-Christian past also required investigation and challenging. I sought out literature on how Christian remains had been dealt with to test this assertion and interviewed archaeologists who had been involved with excavating Christian remains and Museum professionals who curated them. Every interview with archaeologists I have conducted in which this subject was covered suggested that the religious affiliation of the person whose bones were being uncovered is unlikely to affect how the remains were excavated, analysed or stored but that the antiquity, rarity and fragility of the remains has affected, to some extent at least, the care taken in handling the bones. One article particularly caught my attention and that was a piece about graveyard clearance by Duncan Sayer and James Symonds (2004) in the Journal of Church Archaeology. In it the authors explain that human remains clearance companies operating with what was then a Home Office excavation licence were exhuming bodies from the Sheffield Cathedral graveyard which were not treated with dignity. The Home Office licence required the clearance company to screen the bodies from public view but the 10 ft high screen failed to shield the view from neighbouring office blocks. Workers therefore were upset to see coffins lifted by a mechanical digger and human remains thrown into black plastic bags. Although complaints were made and it certainly appears that the licence requirement to effect removal ‘with due care and attention to decency’ was violated (Sayer & Symonds 2004:56) no prosecution was initiated. Even more worryingly Mike Webber (p.c. 2009) explained that, while working for the Museum of London Archaeology Service in the late 1990s or early 2000s, he had been contracted to record details of a Greater London Church, which he recalled as being dedicated to St. Nicholas, which was to be demolished to make way for a new shopping development. Whilst he and his team were preserving by record the fabric of the church, a company he described as specialist undertakers cleared the surrounding graves rather than members of his team, since the graves were determined to be of little archaeological value. Their contract was twofold: to safely dispose of lead coffins and to remove human remains for reburial elsewhere. He vividly described these undertakers, as lifting out the lead or lead lined coffins and levering off the lids with shovels before removing well-preserved bodies that began to deteriorate as the air hit them. The bodies of children

The existence of the Advisory Panel on the Archaeology of Christian Burials in England (APACBE) to advise on treatment of Christian remains incorporating representatives of the Church of England may have served to support the Pagan campaigners assertion but this body was superseded by the more inclusive, all embracing, Advisory Panel on the Archaeology of Burials in England (APABE) to deal with all mortuary archaeology (White 2009:28-29). However, there does not appear to have been any representation of the Pagan community on this panel (Mays nd). Sedlec Ossuary in the Czech Republic (see section 6.3.2) also demonstrates that the remains of Christians have not only put on display but also used to create objets d’art. Also in section 6.3.2 it was noted that the law in England and Wales, and also that in Scotland, requires that the corpses of many people be examined whenever it is deemed necessary to establish a cause of death (Directgov nd; Parker Pearson 2003:183; Williams 2010:124). A typical autopsy was described involving breaking open of the rib cage to extract organs for examination and the sawing open of the skull to allow removal and inspection of the brain (Williams 2010:16-17). Protestors who oppose excavation and examination of ancient human remains are therefore demanding a significantly greater level of reverence for these ancient remains than is accorded to many of the recently deceased. Jenkins (2011) asserts that the human remains issue has been encouraged by museum professionals placing a desire to appear considerate and be politically correct before their duty to preserve remains for future generations describing the situation as a ‘crisis of authority’. She sees this largely as having been a betrayal of secular values and a betrayal of stewardship responsibilities to all humanity (Jenkins 2011:140-146). Indeed the Museums Association (2008:8) asserts that museums hold artefacts and specimens in trust for society and thus contestation of curation and display of human remains could be argued to be an assault on the secular civil society which provides the multiculturalism 112

Contemporary Pagans and Ancestors which permits minority religious groups such as Pagans to survive more or less unmolested.

At the end of October 2012, HAD posted its ‘Definitions for Honouring the Ancient Dead’ (HAD 2012). In this document they set out three fundamental propositions:

Respect and Honour, Dignity and Decency

• As human beings we have a duty of care towards every other human person • The ancestral dead retain their personhood as integral and influencing members of the community • Personhood entails the need for respectful interaction (HAD 2012)

As previously stated in sections 7.5.2 and 7.6.3, groups contesting retention of cremated remains from Stonehenge have chosen not to build their campaign on specifically Pagan arguments but rather to claim a common ethical principle shared by all religions and those of no faith. As seen in section 6.3.1 the laws of England and Wales assume that graves ought not to be disturbed unnecessarily (Fforde 2004:87; Parker Pearson 2003:181; 2012:173; Roberts 2009:26-27) but in Scotland the law has enshrined a ‘right of sepulture’ (Tarlow 2001:58-59) providing a firmer requirement to rebury exhumed remains. When I interviewed him at Winter Solstice 2008, Arthur Pendragon stated ‘You don’t have to be a Druid or a Pagan to believe in common decency. There is something almost voyeuristic about looking at human remains behind glass. As a Druid I say: let those who we laid to rest stay at rest’. This sound bite has become a recurring theme in his rhetoric and he claimed to have support from people across the religious spectrum ‘from Anglicans to Zoroastrians’ (BBC News 2011b; p.c. Pendragon 2008). It therefore appears that Arthur and other campaigners were suggesting that the dead should be respected and the modes in which this respect has been manifested has been universal but has this been the case (Tarlow 2006:208) and have prevailing cultural attitudes in the UK really favoured reburial?

HAD has emphasised the non-commodification of human remains. They have asserted that harm includes ‘diminuation, degradation or devaluation in a way that causes suffering and that this suffering can be measured spiritually, socially, emotionally, physically or scientifically. HAD (2012) has argued that referring to ancient bodies and body parts as human remains is loaded terminology implying a loss of personhood. They have also argued that the DCMS understanding of ancestors as being restricted to genetic lineage fails to recognise social and cultural influence on people outside ones immediate kin group. In the section on reburial they have disputed the use of the word ‘reburial’ as one implying irretrievable loss of the bodies or body parts and proposed the word ‘return’ as an alternative. They have acknowledged that Ancestors need to be remembered lest people forget the lessons of the past but that ‘Ancestors should not be exhumed unless circumstances necessitate it’ suggesting that necessity should be agreed through consultation. They have also asserted that retention of remains cannot be justified and all remains should therefore be reburied after analysis. I argue that this section contradicts HAD’s claim not to have advocated reburial in all cases and demonstrated a desire to prevent any new sets of remains entering collections. HAD asserted that ‘interaction is respectful when all unnecessary harm is avoided’ (HAD 2012:1) but can the dead actually be harmed? Geoffrey Scarre (2006:188196) argues that even if the dead cannot undergo a real or physical change, they can undergo changes in status or relationships which could be considered harmful such as damage to reputation. He also describes the removal of remains against the explicit wishes of the person whose remains they are as a violation of their wishes. HAD suggested a definition of harm as causing suffering and claimed that ‘harm can be measured spiritually, socially, emotionally, physically or scientifically’ (HAD 2012:1). However, it is hard to see how excavation, analysis and display of remains can harm or cause suffering to a dead person, unless you believe their consciousness continues after death and remains connected to those remains. If this were the case then treatment of amputated limbs would be expected to affect the living person from whom it was removed and I have found no record of such distress being recorded.

Dictionary definitions give a starting point for building an understanding of the discourses involved. The Oxford English Reference Dictionary provides the following definitions (among other less relevant ones) of honour: ‘High respect… adherence to what is right… respect highly… acknowledge’ (Pearsall & Trumble 2003:679). Definitions of respect include: ‘deferential esteem… regard with deference, esteem or honour… avoid interfering with, harming, degrading, insulting, injuring… treat with consideration… refrain from offending, corrupting’ (Pearsall & Trumble 2003:1228). Dictionary definitions may not fully explain the social, cultural and behavioural expectations associated with those words. However, the definition of respect does express an expectation of noninterference and avoidance of harm or offence. HAD has been particularly keen to offer useful definitions of respect and honour. Their website (www.honour.org.uk) included a page (HAD et al 2004-2008) containing five opinions of what constitutes respectful treatment of human remains. Restall Orr emphasised the importance of treating the dead as not being absent, in a way that recognised her contention that they have continued to be members of society able to influence people (HAD et al 2004-2008). Bienkowski and Aburrow (HAD et al 2004-8) also emphasised recognition of the personhood of the dead but Grant went into more detail about reverence, care and not exploiting remains. Grant suggested that respect implies that if remains are not likely to be needed again they should be returned whence they came.

Archaeologist and museum professional interviewees explained respect for the dead in terms of remembering their humanity and providing accurate information about them. One interviewee also mentioned that giving 113

Contested Heritage skeletons and bodies nicknames was not considered good practice. The HAD definitions also discuss reburial stating that ‘it is often assumed that reburial is the default position demanded by HAD’ (HAD 2012:3) thus implying that this is not the case. However, the document then asserts that remains should only be subject to archaeological excavation if they are going to be disturbed anyway (e.g. by development) and that, although they may be analysed, they should always be reburied. This implies that HAD is opposed to any more prehistoric remains being added to archaeological collections which may serve to polarise opinion in the Pagan community.

the ingestion of the ashes of Wally Hope (section 3.3.5) earlier in the process I might have sought an impression on the extent to which Pagan reburial activists considered this a respectful treatment of his remains. I would have been particularly interested to know if an individual who explained my feeling of emotional and spiritual connection though visual contact with bones in museums was inidicative of dark necromancy felt similarly about this incident. Thomas (2005:3238) states that ‘aside from punitive exhibition (desecration of the corpse) in the case of a bad death, when a devalued dead person is deprived of a funeral, the display of the corpse reflects the noblest intentions (valorization of the corpse)’. Thus we see that display can be an act of the greatest reverence. One obvious example is the display of the preserved body of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin in Red Square in Russia which Taylor (2002:15) likens to Ancestor worship. Bahn & Paterson (1986:257) emphasise the political nature of this act as well as recording that it contravened Lenin’s own wishes. Chamberlain & Parker Pearson (2004:33-9) argue that the display of Lenin’s embalmed body uses the Russian Orthodox tradition of preservation, indicating sanctity and the display of the relics of saints. In section 6.3.2 I remarked that saintly relics are put on display in Catholic churches (Crook 2000:12-18; Walsham 2010:13). The remains of highly respected people have been put on display in other contexts as well. Examples include the Douamont ossuary near Verdun in France: bones of French and German soldiers slaughtered in the carnage of the battle for Verdun in 1916 are visible through windows to visiting members of the public (Holt & Holt 1998:62-3).

Nick Ford (2009) is critical of claims that the dead merit respect and argues that it cannot be known if the prehistoric nameless dead are truly worthy of respect for their qualities and achievements, since no-one knows if a given skeleton belonged to a vicious, cruel criminal or a selfless and generous person. Barley’s (1995:77) description of an African boy shouting at the Ancestors to clear off and calling them bastards suggests that, respect for the dead (even Ancestors) is not universal. However, if one accepts that most British people might agree that the dead ought to be treated with respect, there is still a wide range of opinions in what actually constitutes respect. Nick Ford (2009) acknowledges that what constitutes respectful treatment of the dead is actually a culturally specific value. Despoilation of graves has been a deliberate act of disrespect in the past as exemplified by the exhumation and hanging of Oliver Cromwell after the restoration. Tarlow (2008:73) explains that this was carried out specifically ‘to cause harm to his dignity… by violating the norms of bodily privacy and control’ but I have also shown (in section 7.7.2) that ancient Britons appear not have had the same qualms about disturbing graves as contemporary Anglicans. Ford (2009) argues that the individual qualities of the prehistoric individuals whose remains are excavated and sometimes displayed cannot be known so any idea that they merit admiration is not appropriate.

However, it can be argued that the remains of dead kings and queens are not put on display and that there are others who are greatly respected whose remains are displayed. I was inclined to argue that the remains of dead royalty are not displayed because they are not important enough! They do not tell us as much about the national identity or how best to live as the relics of saints or the remains of ancient ancestors. An article in British Archaeology (Anon 2012:66) argued that remains of named individuals especially those with identifiable living descendants, e.g. the skeleton of Richard III, merit more sensitive treatment than the nameless dead of prehistory. Whilst I agree with the DCMS (2005:26-29; examined in detail in section 6.2.1) guidelines on human remains that identified genealogical descent as a criterion for accepting claims relating to the disposition of human remains, I consider that it is ethically problematic to automatically treat remains differently either on the basis of when they died or their social status when alive.

Ford (2009) argues that one can respect the dead regardless of what you do with their bones. Another Pagan interviewee explained to me that she had attended a conference at a museum and had arrived early when the cleaner was still doing her rounds. They had struck up a conversation and the cleaner had explained to her that when cleaning the museum’s Egyptian galleries each morning she greeted the mummies by name as a gesture of respect. At a Druid conference I related this story, which was greeted by expressions of approval. I then pointed out that to the high status Egyptian being greeted by someone of low status might have been considered offensive in the extreme, to which one delegate pointed out that the intention was respectful and that was the important thing. I replied that to some people giving pre-Christian human remains a Christian burial was highly respectful but that it has been seen as unacceptable by most contemporary Pagan interviewees. Had I read of the description of

If one looks at ethnographic and historical approaches to spiritual relationships with Ancestors, two broad categories may be discerned: caring for the beloved dead or protection from the angry, jealous or dangerous dead (Hardacre 1987: 263; Harris 1986:53; Thomas 2005:3235). Thomas 114

Contemporary Pagans and Ancestors Ownership

(2005:3235) explains that the recently deceased may be tied down, mutilated (e.g. by removal of eyes or breaking legs) or deliberately lost by buring the deceased across a river or departing suddenly from the cemetery by a detour. Caciola (1996:16) recalls an incident in the Laxdaela Saga in which a corpse is excavated and reburied far away after a series of murders are attributed to the dead man. Glob (2004:105, 112) records bog bodies such as those at Haraldskaer, Hingst Fen and Windeby being pinned down with stakes presumably to keep them there just as vampires and revenants were staked down. Unlike these feared and hated dead, beloved ancestors have been brought amongst the living, albeit sometimes to prevent them becoming angry and vengeful, as the Merina people of Madagascar have done in the Famadihana festival (Graeber 1995:259261). This practice may have been echoed in the British Neolithic (Malone 2004:144).

Roberts (2009:24, 26) points out that both English and Scottish law state that there is no property in a corpse, i.e. that human remains are not commodity and cannot be owned, sold or stolen. Museums and other archaeological collections have therefore been in a position of guardianship rather than ownership of remains. Museum policies on the treatment of human remains examined in section 6.3.1 have acknowledged this position and have required their staff to treat remains in a dignified and respectful manner. HAD have emphasised that persons cannot be owned and that they consider human remains not to be objects and that personhood continues ‘even beyond the time of living descendants’ and by implication beyond any memory of that person’s life. Exclusive and Inclusive Rights

Pendragon’s suggestion that looking at human remains in museums is voyeuristic suggests that his objection is at least partially based on a perceived right to privacy. Kate Fox (2004:407-8), in her ethnographic analysis of Englishness, argues that English people adhere to a system of manners that she describes as negative politeness in which a desire for privacy is assumed to be paramount. I suggest that much of the support for reburial of human remains stems from this particular social indoctrination. She also suggests that this respect for privacy is a hypocritical ‘obedience to rules rather than expression of genuine concern’ (Fox 2004:407-8). If expectations of a desire for privacy by the living are no more than a social rule based assumption then I suggest it weakens the argument that research should be limited or curtailed on the basis of the privacy of the dead. The human rights organisation Liberty (2009) argues that article 8 of the human rights act provides protection for an individual’s right to privacy from intrusion by public bodies but the wording is such that protection will be subject to dominant social values at the time and it may be argued that the Avebury consultative process (Thackray & Payne 2009:15) has demonstrated that dominant social values today support the display of human remains in museums. Pendragon’s opposition to museum display may also be seen as a legacy of Protestant opposition to the display of saintly relics, ironically on the basis that it was seen as pagan.

In my interview with Sebastian Payne (p.c. 2009) he expressed one of his main objections to reburial in terms of English Heritage wanting to safeguard the inclusive rights of all to have as much access as possible to the material remains of the past from those who sought exclusive rights to control that access. Jenkins (2011:37) also argues that it may be seen as immoral for remains to be claimed by one group at the expense of others. Perhaps the most important question regarding contestation of human remains relates to the proportion of Pagans who support reburial. If the reburial lobby is merely a loud minority within the community then the legitimacy of this campaign is severely (perhaps fatally) compromised. I have already demonstrated in section 2.3.1 that interviewing a probability sample of UK Pagans would be next to impossible to achieve. However, one possible indication of relative levels of support might be the number of ‘likes’ on the respective Facebook pages of the leading campaign groups. In section 7.6.5 I recorded that on 06 Aug 2012 Pagans for Archaeology had 10,001 likes as opposed to The quest for common decency & dignity and honouring our ancient ancestors with 5,378 and HAD with 1,629 likes. However, by 26 Aug 2013 the figures had shifted in favour of the reburial lobby with PfA showing 12,202 likes as opposed to the Quest for Common Decency and Dignity and Honouring our Ancient Ancestors showing 12,927 and HAD 1,918. Lest this should be seen as in any way conclusive, Shallcrass (p.c. 2014) points out that he cannot be alone in ‘liking’ the PFA page on the basis of his being a Pagan who likes archaeology whilst opposing the group’s stance on reburial. Equally people may have chosen to ‘like’ the pages of HAD and the Quest for Common Decency and Dignity without agreeing with their aims and objectives either. Anecdotal impressions of the relative proportions in favour of each will inevitably depend on which Pagan groups one interacts with but my own impression is that a small minority are passionately in favour of reburial, a much larger minority generally supportive of the idea with the majority undecided. Those actively opposed to reburial, I suggest, are also a minority.

Hunter et al (1996:11-13) describe archaeologists having to teach forensic examiners how to deal respectfully with human remains. Prior to and during the investigation of a series of murders in North London by Dennis Nilsen in 1983, bodies were excavated on a grid system and bones sorted according to the square they were found in, resulting in much contextual evidence being lost and bones from different bodies being mixed together. Archaeologists contested this approach partly on the loss of contextual evidence but also on the failure to respect the corporeal integrity of the remains. Archaeological approaches to investigating human remains may thus be argued to enhance respect to the dead rather than working counter to it. 115

Contested Heritage In section 7.7.1 I have explained that the coercive element of the Stonehenge reburial campaign appears to violate the value of non-evangelicalism which many Pagan groups claim to espouse (Crowley 1995:23; Harvey 1997:1-2; Moorey 1996:2). I now examine underlying social aspects of this issue more fully in section 8.2.1 and explore how it may be challenged in section 8.3.7.

forward by HAD regarding Lindow Man, one first needs to examine whether human remains such as skeletons, bog bodies and disarticulated bones are perceived as persons outside of museum display. In order to do this I carried out some interviews with a range of people to establish their views on the subject. I found that when asked for a set of criteria to distinguish between persons and objects, almost all participants cited characteristics such as conversation and interaction which, when applied to the dead, would not classify them as persons. Examples from interviewees include: ‘People are animate, things are inanimate’ ‘Knowing someone… imbuing them with feeling (makes them person)’. Kris Hughes, Archdruid of the Anglesey Druid Order, and also an anatomical pathology technologist, wrote ‘A recent corpse has features, wrinkles, a smell, it is normally clothed when it arrives. There is more of the vestige of “Person” about it’ (Hughes 2011). When asked whether ancient human remains in museums constituted persons or objects opinion divided. Those actively involved in contesting display all described them as persons. Few categorised them as objects although some said that disarticulated bones might be considered as such. The majority of interviewees chose to class human remains in a new category not offered as former-persons. On the basis of this an argument may be proposed that museum display may not be considered to depersonalise remains since death has already done this. This argument may carry less weight since most people I have interviewed are not comfortable with considering the remains as objects either. The allegation that display depersonalises remains must therefore be examined. Organisations such as HAD (Carpenter 2008) have argued that displaying human remains alongside the inanimate artefacts of their culture has served to relegate them to the status of just another artefact. However, I would argue that when one meets a living person they are clad in dress which identifies them as individuals and demonstrates personality, affiliation and identity. Restall Orr, in the HAD website, acknowledges that ‘to isolate anything is to deny it its memory, identity and value (HAD et al 2004-2008). Furthermore I argue that to remove the human remains from the artefacts which were and are their cultural context is to strip away much of what individuality remains and may, in extremis, be considered akin to compelling someone to introduce themselves to a stranger unclothed.

7.8. Non-Reburial Challenges Not all campaigners who object to the way human remains have been displayed or archived have demanded reburial. In section 7.7.3 I examined how HAD seemed to have moved away from its position that respect does not automatically equate with reburial (HAD 2012:3). However there has remained the contention that bones, bodies and parts continuing to be displayed should be treated with respect and honour (HAD 2004-2008). These issues have been examined in general terms in section 7.7.3 so I now show how these values are hoped to be implemented in practice. The Lindow Man exhibition case study (Section 7.5.4) demonstrates that HAD representatives were keen to promote a more pluralistic set of interpretations and to provide opportunities to interact with the remains in a spiritual manner as well as in academic or (as some have suggested) voyeuristic ways. HAD have not been the only ones to argue for more respectful display. Hugh Kilminster (2003:65, cited in Jenkins 2011:31) suggests that human remains ought to be displayed in separate sections of museums with subdued lighting to encourage visitors to feel respect for the dead. 7.8.1. Objectification Versus Personhood In their review of the National Museum of Wales Origins Gallery (Carpenter 2008) HAD referred to displays of disarticulated bones as disturbing and dehumanising. In an interview, HAD’s founder, Emma Restall Orr described the display of human remains in museum cases alongside inanimate artefacts to me as dehumanising or objectifying them. Bienkowski (2006) also criticises museum professionals for taking an exclusively materialistic view of human remains. HAD stresses that the remains are treated in exactly the same way as potsherds, brooches, torcs etc and that this is unethical since it denies the personhood of the Ancestors (p.c. Restall Orr 2009). Historic Scotland’s (1997:10-11) guidance on treatment of human remains suggests that remains ought to be kept separate from other finds, suggesting that there is some support for this contention in the archaeological community and that it is being addressed. However, this requirement exempts grave goods which are to be kept with the remains.

7.8.2. Case Studies As Jenkins (2011:15-16) points out, some museum professionals have been pro-active in ensuring that remains are displayed with sensitivity and respect. In this section I shall briefly examine how two museums attempt to employ ethical awareness in their display of human remains: Case Study 1: Dublin Museum

To assess the contention that the museum display of human remains relegates them to the status of objects (Alberti et al 2009:137; Carpenter 2008; HAD et al 2004-2008; HAD 2012), which Jenkins (2011:126) describes as being put

In April 2008, few months before commencing this research I visited the National Museum of Ireland in Dublin where I saw an exhibition entitled ‘Kingship and 116

Contemporary Pagans and Ancestors 7.8.3. Access to remains for ritual

Sacrifice’ which included bog bodies from Clonycavan and Oldcroghan. Much effort had gone into planning the exhibition of these bodies in a respectful way. Each set of remains was displayed in a large glass case at about waist height. The lighting was muted and each case separated from the rest of the exhibition by a spiral wall. Within the walls there were benches to allow visitors to sit with the remains but all the interpretative panels explaining what was known about the remains were posted on the outside with photographs of the remains. The display conformed to Kilminster’s (2003:65) ideas of what constitutes respectful display. It also responded positively to the assertion that display of remains alongside never living artefacts reduces them to objects (Alberti et al 2009:137; Carpenter 2008; HAD 2012).

In the page on reburial in the CoBDO website Maughfling (2009) dismisses the idea that any Pagans or Druids would want to perform ritual with human remains, describing such practices as necromancy and implying that this would be anathema to any Pagan. However, on the HAD website (Graham 2008) and in an interview, Mark Graham described a ritual he performed in a museum involving two prehistoric skulls dredged from a nearby river. Michelle Diedriech, a postgraduate student of archaeology who identifies herself as Pagan argues that curators have an obligation to protect the human remains in their care and that this includes protecting them from being ‘used as totems by people who have no real claim to them’ (Faulkener 2008:42). These remarks demonstrate that whilst some Pagans have sought access to human remains for ritual, others have been adamantly opposed to such access for both ethical and spiritual reasons.

Case Study 2: Bristol Museum In December 2010 I visited the Bristol City Museum and examined how they displayed human remains. I was disappointed to see how little British Archaeology was on display. There was a Romano-British coin hoard and a Bronze Age skeleton that formed the centrepiece of a small stand in an area that seemed to be primarily aimed at younger visitors. The stand highlighted the ethical issues surrounding the display of human remains. It provided points of view from archaeologists, curators and students but not from Druids or Pagans. In another part of the museum an Egyptian skeleton was contained in a darkened box. Visitors were required to press a button first illuminating the text explaining that the box contained the skeleton of a man who died 4,600 years ago and reminding the visitor that bodies were once people and are not scientific specimens before requiring the visitor to decide whether or not to press the button a second time to illuminate the bones themselves. There was also a computer generated interactive display in which the visitor has to decide whether to unwrap or x-ray a mummy. Weeks (2008:49) describes this as ‘striptease’ and remarks that the final frame leaves parts of the body unrevealed ‘out of respect’. I appreciate that it may be seen as respectful to the dead to offer visitors the choice and to make it an informed choice but Jenkins (2011:15-16) argues that it seems worryingly close to propaganda persuading people who may not have thought of remains as requiring this manifestation of respect previously. Weeks (2008:46-49), in her review of the exhibition for the Museums Association journal offers mixed opinions on the display, criticising art installations and describing as daring the willingness to ask questions without providing answers. She provides an assessment which sees the display as thought provoking but does not comment on the possibility that raising awareness of ethical issues to public attention may shape the way visitors may form their opinions regarding the display of human remains.

7.8.4. Respectful Storage It is not only display but also the storage of human remains that has come in for criticism from non-reburial campaigners. A repeated comment from such campaigners is that human remains deserve better then to be stacked in cardboard boxes. Margaret Clegg at the Natural History Museum in London explained that they were in the process of re-boxing their collected remains in plastic boxes. The rhetoric of the reburial lobby has emphasised the use of cardboard for the storage of human remains in museum collections with the implicit value judgement that cardboard is not appropriate as it tends to be used for temporary storage of less important items. However, emerging ecological funeral practices have increasingly used biodegradable materials to make cocoons and caskets for burials from similar materials. There also appears to be a misapprehension that the remains in museums have been stored in whatever cardboard box happens to be available rather than the specially sourced acid free card containers which have been used (see fig. 27). 7.9. Conclusions It has been shown that Pagan contestation of human remains has its roots in the post-colonial contestation of remains in Australia and especially in the United States. I have described how ancestor worship or veneration has been identified by popular authors in some other cultures and how aspects of it it have been incorporated into contemporary Paganism. The case studies of Charlie at Avebury, The Stonehenge Aubrey Hole 7 remains, The Red Lady of Paviland and Lindow Man have demonstrated how remains have been contested and the reasons for this contestation. I have presented an analysis of the Pagan groups involved in contesting human remains concentrating largely on the tactics they have employed: largely discursive in the case of HAD as opposed to confrontational and coercive in the case of LAW. Arguments for reburial have included unprovable

In both these case studies it may be seen that sensitivity relates less to the dead themselves than to the living, since care is taken to ensure that the living do not see the dead without making a specific choice to do so. 117

Contested Heritage assertions about interfering with the afterlife or dissipation of souls but these have become more seldom mentioned by campaigners. Assumptions of differential treatment of Christian remains have have not stood up well to scrutiny since museum collections have included Christian remains and Churchyard clearance has involved insensitive treatment of the dead. However museums do seem to be less willing to display more recent remains. Allegations that display has offended a hypothetical universal standard of what is decent neglects to account for the diversity of human conceptions of appropriate behaviour. Indeed the assertion that display has been disrespectful is not only ethnocentric, bearing in mind the reverential display of saints and political leaders, but may also derive from Roman or Protestant traditions. It can be argued that display has democratised access to the dead and some Pagans have expressed a feeling that being able to visit them in museums has enhanced their spiritual connection to them. It has been argued that reburial demands have constituted a claim for exclusive rights to the dead which would have overridden an inclusive right to visit them. Maintaining collections for research has also facilitated epidemiological research with important implications to the living. Arguments that display of remains alongside material culture has dehumanised them have been refuted by questioning whether skeletons constitute persons and explaining that personhood is largely communicated through material culture. This is by no means a final word on the treatment of human remains and although my own position has become opposed to reburial through this research I acknowledge that some of the arguments in favour of it cannot reasonably be dismissed. The next and final chapter of this book seeks to bring together issues surrounding human remains and those involving sites to provide an explanation of contestation and suggest ways to proceed in the future.

118

8 Understanding and Addressing Contestion 8.1. Introduction

connected and how the two issues have fed into one another. I also identify the unstated underlying attitudes, motivations and agendas that have driven and influenced the contestation of human remains in Britain.

This book aims to provide an explanation of contestation of heritage and archaeology by contemporary Pagan, and especially Druid, groups. It analyses and assesses the arguments put forward by both sides providing supporting or denying evidence where appropriate. As described in section 2.3.5 I opted for a combined literary and ethnographic approach to data collection in order to maintain a relevant and directly sourced dataset. Dialogue based research also provided better access to reasons for contestation and an opportunity to field-test working hypotheses.

I shall begin by examining how contentious the whole notion of heritage is. Pratchett et al (2003:325) argue that humans should be categorised not as Homo Sapiens, the wise man, but rather as Pan Narrans, the storytelling chimpanzee. They argue it is not science, technology nor even abstract thought that separates the human mind from the animal mind but rather the way that humans understand and communicate about the world in stories. Narratives have certainly been an important part of how people construct a sense of identity (Brockmeier & Carbaugh 2001:1-19). This is an observation that has certainly rung true of Pagans and of archaeological and heritage professionals. However, the stories have not always been compatible. In section 6.3.2, I compared museum display of human remains with the display of saintly relics in Catholic churches and suggested that both the church and the museums used remains to promote their worldviews. In section 1.2.2 I described Smith’s (2008:11) explanation that heritage is not a single thing but rather a series of practices. In section 5.1.5, I examined the concept of an Authorised Heritage Discourse presented by Smith (2006:29-34) as a means by which the heritage sector and heritage agencies have controlled the conceptualisation and management of heritage, which appears problematic for me. I explained that Hewison’s (1987:43-45) top down and Urry’s (1990:110) bottom up models for ascribing heritage value, whilst thought provoking, do not reflect the complexity of what I perceive to have been (recently at least) a two-way, almost discursive, construct between managers and consumers with funding bodies sometimes in place of arbiters. Smith (2006:170-171) also recognises that the omission or subordination of ideas and materials relating to political strife, working class narratives and unorthodox interpretations not to have been driven by a conspiracy to suppress them but rather from a desire to avoid contentious areas by focussing on aesthetic rather than identity based materials and avoiding contentious narratives. Lennon (2007) criticises Smith’s ‘arcane’ language but my main worry about Smith’s idea is that I suspect it may continue to be very difficult to protect heritage sites by law or to raise funds to care for them if there is no discourse defining heritage.

Campaigns regarding human remains and those regarding archaeological/sacred sites have been closely related and ought not to be studied in isolation from one another. Reburial activists often speak of returning the dead to their resting places. Indeed the cases of the ‘Red Lady’ and Aubrey hole/Stonehenge Guardians is entirely about place. Perhaps the most important reason sites are considered sacred to Pagans is their association with the Ancestors. In this final chapter I bring together these related fields to examine in more detail how they interact with one another and extrapolate the shared issues affecting these situations. I assess where strategies in avoiding and resolving contestation have worked and failed in the past and examine options for future management of relations between Pagans and archaeological/heritage professionals. I begin by outlining the concerns and agendas presented by both the contemporary Pagan community and the archaeological and heritage professions. I identify where these agendas have harmonised and where they have opposed one another and expose how different epistemologies and worldviews have made agreements harder to negotiate. I show how increasingly broad definitions of stakeholdership in heritage and archaeology have been encouraging previously marginalised groups to feel included. Fundamental issues underlying contemporary Pagan contestation of heritage and archaeology are examined and proposals for better community relations set out and reviewed. I draw out the key issues underpinning both contestation of sites and of human remains to explain the phenomenon of Pagan contestation of heritage and to suggest strategies for resolving it. 8.2. Explaining Contestation

Carman (2005:114), Skeates (2000:9) and Smith (2004:10) all suggest that items, places and practices have been included as heritage because of their significance in the construction of identity. Where individuals and groups have

In this section I examine explanations and understandings of contestation of both sites and of human remains. I demonstrate how intrinsically these issues have been 119

Contested Heritage wider society. In my introduction I described the fear within the Pagan community generated by redtop tabloid exposés and satanic ritual abuse allegations. In chapter 3 I described the suppression of the Stonehenge Free Festival and how New Age Traveller counter-culture conflated with Pagans by many including Kate Fox (2004:388) was violently suppressed by the Thatcher government. Indeed many within the Pagan community acknowledge a significant crossover. I suggest that the more countercultural anarchistic side of Druidry, exemplified by groups like LAW, Stonehenge Druids and CoBDO but not TDN, OBOD and BDO, has represented an important part of the spiritual side of what remained of the New Age Traveller movement. Through these narratives of oppression a victim mentality may be said to exist within the contemporary Pagan movement and especially within the more anarchistic and counter-cultural side of it. The confidence with which young Pagans at the University of Wales: Trinity Saint David practise their spirituality and reports in the press of Pagan police officers being granted leave to celebrate seasonal rituals etc (Phillips 2010) demonstrates that while there may have been some justification for a victim mentality in the 1980s and 1990s there has been little justification for it by the second decade of the 21st century. The incident at Stonehenge where a young woman invited me to ‘Fuck Off’ (see section 2.7.1) as well as other stories told to me by research contributors demonstrate that there are still some who have been left with deep psychological or social scars by the events of the 1980s and 1990s. However, there have been those in the Pagan community who argued that whatever the rights and wrongs of the past, it is more important to move on and build for the future. In the words of Nick Ford (p.c. 2009), a respected Polytheist, Pagan theologian, ‘This victim mentality makes me want to spit’.

constructed their identity in opposition to the mainstream it should not be surprising that interpretations have been contested. However, Smith & Waterton (2012:155-166), Skeates (2000:118-124) and Tarlow (2001:58-59) suggest that inclusivity must be an essential part of the role of an archaeological/heritage professional in the 21st century and Bienkowski (2013:48) records that minority groups now expect to have their narratives included in the heritage representation of the past. He therefore argues that Pagan narratives should no more be excluded than those of ethnic minorities (Bienkowski 2013:50). 8.2.1. Pagan Assumptions, Attitudes and Agendas In section 1.2.1 I explained that many contemporary Pagans have seen themselves, with some justification (Hutton 2001:328; Pagan Federation 1996:7; Worthington 2005a:130), as an oppressed and victimised minority. It should therefore be no surprise that an important part of many Pagans’ agendas has been for their beliefs and practices to be afforded the same respect and consideration as other religions and spiritualities (Davies 1998:12; Pendragon & Stone 2003:106; Somers & Pendragon 2010:4). However, as shown in section 7.7.3, many Pagan assumptions regarding respectful treatment of the Christian dead turned out to be inaccurate. I am sceptical of Jenkins’s (2011:80) claim that that not all Pagans have an interest in the ancient past since I have yet to find a Pagan who claims to have no such interest. Indeed I have met several Pagans working in the archaeology sector. These Pagan archaeologists have tended to be fairly closeted about their spirituality in their workplaces. Two (anonymous) interviewees told me that they will sometimes talk about such matters with colleagues they have formed close friendships with but another specifically stated that she feared that if she was outed, she would be discriminated against in the archaeological and academic world.

Archaeological Complicity in Suppression In 1985 English Heritage and the National Trust, with government help, suppressed the Stonehenge Free Festival (detailed in section 3.3.5). Archaeologists, led by Glyn Daniel (then editor of the influential journal Antiquity), had been calling for the Druids to be banned from the site (Daniel 1992:28, 51, 59, 126, 173). Indeed in the decade and a half following the suppression of the Festival everyone was excluded from the monument at the Summer Solstice. Archaeologists ignored police violence, with Daniel (1992:178) describing the Solstice of 1985 thus “the pop festival desecrators were routed and the Midsummer Solstice passed off without any undue incident”. Bender (1998:121) records that archaeologists who had demanded Festival-goers be banned from the land surrounding Stonehenge lest they dig holes and damage the archaeological record did not object to police digging a trench to prevent access to that same area. I have not found these particular events to be widely known in the Pagan community but I have encountered scathing opinions of archaeologists among some Pagans especially on the more counter-cultural wing as described in section 8.2.1.

Underlying Motivations for Pagan Contestation of Remains One important aim of this book is to enhance understanding of the underlying motivations for issues of contention which took place between the contemporary Pagan community and the archaeological/heritage profession in the 1990s and the first decade and a half of the 21st century. In sections 3.5, 4.4, 5.3 and 5.4 the stated reasons why Pagans have contested sites and in sections 7.7 and 7.8 the reasons for contesting human remains have been investigated. In this section I identify and bring together other more fundamental beliefs, ideals, narratives and attitudes which have contributed to the Pagan contestation of heritage. The human remains issue has drawn out some significant causes for poor relationships between Pagans and archaeological/heritage professionals. As with the contestation of human remains in the USA and Australia an important motivating factor has been the struggle for equal rights and recognition in 120

Understanding and Addressing Contestion Asserting Equal Rights

some Pagans that archaeologists and museum professionals failed to respect the dead.

Notwithstanding the improvements in public perception of Pagans since the 1980s and 90s, I have witnessed a perception among Pagans that they are still routinely discriminated against. Arguments that Christians would not have been excluded from cathedrals in the way that Pagans were excluded from Stonehenge (Pendragon & Stone 2003:106-8) and the assumption that all Christian remains were reburied while pre-Christian ones were not (Davies 1998:12; Shallcrass 2004:28-29 examined in detail in section 7.7.3) have provided an emotional boost to campaigners who have used them to promote the righteousness of their cause.

Control of Identity American Indian and Australian Aboriginal contestation of human remains and sacred sites has been explained as being partially driven by a desire to feel in control of defining and explaining their own identity rather than having it taught to them by outsiders with their own agendas. In the course of researching this book, I did not find any Pagan activists who explained their contestation in precisely these terms but aspects of reburial discourse, e.g. the description of prehistoric funerary archaeology by Davies (1997:12) as ‘desecration of Druidic cultural heritage’, along with aspirations by some Druids to take control of Stonehenge (Cooper 2010:153) have suggested this may be a factor.

Anti-Intellectualism and Conflicting Worldviews Throughout fieldwork with Pagans I felt the need to avoid being seen as part of a sceptical mainstream in order to elicit relaxed and honest responses from my contributors. Schadla-Hall (2004:262) understandably expresses a frustration with conspiracy theorists who hold that archaeologists (among others) are withholding evidence from people. Vivianne Crowley (1995:23) admits that Paganism has been ‘at times anti-intellectual’. In my own fieldwork, I found an example of scepticism towards the ‘academic establishment’ at the Pagan Federation Wales and West Summer camp in Pembrokeshire (11-13 Sep 2009) where an interviewee spoke scathingly about archaeologists accusing them of covering up evidence including 20ft tall skeletons. Maughfling (2000a:4) characterises Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection as denying ‘our divine origins as human beings’. I suggest that this anti-intellectualism and the affinity Pagans feel with pre-Christian people are both important factors in dissatisfaction with remains being kept and used by archaeological and heritage professionals who have ridiculed their beliefs (see section 8.2.2 for examples).

A Pagan Absolutism? In section 7.7.1 I identified the coercive aspect of the legal action over the Stonehenge human remains and the rhetoric employed by Davies (1997; 1998) as falling into a fundamentalist or, more accurately, absolutist mode. I explained that this kind of ideology, if identified as such, would be unpalatable to most Pagans. Nagata (2001:487-489) and Partridge (2002:20) point out that the term ‘fundamentalist’ is used in the abjection of others but it has been my experience that religious extremists have seldom been challenged and marginalised within their communities in the same way that political extremists have been. I have observed what looked like a grudging respect among mainstream and more liberal adherents that the extremists have in some way been more true to who they are. The liberals have appeared to feel like backsliders in comparison (Barr 1977:103). This hypothesis is, at present largely anecdotally founded and I would welcome further research into the idea.

Anti-intellectualism surrounding the issue of human remains may have been influenced by the strong emotions associated with death, which Metcalf & Huntington (1991:43) point out, are often difficult and painful to endure. Thus it is that many British people have sought to distance themselves from death or at least to compartmentalise it and restrict death and the dead to specific geographical and cognitive spaces (Fox 2004:374; Hockey 1990:29; Parker Pearson 1982:110-112; Rapport 2002:310). Mortuary technicians and undertakers have therefore been left to work somewhat out of the spotlight. This has permitted them to develop, and incorporate into working practices, coping strategies which others are unlikely to understand (Williams 2010:19). When the public gaze is turned upon those who deal with death and the dead, there is scope for coping strategies, especially those involving humour, to be misunderstood and consequently for a practitioner’s professionalism to be brought into question largely on the basis of what amounts to a cultural misunderstanding (e.g. Fox 2004:375; Williams 2010:117). This lack of understanding may have been a factor in assumptions by

I found that several interviewees felt that while Pendragon’s campaigns for access to Stonehenge have been in support of people’s freedom, the campaign to take human remains off display has sought to restrict freedom in a way which runs counter to the intrinsic pluralism of contemporary Paganism mentioned in section 7.7.1. Pendragon (2011b) has deplored the propensity of some to say that someone ‘can’t possibly be a Pagan or a Druid with a view like that’ but has also described, on the same web page, his opponents as not being proper Pagans. Somers & Pendragon (2011) also criticised HAD for failing to actively support their tactics at Stonehenge. In sections 7.7 and 7.8 I showed that there has been much ignorance and misinformation among reburial campaigners. It is also worth considering that while there may be, as Winter (1984:126) says of American Indian campaigners, some who are ‘insincere and selfaggrandising’, most campaigners have been sincere in their motivations even if not fully informed. 121

Contested Heritage 8.2.2. Archaeological and Heritage Assumptions, Attitudes and Agendas

taking such groups seriously. Daniel (1992:28, 51, 59, 126, 173) continued a vociferous campaign from the 1950s to the 1980s to exclude contemporary Druids from Stonehenge presenting arguments taken up by Mason & Kuo (2006:184-185) and Schadla-Hall (2004:268). Doeser (2007:24) criticises Druidry as an ‘invented tradition’ and Sayer (2009:199) dismisses Paganism as being ‘as much a lifestyle decision or a vehicle for political protest as it is a belief’. All archaeologists and heritage professionals interviewed in the field research for this book were keen to speak in an inclusive way but in several cases slight slips in intonation and facial expression when I first mentioned Pagan groups suggested that they did not take them seriously or harboured prejudices they were unwilling to articulate.

Smith (2006:299) critiques the representation of heritage describing an Authorized Heritage Discourse (AHD) (described in detail in section 5.1.5) which, she states, emphasises ‘the grand narratives of Western national and elite class experiences’. This in turn suggests a bourgeois conservative conspiracy to suppress working class, minority, foreign and other perspectives. I would certainly support the contention that there has been a bias in favour of such interpretations but I would argue that it has not been organized or even conscious but rather a product of the large proportion of middle class white males with Western education employed in creating heritage narratives and choosing which narratives are presented to the public. I would also argue (especially after visiting sites such as the Black Country Living Museum and Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery) that this bias is being addressed. I believe the criticisms of Skeates (2000) Carman (2005), Smith (2004, 2006) and Bender (1998), to name but four, have encouraged and inspired heritage managers to be increasingly reflexive and heterodox in their interpretation and decision making. I suggest that this process is likely to increase as larger numbers of women, working class people and members of immigrant communities find employment in the heritage sector and become decision makers. I have yet to see contemporary Pagan narratives included in all but a very few of the interpretative media at the sites they consider most important. However, the public recognition of their sanctity (e.g. figs. 12 & 16) represents progress in this direction.

Low Value Attribution to Contemporary Paganism Coleman (2013:167-169) points out that archaeologists have perceived Pagan and New Age values and beliefs as beeing of intrinsically less social value than those of the mainstream religions. She cites the philosophers Fisher and Ramsay (2000:162-163) who suggest that charitable works done by large religions entitles them to be taken seriously to the exclusion of smaller and less wealthy religious organisations. This view may be challenged not merely on the basis of relative ability of the organisations concerned but also on the relative harm they have inflicted on society. Hitchens (2007:173-193) catalogues various violations of human rights and appalling ethical transgressions by large, well-established religious organisations, while Tanya Gold (2010:5), a reporter, describes Pagan witchcraft as being ‘most benign’. To judge the relative merits of world religions versus contemporary Paganism would take a sizeable book in itself and may be considered a problematic exercise since it implicitly passes judgement on whole identity groups. It is also important to remember that the universal declaration of human rights article 18 includes ‘freedom, either alone or in community with others, and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance’ (Blackburn 2003:121). Indeed the IfA (2010:2) code of conduct requires members to ‘take account of the legitimate concerns of groups whose material past may be the subject of archaeological investigation’ and the Vermillion Accord requires archaeologists to ‘acknowledge and recognise indigenous methodologies for interpreting, curating, managing and protecting indigenous cultural heritage’ and to ‘establish equitable partnerships and relationships between Members and indigenous peoples whose cultural heritage is being investigated’. Many Pagan interviewees stated that they did not see themselves as sole, or even most privileged heirs or descendants of prehistoric Britons but increasingly heritage managers (e.g. Payne p.c. 2009) and archaeologists (e.g. Ayers p.c. 2009) have recognised a wide range of stakeholdership to whom similar consideration might be afforded wherever possible.

Underlying Attitudes of Archaeologists and Heritage Professionals The archaeologists and heritage workers I encountered in the course of this research proved to be a diverse community of people with a wide variety of opinions. I have certainly met several archaeologists and heritage professionals who follow a Pagan spirituality. However, the hegemonic mainstreams of both contract and academic archaeology have promoted an exclusively scientific epistemology with little, if any, space for unquantifiable, unverifiable hypotheses such as the subtle earth energies and advanced ancient civilisations put forward in Earth Mysteries, alternative archaeology and some Pagan worldviews (Schadla Hall 2004, Stout 2006). In section 8.2.4 I revisit in greater detail how the different epistemologies of contemporary Paganism and archaeology influence their interactions and in sections 8.3.5 to 8.3.8 I shall examine how these issues might be addressed. During the 1990s, a friend who was a contract archaeologist with the Museum of London Archaeological Service (MoLAS) told me he viewed my Pagan spirituality as ridiculous and founded on lies and half-truths. He explained that as a professional archaeologist with a good knowledge of the past he had severe difficulty

122

Understanding and Addressing Contestion Archaeological and Heritage Agendas

be able to contribute ideas valuable to archaeological interpretations of sacred sites. Following the postprocessual fashion for hermeneutic phenomenology, Stout (2006:32) asserts that Sebastion’s contention has been echoed by Bender in that Pagan polytheistic, pantheistic and animistic worldviews may cause them to interact with the landscape and with monuments in a way somewhat more analogous to ancient Britons than that of other members of contemporary British society.

Aside from the debates about AHD and inclusion, there have been other agendas within the archaeological and heritage sector. Perhaps the most fundamental of these is funding. I consider it likely that most Pagan activists have significantly overestimated the funding available to archaeologists and heritage organisations. I have already mentioned the limited government funding heritage quangos have received (English Heritage ndf) but successive governments have pushed for such organisations to be increasingly selffinancing (BBC News 2012b). The preservation ethos of heritage is echoed by archaeologists who have been keen to maintain what has been seen as a non-renewable resource (Skeates 2000:62) for future generations of archaeologists and the general public. This in turn has been an aspect of a broader desire to maintain or increase the availability of archaeological research material which has included both sites and human remains (Ambrose & Paine 1993:156; Skeates 2000:109). Finally, it bears reiteration that both archaeologists and heritage professionals have seen it as a professional duty to disseminate factual information and accurate interpretations of evidence as widely as possible whilst challenging what they see as misinformation (e.g. Schadla-Hall 2004:255, 264-265, 269).

In section 5.4.3 I described Carman’s (2005:120) suggestion that heritage assets might be classified as non-property. I agree that such a model would eliminate exclusion of current stakeholders. He suggests that unrestricted access will result in either monuments being damaged and destroyed or being protected by universal recognition of their social value (Carman 2005:120). Greater access and an increased sense of shared stakeholdership would, almost certainly, enhance the experience and enjoyment of such sites and greater recognition of the social value of heritage ought to be a primary aim of archaeology and heritage management. However, I argue that an expectation of universal respect of sites might be overoptimistic, especially in the light of damage done to accessible sites like Avebury (Bender 1998:187-8; Blain & Wallis 2007:55; Green 1997:178). Thus I suggest that while a non-property model for heritage assets might democratise access for current stakeholders it risks exclusion of stakeholders as yet unborn through attrition, erosion or abrasion over time as explained in section 4.1.1.

8.2.3. Common Ground Whilst there have undeniably been differences in values, aims and priorities between Pagans and members of the archaeological and heritage professions, there have also been important areas of agreement.

8.2.4. Consequences of Assumptions, Attitudes and Agendas

Preservation and Stewardship

Disparaging remarks from archaeologists and heritage professionals have inevitably damaged relations with the Pagan community. Investigations such as the MacPherson report (1998) demonstrate that even if prejudice and dismissal are kept out of overt or public discourse, their presence will shape how people interact with one another. I argue that unless such attitudes, present and past, are challenged and questioned, an atmosphere of distrust and hostility will continue to affect interactions between archaeological/heritage professionals and Pagans.

In section 4.1.1 I cited a proverb popular with Pagans, ‘We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children’ (See Quote Investigator 2013 for its origins). When applied to sacred/heritage sites it would seem to be equally appropriate to heritage and archaeological values. As a principle it may be less applicable to human remains, at least to those Pagans who see decay as an essential part of the human journey, but others would approve of the application. Pagans want to be able to use sacred sites as seen in chapter 3 but also to protect them for future generations as seen in chapter 4.

Complicating Factors

Increasing Understanding and Valuing the Past

There are other issues which have served to either exacerbate the effect of these assumptions, attitudes and agendas on contestation of heritage or to make it harder to reach common understandings. I have identified these issues as: the different epistemologies and the different aims and priorities of Pagan activists and archaeological/ heritage professionals.

Pagan opinion on human remains is more equivocal than that on sites. If social networking pages are truly indicative (section 7.6.5) then a readily apparent majority of Pagans opposing reburial observed early in the research process has given way to a more equal division between those supporting and those opposing. However, few seem to oppose all archaeological examination of ancient human remains so there is at least agreement that there is value in the knowledge that can be gathered from examining remains. Sebastion (2001:126) argues that Pagans may

Different Epistemologies Bienkowski (2013:43) describes ‘different concepts of the past and how it can be known’, Hutton (2006:247)

123

Contested Heritage describes a different idiom of academic and Pagan writing and Stout (2006:30-31) explains conflict between archaeological orthodoxy and Earth Mysteries as deriving from the lack of a common frame of reference or common language known as incommensurability. He explains that the epistemic rules for each are different and if this is true of archaeology and Earth Mysteries then it is certainly true of archaeology and contemporary Paganism. Occultist Dion Fortune (1987:14) expresses this disparity in fundamental epistemology thus: ‘Natural science lays its evidence before the five physical senses possessed by every normal human being; occult science makes its appeal to the judgement of senses but rarely to be found developed in human beings… The Philistine is unapproachable because there is no common standpoint from which a start can be made’. This apparently suggests that occultists, and by extension many Pagans, have additional sense abilities that others do not possess. A common response might be to invite people claiming such abilities to prove them and to remain sceptical in the absence of acceptable proof. Archaeology as an academic discipline, albeit not a ‘hard’ science, aims to build knowledge using an epistemology of doubt rather than faith based on the scientific method of hypothesis tested by verifiable, reproducible experiment (Hitchens 2007:10-11; Rahtz 1991:10). Tarlow (2006:206207) points out the issue of incommensurability with regard to contestation of human remains by indigenous groups and Roberts (1979:51) acknowledges that ‘resolution of a dispute may be hampered by the absence of shared values’ so incommensurability is an important obstacle to deal with if contestation is to be addressed.

2012) and even some of LAW’s material (Pendragon 2011a, 2011b) shows that Pagan groups have been keen to venerate the Ancestors and that learning about them has been an important part of this. I have found no evidence to suggest that archaeologists and museum curators are inclined to disrespect the dead and several anecdotes to suggest that they maintain a highly respectful attitude (see section 6.3.2). 8.3. Addressing Contestation In this section I make suggestions on how heritage professionals and archaeologists might address contestation in such a way as to promote a more harmonious relationship between themselves and the Pagan activists who also constitute a small percentage of heritage consumers. 8.3.1. Ignoring Campaigners The schismatic nature and disunity of the Pagan community (Pizza 2009:248) may have suggested waiting until they gave up or until a more tractable group or leader emerged but this would have been to ignore the strength of an underlying unity transcending Pagan diversity and dispersal provided, in part at least, by the narratives of oppression and victimisation (see section 1.2.1). The longevity of the campaign for access at Stonehenge (see sections 3.3.5 and 3.3.5) should have left no-one in any doubt that Pagan campaigners are not insincere publicity seekers who would melt away if rebuffed for long enough. Indeed the extent to which narratives of oppression have remained important should demonstrate that denigration of Paganism and denial of consideration afforded to other religious and spiritual groups only encouraged campaigns for what many Pagans see as equal rights (Davies 1998:12; Pendragon & Stone 2003:106; Somers & Pendragon 2010:4).

The social theorist Seidman (2004:202) wrote ‘Postmodern thinkers are heirs to the enlightenment, but critical heirs’. Put another way, the whole basis of the academic and scientific approach is to take nothing for granted, to question everything and to keep on asking questions and challenging assumptions. To some extent at least Pagan challenges and contestation have done this with regard to Smith’s (2006:29-34) authorised heritage discourse. Therefore it may be worth considering that the ‘heritage and archaeological establishment’ could profit by listening to and engaging in dialogue and debate with Pagans rather than dismissing their ideas out of hand.

8.3.2. Challenging Assumptions and Respecting Identity Blain and Wallis (2007:211) point out that Pagans have been regarded with disdain and described in mocking terms by archaeologists. The way in which we communicate with one another both verbally and in writing can have a serious impact on the effectiveness of communication and on how emotional reactions are generated and managed. Skeates (2000:69-70) refers to the protestors at Seahenge/ Holme as ‘New Age religious groups and local people’ and as ‘a New Age alliance of Druids, neo-pagans and ecowarriors’. In section 1.2.1 I pointed out that many Pagans, especially those more reconstructionist than eclectic, have considered themselves separate from New Agers and some have used the term pejoratively. Likewise Aburrow (2008a) refers to the term ‘neo-pagan’ as problematic since this too has pejorative implications to many Pagans. When archaeologists and heritage professionals address Pagans these terms should be avoided. It is also worth noting that HAD (2012:2-3) have been keen to contest the use of terms including remains and reburial. In section 8.2.4 I drew upon problems with racism in policing to assert that

Divergent Aims, Divergent Priorities Both archaeological/heritage professionals and Pagans are keen to preserve sacred/heritage sites for generations yet to come. Both sides want people to be able to visit and enjoy the sites, albeit often in slightly different ways. At least some of the aims converge but the priorities are different. To some Pagan campaigners the desire to use the sites for the performance of ritual outweighs the desire to preserve them with minimal degradation. In the case of ancient bodies and body parts the aims, at first, seem contradictory: reburial versus research. However, engagement with material from Pagans for Archaeology (Aburrow 2008b, 2008c), HAD (2004-2008, 124

Understanding and Addressing Contestion even unstated prejudices would affect interactions between groups. Blain and Wallis (2007:212-213) suggest that meaningful dialogue is the best way to overcome prejudice and this needs to be borne in mind by Pagan activists and archaeological/heritage professionals alike. This book is intended to provide understanding of contestation and its reasons for both sides as a basis for such a dialogue.

subordination and exclusion. Some displays, e.g. Seahenge at Kings Lynn (section 4.3.1), Manchester’s display of Lindow Man (section 7.5.4) and Bristol’s human remains (section 7.8.2) have included alternative narratives and Carman (2005:86-99) describes approaches such as collaborative and democratic archaeologies being put into practice (see also McDavid 2000:221-239, 2002:303-314, 2009:217-234). Nevertheless, I argue that this practice needs to be more widespread.

8.3.3. Addressing Contestation of Sites In chapters 3, 4 and 5, I chose to present issues surrounding sites under the broad headings of access, preservation and interpretation, representation & ownership. In discussing how best to mitigate contestion of sites I present my findings in the two dimensions of stakeholdership and polyvocality.

McGhee (2008:580) argues that ‘if archaeologists choose not to base their interpretations of the past on the basis of oral tradition, religious faith or on the imaginative use of other forms of information, they should have no part in denying others the right to do so’. Conversely SchadlaHall (2004:255-271) identifies cases where alternative narratives of the past have been used to support political and religious extremism. In section 5.3 I recorded that Carman (2005:86-99) describes approaches by archaeologists including Coleman (2013:156-175), Davidson (1995:35), McDavid (2002:310-312, 2009:217-234) O’Regan (1994:95-106) and Watkins (2012:663) to incorporate a variety of narratives into their interpretative work. I argue that alternative narratives and interpretations are of interest to museum and heritage visitors because of their relevance to the diversity of human cultural expression and that therefore they should be included as examples of beliefs surrounding the remains, sites or artefacts being displayed. I would certainly not support the presentation of unlikely interpretations as fact but unless there is demonstrable likelihood of harm being generated by their inclusion they ought not to be excluded on principle.

Stakeholdership When I interviewed him, Payne (p.c. 2009) explained that he felt heritage and human remains are the province of everyone and ought to be managed for all regardless of ethnicity, spirituality or even levels of interest. He explained that English Heritage wished to promote inclusive rights of all to access information on the past rather than exclusive rights restricting other people’s ability to do so. As mentioned in section 8.2.2, Heritage managers and archaeologists, e.g. Payne (p.c. 2009) and Ayers (p.c. 2009), have increasingly recognised a breadth of stakeholdership that previous generations such as Glyn Daniel appear not to have considered. When interviewed, Payne explained that he saw prehistoric human remains as being of interest and concern not only to all people in Britain but to everyone in the world. Ayers (p.c. 2009) stated that whoever considers themselves to be stakeholders ought to be treated as such but also appeared to doubt that all who claimed to be so really were stakeholders. Payne’s (p.c. 2009) assertion of universal stakeholdership in heritage is in keeping with Merriman’s (1991:1) idea of the past as property of all. He presented the denial of the Avebury reburial request as defending the inclusive rights of all stakeholders against claims of exclusive rights by pressure groups; however, Carman (2005:46) problematises this view on the basis that not everyone is interested in preserving the past. Can it be argued that disinterested parties may be said to have given up their stake? In many democratic states those who choose not to vote may be considered to have waived their right to decide although they are not denied the vote in subsequent elections. The Avebury consultation demonstrated that people who had not become actively involved in the debate still had an opinion on the issue. Campaigning may be seen as a means of widening stakeholdership.

8.3.4. Addressing Contestation of Human Remains Bar-Tel and Bennink (2004:12) suggest that agreements made by leaders often fail to address conflict due to the fact that their community members continue to hold antagonistic worldviews and are hence unwilling to support compromises. I argue that where aims and/or desires are diametrically opposed and no middle ground compromise position will be supported, as between those reburial campaigners who view any disturbance of remains as sacrilegious and the biological anthropologists and osteoarchaeologists who contend that research is socially beneficial and requires freedom to excavate, analyse and curate remains, the only way forward may be to help the more moderate people on both sides to win the more extreme over to their view. Bar-Tal and Bennink (2004:14) recognise that where external opinion perceives one side in a conflict to have been more at fault or more complicit in injustice than the other special steps, such as apologies or reparations may be required.

Polyvocality in Archaeological interpretations

What Archaeologists and Museum Professionals Can Do

In section 5.2.3 I presented Smith & Waterton’s (2012:159) assertion that omission of narratives in the interpretation of heritage has served to marginalise or exclude people and that this is not trivial and ties in with broader social

As stated in section 8.3.3 above presentation of heritage has become increasingly inclusive but, for the most part, mainly within limits proscribed by an academic/scientific worldview. Discourses opposed to including alternative 125

Contested Heritage archaeologies, such as Schadla-Hall (2004:256-257, 264-267, 269), seem to suggest that such a worldview is objective and that inclusion of other interpretations supports absolutist stances. However I argue that this is an absolutist position in itself and that pluralism of perspectives is intrinsically anti-absolutist. Furthermore the large scale public interest in non-mainstream cultures, both as participants (see section 1.2) and observers (if in doubt a brief examination of television and radio programming not to mention adverts for adventure tourism in magazines will indicate this) shows that the cultural narratives and recent social histories surrounding ancient monuments and human remains would be of interest to the public at large.

in their reburial campaigns are, in my opinion, entirely counter to the pluralism of Paganism and are counterproductive in forging the alliances necessary to effect changes.

Display of human remains is likely to remain a contentious and sensitive issue. However I believe at least some Pagan campaigners will be satisfied to see those remains on display humanised by provision of the most detailed narratives possible. Efforts have been made to do this by including details (regarding diet, health etc.) regarding the skeletons at the new Stonehenge visitors centre. However this is presented as a series of dry facts rather than a narrative. I would urge display designers to be willing to speculate somewhat but to be honest about what is speculation and what is fact. I very much doubt there are any ‘once and for all’ solutions to contestation so a continuing strategy of listening to concerns and engaging in dialogue will remain essential.

I suspect writers like Schadla-Hall (2004) and Daniel1 (1992:25, 28, 34, 42, 51, 59, 126, 130, 173) who have challenged beliefs they perceive as irrational may have assumed that scientific rationality has become or is becoming a core value in mainstream British culture. Writing in 2012-15 I contended that this was by no means certain and that the communications revolution, with the internet at its heart, was rapidly making the whole notion of a cultural mainstream obsolete. Instead I suggested Britain was becoming a society of fractured subcultural groups with disparate values and beliefs. Ideas, which would have been almost universally ridiculed a few years ago, have found support within online groups. Writing in 2020 we have seen “post-truth” societies driven by “fake news” and “alternative facts” become widespread. In section 8.3.4 I cited Sperber’s (1994:40) assertion that perceptions of irrationality are generally based on sometimes small differences in fundamental assumptions or beliefs which underlie an equally logical extrapolation leading to widely divergent worldviews.

Pagans working in archaeology and heritage have appeared in the archaeological press (e.g. Diedrich cited in Faulkener 2008:42) but few have published critiques of reburial activism in the Pagan press. I hope groups like Pagans for Archaeology and individuals holding similar views will be encouraged to be more vocal in countering fallacies and communicating accurate information. 8.3.5. Finding a Balance

What Pagans Can Do This book has shown that some Pagan assumptions are fallacious. Heritage agencies have sometimes been caught between other interest groups opposed to Pagan access to sites and the pilgrims who wish to visit them as at Avebury (section 3.4.4) and Glastonbury (section 5.2.1). Human remains identified as Christian are not always treated sensitively and are certainly not always reburied (section 7.7.3). There is certainly much more diversity in the way bones and bodies have routinely been treated than some campaigners seem to realise. Indeed bearing in mind bones and bodies on display at places including Douamont and Sedlec Ossuaries, Lenin’s Tomb and in Catholic reliquaries assertions that museum display of the dead transgresses a supposed common human standard of decency seems absurdly ethnocentric. Over a third of people who die in the UK at the time of writing are subject to a post-mortem in which skulls and rib cages are sawn open and internal organs examined before bodies are buried. Graves have often been re-used after a period in which the bones may not have decayed away. In such instances, old bones have been scattered over the floor of the new grave. The assumption that the dead are always left in one place to decay in peace is simply not true.

How then should archaeologists and heritage professionals reach out to those who share an interest in their area of study but may not share the scepticisms of the academic and scientific establishment? One issue to be mindful of is: much heritage and academic archaeology is supported from the public purse (e.g. English Heritage ndf; HEFCE nd) and therefore I believe archaeologists and heritage professionals have a duty of service to the public as a whole. I contend that an important part of this duty is to communicate discoveries and ideas to the public in terms they can understand. Thus it is an essential duty to overcome the barrier of incommensurability and to adjust and adapt published output accordingly. I am not suggesting that scepticism should be compromised but rather that the reasoning behind it is explained and/ or justified in everyday terms and, as far as practicable, within the thought structures of the target audience. 8.3.6. Negotiation, Truth and Reconciliation English Heritage has been held up as a target for particular bitterness being nicknamed ‘English Heretics’ by several

Pagans might be better served to avoid thinking in an absolutist countercultural way that all of ‘the establishment’ is against them and entirely self-serving. This abjection of this other and the coercive tactics employed by LAW

1

126

Admittedly Daniel was writing between 1958 and 1985

Understanding and Addressing Contestion interviewees and the Loyal Arthurian Warband (2009). Roberts (1979:72-79) offers the following models of negotiation: bilateral, mediated and umpired. There have been strong feelings involved in contestation of heritage but face-to-face meetings have always been feasible even without a mediator as go-between. Direct bilateral negotiations may risk parties walking out or attempting to dominate proceedings. Roberts (1979:77) differentiates between a mediator and an umpire describing the former as being involved in decision-making and the latter as leaving decisions to the parties involved. Since the levels of distrust, especially among some Pagans, have been high, a mediator sufficiently trusted by all interested parties may be hard to find. Perhaps an umpire, respected by both sides, possibly drawn from the legal profession or perhaps an academic respected by all interested parties might be found. Another way in which the archaeological/heritage community in general and English Heritage in particular might attempt to address the legacy of bitterness could be to include Pagan narratives alongside the archaeological narratives at sites like Stonehenge and Avebury. These would work best in the form of social histories of how these sites have been envisioned, used and contested in recent decades.

founded for has been achieved. This ephemerality has not always applied to Pagan groups. LAW in particular (not withstanding their recent silence) for many years moved from one campaign to the next, retaining a high degree of cohesion. The enthusiasm of many Pagans for archaeology suggests that Pagans for Archaeology (See sections 7.6.5 and 8.3.3) or something similar is likely to re-emerge in the event of other Pagans actively opposing the way archaeology is conducted. In section 7.7.1 I described the importance of gnosis, epiphany or revelation to some Pagans (Filan & Kaldera 2013:9-29; Van Gulik 2009:12, 14). I explained how gnoses are classified according to reliability or confirmation. Ford (p.c. 2010) suggested that the best way to engage with problematic revelations and their proponents is to engage them in a Socratic dialogue to bring out possible preconceptions and problematic consequences of the revelation. Divergent Druidries Pizza (2009:248) shows that Pagan groups have also been at least as schismatic as any other form of religion or spirituality. In section 1.2.1 I have argued that British contemporary Pagans may be situated within a spectrum between reconstructionism and eclecticism. Reconstructionists have attempted to reconstruct or reinterpret pagan religions of antiquity for the contemporary age using historical and archaeological sources while eclectics have been more likely to adopt a more generic Pagan set of beliefs and practices with elements added to, and borrowed from, a variety of sources not necessarily related to one another (Aburrow 2008a, Blain 2004:221; Bonewits 2006:304-305; Filan & Kaldera 2013:162-168). I have also argued that a spectrum can be plotted between integrated or less counter-cultural Druid orders like TDN, BDO and OBOD and more counter-cultural Druid orders like LAW, GOD and Stonehenge Druids. The former have tended to concentrate on spirituality more than politics and have been more likely to appeal to members who have positively participated in many aspects of mainstream society (e.g. holding regular paid employment and owning or renting homes) while the latter have prioritised political activity more and have had a significant proportion of members who have been so averse to capitalist economics that they have been disinclined to be in regular paid employment and have idealised a nomadic existence. Much of the more confrontational protest about archaeology has been led by this latter group, proponents of what Shallcrass (p.c. 2011) describes as angry political Druidry. Ivakhiv (2001:87-92) writes about anarchistic New Age Travellers deliberately constructing their identity and appearance to offend conservative values by wearing dirty, damaged clothing and cultivating body odour. This mode of appearance has not been uncommon among these Druids and their followers. Merriman (1991:100) records that some people have seen archaeology as ‘a luxury, leisure pursuit for the cultivated’ perhaps a bourgeois way of looking at the past. Many of the more politically

In South Africa, after decades of violence, the minority white apartheid regime came to an end but feelings of resentment and calls for vengeance remained. This was addressed by a ‘Truth and Reconciliation Commission’, tasked with revealing human rights violations by all parties, exposing the reasons for these behaviours and granting amnesty for the offences admitted to (Gibson 2006:410412). Gibson (2006:410) also records that this process has been seen as particularly effective and been employed in other post-conflict situations worldwide. The lessons from this process which may be applied to contestation between archaeological/heritage professionals and Pagans might include acknowledgement of the exclusion from Stonehenge and ethical problems associated with it. Wallis (2003:162) and Coleman (2013:163) record the formation of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Stonehenge but the group’s online records reveal minimal engagement from heritage organisations and government agencies and no evidence of activity more recent than 2004 (Stonehenge Peace Process nd). I suggest that engagement with such groups is far more likely to defuse tensions than to inflame them. Inclusion of Pagan narratives, especially recent social histories relating to Stonehenge, is also likely to improve relations. 8.3.7. Opposition to Contestation Within the Pagan Community By 2020 the contestation of human remains, and to some extent sites too had become quieter. Groups like PfA and Dead to Rights had faded into digital history. Even LAW appeared to have faded into the background. Lewellen (1992:119) points out that conflict tends to give rise to factions but his characterisation of factions as informal, spontaneous and disbanding when the purpose they were 127

Contested Heritage active and counter-cultural Druids have seen themselves as ideologically opposed to this sector of society.

operating. Therefore, I contend that the best way to address contestation of heritage is continuous engagement and respectful discourse between all interested parties.

Many Pagans came to Paganism, at least partially, through dissatisfaction with religious dogma which could not evolve to cope with changes in the ethical zeitgeist of contemporary society. To such people it seemed unacceptably arrogant to assume that one religious (or indeed any other ideological) group had a monopoly of truth and a hence a right to impose that vision on other people. With the diverse family of spiritualities honouring many different gods in many different ways, many Pagans have seen, and continue to idealise, Paganism as pluralistic, non-dogmatic, non-evangelical spirituality (Harvey 1997:1-2, 216, 223). Those who seek to force archaeologists and others to rebury human remains have seemed to some to be abandoning these virtues in favour of the intolerant evangelical zeal which made the mainstream Abrahamic faiths so unpalatable. I note that Christian and Muslim acquaintances feel that fundamentalists who campaign to ban books, restrict the rights of women and LGBTQ people devalue and pervert their beliefs. I found that the quasi-evangelical zeal and absolutism of some Pagan campaigners for reburial of human remains and control of sites felt similarly unpalatable to many Pagans.

8.4. Conclusions This book is the result of four and a half years of research, analysis and writing but it builds on longer personal experience of Pagans, heritage and archaeology. I would remind the reader that I identify myself as a Pagan, as an archaeologist and as a heritage professional and therefore to be mindful of any biases this may generate in my writing despite my efforts to avoid them. As I expected, my research bears out Pryor’s (Time Team 1999) assertion that there is much that Pagans and Archaeologists should agree on regarding the importance and the need to learn from the physical remains of the past. Contestation of sites has arisen where they have been perceived to be at risk and where Pagans see themselves as being excluded ideologically or physically. Contestation of human remains was more of a journey of discovery. It is a much more multi-faceted issue. I started the project assuming that curators, researchers and other professionals had detatched themselves too much from the emotional and spiritual significance, not to mention the humanity of the bones and bodies they looked after and worked with. I was happy to find that these professionals were strongly aware of the humanity of their charges and felt a powerful emotional connection to them. It is a divisive topic both among heritage professionals and Pagans. I am sure the most vociferous campaigners do not speak for all Pagans but concern among Pagans has not gone away. I believe the perceived differential treatment of remains identified as Christian compared to pre-Christian remains is a key issue. Increasing awareness that ancient Europeans wanted to be remembered (section 7.7.1) and that some Pagans want to have direct visual connection with the corporeal relics of the Ancestors may also serve to decrease support for reburial.

Addressing Religious Extremism In sections 7.7.1 and 8.2.1 I explained that the coercive elements of Pendragon’s reburial campaign sought to restrict freedom rather than uphold it as access campaigns had done. I would suggest that religious absolutism has tended to reinforce itself with a strong sense of alterity. The most counter-cultural Pagans have used the narrative of oppression to emphasise this. Denigration of Pagans as inauthentic and irrational is likely to strengthen this alterity. Opposition to absolutism would appear most effective from within the identity group using arguments rooted within their worldview. These issues have been addressed within the Pagan community. Groups such as Pagans for Archaeology and unaffiliated individuals have challenged aspects of the discourse of contestation which they feel are inaccurate or counter to their spiritual values.

Motivating factors for contestation are also exacerbated by misunderstanding and poor communications. Blain and Wallis (2007:211) conclude that:

8.3.8. Continuous Negotiation

We must take each other seriously, and deconstruct stereotypes, by embarking on productive, collaborative dialogues, involving research ethics and rights, as well as joint stewardship programmes and informed consent protocols.

Political anthropologists such at Bujra (1973:143) assert that in many human societies conflict is more normal than agreement. This is perhaps unsurprising when one considers the extent to which human ideas vary. I therefore argue that it is unrealistic to expect a permanent and universal agreement on issues of contestation. Roberts (1979:67) asserts that talking is among the most effective means of addressing conflict. He explains that conversation frequently provides a means to alleviate anger and for involved parties to understand each other. He refers to the therapeutic effects of talking but also acknowledges that further problems can arise. Bilateral negotiation (Roberts 1979:69) may be difficult in this situation since there are many points of view and several different agendas

I agree that challenging negative stereotyping and other forms of prejudice are essential, as is meaningful, courteous and positive dialogue. Indeed I would characterise the latter as the only likely method to produce understanding and generate a degree of consensus and defuse tensions. Where I part company from Blain and Wallis is that I am unsure how joint stewardship can be implemented with such a diverse community as British Pagans and whether such a move is justified if one accepts universal stakeholdership. 128

Understanding and Addressing Contestion 8.5. Final Words To emphasise that everyone is affected by unsustainable and destructive environmental projects, Pendragon once said: ‘There is no them and us, there is only all of us and some of us who haven’t yet realised it yet’ (Pendragon & Stone 2003:87). I am inclined to take these words more broadly to mean that humans are all in the world together and that much of the conflict between us is founded on alterity: seeing those who differ from us, often in quite minor ways as ‘other’; which has oft times escalated into an irrational and visceral dislike of the unlike. Perhaps if we can overcome the tribal instinct behind this, peaceful agreements can be negotiated. It is undeniably an idealistic view but one which I feel holds true more often than many people realise. This ideal is at the heart of inclusivity and it needs to be ensured that everyone, Druid, Pagan, archaeologist, Christian, academic, Muslim, atheist, ecowarrior, humanist, politician, or heritage worker, feels they have an input into the care of the built and corporeal relics of our shared past.

129

Bibliography Abbott, M. & Anderson-Whymark, H. 2012. Stonehenge Laser Scan: Archaeological Analysis Report, Portsmouth, English Heritage

Anon. 2012. An Honest Tale Speeds Best, Being Plainly Told, British Archaeology (127) 66 Anon. nd. Crossbones Graveyard: The Living Herstory. Available from: http://www.crossbones.org.uk/#/vigiland-walks/4527977528 [accessed 10 Sep 2009]

Aburrow, Y. 2008a. Stop Calling us NeoPagans. The Stroppy Rabbit. Available from: http://stroppyrabbit. blogspot.com/2008/06/stop-calling-us-neopagans.html [accessed 05 May 2009]

Antiquity 1996. Reports: The Future of Avebury Again, Antiquity 70(269) 501-502

Aburrow, Y. 2008b. Pagans for Archaeology –What we stand for. Available from: http://archaeopagans. blogspot.com/2008/06/what-we-stand-for.html [accessed 21 Jul 2009]

Appadurai, A. 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalisation, Minneapolis & London, University of Minnesota Press Aristotle. (Trans Irwin, I.) 1999. Nicomachean Ethics, Indianapolis, Hackett

Aburrow, Y. 2008c. Pagans for Archaeology –Not All Pagans Want Reburial. Available from: http:// archaeopagans.blogspot.co.uk/2008/10/not-all-paganswant-reburial.html [accessed 22 Nov 2012]

ASA 2011. Ethical Guidelines for Good Research Practice. Available from: http://www.theasa.org/downloads/ ASA%20ethics%20guidelines%202011.pdf [accessed 26 Jun 12]

Aburrow, Y. ([email protected]) 13 Nov 2012. Fwd: Please confirm that you want to send a message to Kenneth Clarke MP [email to William Rathouse] ([email protected])

Aurelius, M. 1998. University Press

Meditations,

Oxford,

Oxford

aclipDump 2011. Louis Theroux, the Most Hated Family in America (3). Available from: http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=SLfBmNttb3Y&feature=relmfu [accessed 07 Nov 2012]

Ayers, B. 2002. Archaeological Work at Holme-next-theSea – Problems and Issues, in Wise, P.J. (Ed) Public Archaeology: Remains to be Seen, Colchester, Society of Museum Archaeologists 17-20

ADF 2009. Our Own Druidry: an introduction to Ár nDraíocht Féin and the Druid Path, United States of America, ADF

BABAO nda. Code of Practice. Available from: http:// www.babao.org.uk/index/ethics-and-standards [accessed 17 Aug 2012]

Agar, M.H. 1996. The Professional Stranger; San Diego, New York, Boston, London, Sydney, Tokyo & Toronto; Academic Press

BABAO ndb. Code of Ethics. Available from: http://www. babao.org.uk/index/ethics-and-standards [accessed 17 Aug 2012]

AHRC, nd. Arts and Humanities Research council: What We Do, Available from: http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/WhatWe-Do/Pages/What-we-do.aspx [accessed14 Mar 2013]

Bahn, P. 1984. Do Not Disturb? Archaeology and the rights of the dead, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 3(1) 127-139

Alberti, S.J.M.M. Bienkowski, P. Chapman, M.J. & Drew R, 2009. Should we display the dead, Museum and Society 7(3) 133-149

Bahn, P. (Ed) 1996. The Cambridge Illustrated History of Archaeology; Cambridge, New York & Melbourne; CUP Bahn, P. & Paterson, R.W.K. 1986. The Last Rights: More on Archaeology and the Dead, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 5(3) 255-271

Aldhouse-Green, M. 2001. Dying for the Gods, Stroud, Tempus

BAJR 2008. Druids and Avebury Reburial. BAJR forum. Available from: http://www.bajr.org/BAJRForum/ topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1985&whichpage=1 [accessed 18 Jul 09]

Aldhouse-Green, S. 2000. Paviland Cave and the ‘Red Lady’: A Definitive Report, Bristol, Western Academic and Specialist Press Ltd. Ambrose, T. & Paine, C. 1993. Museum Basics, London & New York, Routledge

BAJR nd Current Employment Opportunities, Available from: http://www.bajr.org/Employment/ UKEmployment.asp [accessed 31 Oct 2013]

Anahareo 1972. Grey owl and I: A New Autobiography, London Peter Davies

Barber, B. Carver, J. Hinton, P. & Nixon, T. 2008. Archaeology and Development – a good practice guide

Anon 1827. The Avalonian Guide to the Town of Glastonbury, Glastonbury, Wakefield 131

Contested Heritage to managing risk and maximising benefit, London, CIRIA

BBC News 2008c. Bishop condemns corpse exhibition. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/ manchester/7228298.stm [accessed 18 May 2011]

Bardens, D. 1997. Ghosts & Hauntings, London, Senate

BBC News 2008d. Deal Is Agreed in Park Quarry Row. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/ derbyshire/7623154.stm [accessed 24 Sep 2012]

Barley N. 1995. Dancing on the Grave: Encounters with Death, London, John Murray Barnatt, J. 1990. The Henges, Stone Circles and Ringcairns of the Peak District National Park; Sheffield; Department of Archaeology and Prehistory University of Sheffield

BBC News 2008e. Christian infighting in Jerusalem, Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/ middle_east/7719843.stm [accessed 27 Feb 2013] BBC News 2010a. Stonehenge visitor centre backed by £10m from lottery. Available from: http://www.bbc. co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-11792484 [accessed 08 Mar 2010]

Barr, J. 1977. Fundamentalism, London, SCM Press Bar-Tel, D. & Bennink, G.H. 2004. The Nature of Reconciliation as an Outcome and as a Process, in Bar-Siman-Tov (Ed) From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation, New York, Oxford University Press 11-38

BBC News 2010b. Fresh appeal against Ayodhya ruling, Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worldsouth-asia-11989696 [accessed 27 Feb 2013]

Bates, B. 1996. The Way of Wyrd, London, Arrow

BBC News 2011a. Q&A Tuition Fees. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11483638 [accessed 17 Jul 2012]

BBC 2009. Update RE Avebury associated with pagan devil worship. BBC Message boards – Religion. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/ F2213239?thread=6664610 [accessed 18 Jun 2009]

BBC News 2011b. King Arthur Pendragon Loses human Remains Legal Battle. Available from: http://www.bbc. co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-14630468 [accessed 23 Aug 2012]

BBC News 1999a. Protestors Halt ‘Seahenge’ Removal. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/ tech/369940.stm [accessed 05 Sep 2012] BBC News 1999b. Bronze Age skeleton is reburied at caves. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/ wales/480967.stm [accessed 31 Jan 2012]

BBC News 2011c. Stonehenge ‘made £30m from tourism in five years’. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ news/uk-england-wiltshire-13201949 [accessed 15 Sep 2014]

BBC News 2002a. Corpse show opens to more criticism. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/ entertainment/arts/1887976.stm [accessed 18 May 2011]

BBC News 2012a. US evangelicals question Republican ties. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ magazine-20649525 [accessed 04 Feb 2013]

BBC News 2002b. Controversial body show defended. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/ entertainment/arts/1869104.stm [accessed 18 May 2011]

BBC News 2012b. English Heritage to receive £2.7m education funding. Available from: http://www.bbc. co.uk/news/education-17172091 [accessed 22 Mar 2013]

BBC News 2003. Tissue ‘Theft’ Law Unveiled. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3288955.stm [accessed 16 May 2011]

BBC News 2013a. Kumbh Mela festival: Preparing for millions. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ world-asia-india-20935019 [accessed 24 Jan 2013]

BBC News 2004. Von Hagens denies using prisoners. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/ europe/3420483.stm [accessed 18 May 2011]

BBC News 2013b. Sixth arrest over east London ‘vigilante’ harassment. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ news/uk-england-london-21292657 [accessed 04 Feb 2013]

BBC News 2006. Druid campaign for sacred sites. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/ south_west/5372598.stm [accessed 20 May 2009]

BBC News 2013c. Stonehenge bones exhibit druid’s legal bid. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ukengland-wiltshire-23545168 [accessed 21 Aug 2014]

BBC News 2007. ‘No Solstice camping’ at Avebury. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/ wiltshire/6590731.stm [accessed 28 Feb 2012]

BBC News 2017. Summer solstice 2017: Stonehenge crowds as sun rises. Available from: https://www.bbc. co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-40352528 [accessed 18 Jul 2018]

BBC News 2008a. Graves make way for church centre. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/ manchester/7654546.stm [accessed 18 May 2011]

BDRC nd. Research into Issues Surrounding Human Bones in Museums. Available from: http://www. english-heritage.org.uk/content/imported-docs/k-o/ opinion-survey-results [accessed 30 Mar 2011]

BBC News 2008b. Doubt over museum mummy displays. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/ manchester/7246893.stm [accessed 18 May 2011] 132

Bibliography Bell, S. 1988. When Salem came to the Boro’: True Story of the Cleveland Child Abuse Case, London, Pan

WORLD/9709/25/chief.long.wolf/ [accessed 29 May 2012]

Bellows, H.A. (Trans) 1991. The Poetic Edda, Lampeter, Mellen

Bolle K.W. 1987. Animism, in Eliade M. (Ed) The Encyclopedia of Religion, New York, MacMillan 296302

Bender B. 1998. Stonehenge: Making Space, Oxford & New York, Berg

Bonewits I. 2006. Bonewits’s Essential Guide to Druidism, New York, Citadel Press

Bibby, G. 1957. The Testimony of the Spade, London, Collins

Bourke, J.B. 1986. The Medical Investigation of Lindow Man, in Stead, I.M. Bourke, J.B. & Brothwell, D (Eds) Lindow Man: The Body in the Bog, London, British Museum, 46-51

Bienkowski, P. 2006 Persons, Things and Archaeology: Contrasting world views of minds bodies and death. Available from: http://www.museum.manchester.ac.uk/ medialibrary/documents/respect/persons_things_and_ archaeology.pdf [accessed 30 Jun 2010]

Boyd, W.E. 2012. ‘A Frame to Hang Clouds On’: Cognitive Ownership, Landscape and Heritage Management, in Skeates, R. McDavid, C. & Carman, J. (Eds) The Oxford Handbook of Public Archaeology, Oxford, OUP 172-198

Bienkowski, P. 2013. Whose Past? Archaeological Knowledge, Community Knowledge, and the Embracing of Conflict, in Scarre, G. & Coningham, R. (Eds) Appropriating the Past: Philosophical Perspectives in the Practice of Archaeology, Cambridge & New York, Cambridge University Press 42-62

Brennand, M. 2004. This is why we dug Seahenge, British Archaeology (78) 25-29 Brennand, M. & Taylor, M. 2003. The Survey and Excavation of a Bronze Age Timber Circle at Holmenext-the-Sea, Norfolk, 1998-9, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 69(1) 1-64

Binford, L.R. 1972. An archaeological perspective, New York & London, Seminar Press Blackburn, S. 2003. Ethics: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford, Oxford University Press

Brickley, M. Miles, A. & Stainer, H. 1999. The Cross Bones Burial Ground, Redcross Way Southwark London: Archaeological Excavations (1991-1998) for the London Underground Limited Jubilee Line Extension Project, London, MoLAS & Jubilee Line Extension Project

Blain, J. 2002. The Nine Worlds of Seidr Magic, London, Routledge Blain, J. 2004. Tracing the In/Authentic Seeress: From Seid-Magic to Stone Circles; in Blain J. Ezzy, D. & Harvey G. (Eds) Researching Paganisms; Walnut Creek, Lanham, New York, Toronto & Oxford; Altamira

Brickley, M. & McKinley, J.I. 2004. Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains, s.l., IfA British Druid Order. unpublished. Bardic Course 9 Honouring Our Ancestors

Blain, J. Ezzy, D. & Harvey, G. (Eds) 2004. Researching Paganisms; Walnut Creek, Lanham, New York, Toronto & Oxford; Altamira

British Museum 2006. British Museum Policy on Human Remains. Available from: http://www.britishmuseum. org/pdf/Human%20Remains%206%20Oct%202006. pdf [accessed 13 Aug 2012]

Blain, J. & Wallis, R. 2007. Sacred Sites Contested Rites/ Rights, Eastbourne & Portland, Sussex Academic Press Blain, J. & Wallis, R. 2006. The Sanctity of Burial: Pagan views, ancient and modern. Available from: http:// www.museum.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/ourpractice/ respect/fileuploadmax10mb,136200,en.pdf [accessed 30 Jun 2010]

Brockmeier, J. & Carbaugh, D.A. 2001. Introduction, in Brockmeier, J. & Carbaugh, D.A. (Eds) Narrative and Identity: Studies in Autobiography, Self and Culture, Amsterdam, John Benjamins Brown, N. 2012. Druidry and the Ancestors: Finding Our Place in Our Own History, Alresford, Moon Books

Bland, R. 2004. The Treasure Act and the Portable Antiquities Scheme: a case study in developing public archaeology, in Merriman, N. (Ed) Public Archaeology, London, Routledge, 272-291

Bujra, J.M. 1973. The Dynamics of Political Action: A New Look at Factionalism, American Anthropologist 75 pp132-152

Bland, R. 2005. A pragmatic approach to the problem of portable antiquities: the experience of England and Wales, Antiquity 79 (305) 440–447

Burch, S. 2008. Review of Lindow Man a bog body mystery. The Museums Journal 108, (7): 46–49

Blease-Bourne, A. 2011. How Can Sacred Sites be Interpreted to Incorporate Multiplicity? An Ethnographic Study, Ph.D. Sheffield, Sheffield Hallam University

Burke, H. Smith, C. Lippert, D. Watkins, J. & Zimmerman, L. (Eds) 2008. Kennewick Man: Perspectives on the Ancient One, Walnut Creek, Left Coast Press Burke Museum 2012. Kennewick Man on Trial. 2012) Available from: http://www.burkemuseum.org/kman/ [accessed 30 Oct 2012)

Blystone, R. 1997. Chief Long Wolf goes home, 105 years late. Available from: http://cgi.cnn.com/ 133

Contested Heritage Burl, A. 1979. Rings of Stone: The Prehistoric Circles of Britain and Ireland, London, Frances Lincoln

Carmichael, D. Hubert, J. & Reeves, B. 1994. Introduction, in Carmichael, D.L. Hubert, J. Reeves, B. & Schande, A. (Eds) Sacred Sites, Sacred Places, London & New York, Routledge 1-8

Burl, A. 1998a. But a Molehill to a Mountain (part 1), The Right Times (1) 12-17

Carpenter, D. 2008. Review of ‘Origins: In Search of Early Wales’ [online] (updated nd) Available from: http:// www.honour.org.uk/node/78 [accessed 13 Apr 2010]

Burl, A. 1998b. But a Molehill to a Mountain (part 2), The Right Times (2) 8-12 Burl, A. 2000. The Rollright Stones, Banbury, Tattooed Kitten

Carr-Gomm, P. 1990. Forward, in Nichols, R. The Book of Druidry: History, Sites and Wisdom; Wellingborough; Aquarian

Burl, A. 2005. Prehistoric Astronomy and Ritual, Princes Risborough, Shire

Carroll, Q. 2009. Returning Remains: A Curators View, in Lewis, M.E. & Clegg, M. (Eds) Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference of the British Association for Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology, Oxford, BAR

Burl, A. 2007. A Brief History of Stonehenge, London, Robinson Burl, A. 2012. Prehistoric Henges, Princes Risborough, Shire

Carver, M. 2009. Archaeological Investigation, London & New York, Routledge

Burnett A. & Reeve J. 2001. Behind the Scenes at the British Museum, London, British Museum Press

Catling, C. 2014. Welcome to the New Stonehenge: Making a Neolithic Circle Fit for Purpose, Current Archaeology (288) 22-29

Butler, W.E. 1977. Magic: Its Ritual, Power and Purpose, London, Aquarian Press Caciola, N. 1996. Wraiths, Revenants and Ritual in Medieval Culture, Past & Present, (152) 3-45

Chagnon, N. 1983. Yanomamo: The Fierce People, New York, Holt Rineheart and Winston

Cadw nd. Cadw: About Cadw. Available from: http://www. cadw.wales.gov.uk/default.asp?id=3&lang=aboutcadw [accessed 23 Feb 09]

Chamberlaine A.T. & Parker Pearson M. 2004. Earthly Remains, London, British Museum Press Champion M. 2000. Seahenge: a contemporary chronicle, Aylesham, Barnwell’s Triangle

Caesar, G.I. (Trans. Handford, S.A.) 1982. The Conquest of Gaul, London, Penguin

Cheek, A.L. & Keel, B.C. 1984. Value Conflicts in OsteoArchaeology, in Green, E.L. (Ed) Ethics and Values in Archaeology, New York & London, The Free Press, 144-207

Caesar, G.I. (Trans. Holmes, T.R.) 1914. De Bello Gallico Book Six Chapter 14. Available from: http://www. perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:19 99.02.0001:book=6:chapter=14&highlight=Druids [accessed 20 Nov 2012]

Chenery, C. 2008. Oxygen Isotope Analysis. Available from: http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/ amesbury/tests/oxygen_isotope.html [accessed 21 Mar 2011]

Caple, C. nd. Nevern Castle Interim Excavation Report Summer 2012 [online] (updated nd) Available from: http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/archaeology/ pdfs/research/10.Nevern2012-SummerInterim.pdf [accessed 26 Jan 2013]

Chippindale, C. 1986. Stoned Henge: Events and Issues at the Summer Solstice 1985, World Archaeology 18(1) 38-58

Carbonell B.M. (Ed) 2004. Museum Studies: An Anthology of Contexts; Malden, Oxford & Victoria Blackwell

Chippindale, C. 1990.Stonehenge: Academic Claims and Responsibilities, in Chippindale C. Devereux P. Fowler P. Jones R. & Sebastion T. Who Owns Stonehenge? London, Batsford 120-138

Carlyon K. 2001. Kevin Carlyon – High Priest of British White Witches. Available from: http://www.kevwitch. co.uk/ [accessed 18 Jul 09]

Chippindale, C. 1994. Stonehenge Complete, s.l. Thames & Hudson

Carman, J. 1996. Valuing Ancient Things: Archaeology and the Law, Leicester, Leicester University Press

Choksy, J.K. 2005. Zoroastrianism, In Jones, L. (Ed in C) The Encyclopedia of Religion, London, Thomson Gale, 9988-10008

Carman, J. 2002. Archaeology and Heritage: An Introduction, London & New York, Continuum Carman, J. 2005. Against Cultural Heritage: Archaeology, Heritage and Ownership, London, Duckworth

Cleal, R.M.J. 1996. Interpreting Avebury: The Role of the Alexander Keiller Museum, in Evans, D.M. Salway, P. & Thackray, D. (Eds) The Remains of Distant Times: Archaeology and the National Trust; Woodbridge & Rochester; Boydell Press, Society of Antiquaries & the National Trust 192-197

Carman, J. & Sørensen, M.L.S. 2009. Heritage Studies: An outline, in Sørensen, M.L.S. & Carman, J. (Eds) Heritage Studies: Methods and Approaches, London & New York, Routledge 11-28 134

Bibliography Crowley, V. 1998. Wicca as Nature Religion, in Nature Religion Today: Paganism in the Modern World, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press 170-179

Cleal, R. 2008. Appendix 4: Human Remains from Windmill Hill and West Kennet Avenue, Avebury Parish, Wiltshire, Held by the Alexander Keiller Museum, in Thackray, D. & Payne, S. Draft Report on the Request for the Reburial of Human Remains from the Alexander Keiller Museum at Avebury, s.l. English Heritage & The National Trust

Cumberpatch C. & Blinkhorn P. 2001. Clients, Contractors, Curators and Archaeology: Who owns the Past? in Pluciennik M. (Ed) The Responsibilities of Archaeologists: Archaeology and Ethics, British Archaeological Reports International Series 981, Oxford, BAR Publishing 39-46

Coleman, E.B. 2013. Contesting Religious Claims over Archaeological Sites, in Scarre, G. & Coningham, R. (Eds) Appropriating the Past: Philosophical Perspectives in the Practice of Archaeology, Cambridge & New York, Cambridge University Press 156-175

Cunliffe, B. 2000. Iron Age Britain, London, Batsford English Heritage Cunliffe, B. 2010. Druids, Oxford, Oxford University Press

Collis, J. 2004. Digging up the Past: An Introduction to Archaeological Excavation, Stroud, Sutton

Cunliffe, B. Stringer,C. Barker, G. Shennan, S. Fulford M. Wainwright, G. Darvill, T. Evershed R.P. Bell, M. Bradley R. Gamble C. Gilchrist, R. GosdenC. Harding,A. Haselgrove, C. Mattingly, D. Millett, M. Whittle, A. Armit, I. Austin, D. Carver, M. Chamberlain, A. Chapman, B. Crow, J. Dobney, K. Fleming, A. Hamerow, H. Haynes, I. Henderson, J. Heron, C. Hillson, S. Horton, M. Hunter, J. Jones, M. Parker Pearson, M. Pitts, M. Roberts, C.A. Sayer, D. Scarre, C. Williams, H. 2011. Reburial Requirement Impedes Archaeology, letter to The Guardian. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/ science/2011/feb/04/reburial-requirement-impedesarchaeology?intcmp=239 [accessed 18 May 2011]

Colvin, B. 2006. Hailing Our Ancestors, White Dragon (48) 16-17 Connolly, R.C. 1985. Lindow Man – A Prehistoric Bog Corpse in Anthropology Today 1(5) 15-17 Constable, J. 2008. The Goose, The Crow and The Cross Bones Portal, Goddess Pages, Available from: http:// www.goddess-pages.co.uk/index.php?option=com_co ntent&task=view&id=542#ixzz2NX1Ccvla [accessed 14 Mar 2013] Cooper, M.T. 2010. Contemporary Druidry: A Historical and Ethnographic Study, Salt Lake City, Sacred Tribes Cope J. 1998. The Modern Antiquarian, London, Thorsons

Dames, M. 1977. The Avebury Cycle, London, Thames & Hudson

Copeland, T. 2004, Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Constructing insights on-site, in Merriman, N. (Ed) Public Archaeology, London, Routledge, 132-144

Damh the Bard. 2013. The Bardic Blog: Ritual Offerings, Sacred or Debris? Available from: http://www. paganmusic.co.uk/blog/?p=1247#comment-1373 [accessed 24 Jan 2013]

Cornish Ancient Sites Protection Network, nd. Ancient Sites: Damage Report. Available from: http://www. cornishancientsites.com/damage-report.htm [accessed 26 Sep 2012]

Daniel, G. 1992. Writing for “Antiquity”, London, Thames & Hudson

Council of Europe, 1992. European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage. Available from: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/ Html/143.htm [accessed 25 May 2012]

Darvill, T. 2003. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Archaeology, Oxford, OUP Darvill, T. 2005. Prehistoric Britain, London & New York, Routledge

Cowan, D.E. 2005. Cyberhenge: Pagans on the Internet, London & New York, Routledge

Darvill, T. 2007. Stonehenge: Biography of a Landscape, Stroud, Tempus

Cox, J.L. 2007. From primitive to indigenous : the academic study of indigenous religions, Aldershot, Ashgate

Darvill, T. & Wainwright, G. 2009. Stonehenge Excavations 2008, The Antiquaries Journal, (89) 1-19

Crook, J. 2000 The Architectural Setting of the Cult of Saints in the Early Christian West, Oxford, Clarenden Press

Darvill, T. 2012, Archaeology as a Profession, in Skeates, R. McDavid, C. & Carman, J. (Eds) The Oxford Handbook of Public Archaeology, Oxford, OUP 375394

Crowley, A. 1986. Magick in theory and practice, New York, Dover Publications

Davidson, I. 1995. Introduction, in Davidson, I. Lovell Jones, C. & Bancroft, R. (Eds) Archaeologists and Aborigines Working Together, Armidale, University of New England Press 3-6

Crowley, V. 1989. Wicca: The Old Religion in the New Age, London & San Francisco, Aquarian Crowley, V. 1995. Phoenix from the Flame: Living as a Pagan in the 21st Century, London & San Francisco, Thorsons

David Wilson Homes, 2012. Protected Henge/ Railing Details. Available from: http://idox.bathnes.gov.uk/ 135

Contested Heritage WAM/doc/Drawing-540661.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=5 40661&location=VOLUME2&contentType=applicati on/pdf&pageCount=1 [accessed 07 Oct 2012]

Dowd, J.J. & Dowd, L.A. 2003. The Center Holds: From subcultures to social worlds, Teaching Sociology, 31 (1) 20-37

Davie, G. 1994. Religion in Britain Since 1945: Believing Without Belonging, Oxford & Cambridge Mass. Blackwell

Duhig C. 2009. Human remains, archaeologists and pagans: any common ground, The Archaeologist, (72) 36-37

Davies C. A. 2002. Reflexive Ethnography: a guide to researching selves and others, London & New York, Routledge

Dutton, E. 2012. Going Native, Fortean Times (289) 44-49 Edge, J. 2008. Origins: In Search of Early Wales, Museums Journal 107 (15) 52-3

Davies, O. 2011. Paganism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford, OUP

Edgeworth M. (Ed) 2006. Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice: Cultural Encounters, Material Transformations; Lanham, New York, Toronto & Oxford, Altamira Press

Davies P. 1997. Respect and Reburial, The Druids’ Voice, (8) 12-13

English Heritage nda. Front Page. English Heritage. Available from: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/ [accessed 23 Feb 09]

Davies P. 1998. Speaking for the Ancestors: The Reburial Issue in Britain and Ireland, The Druids’ Voice, (9) 10-12 Day J. 1995. Patchwork of Magic: Living in a Pagan World, Cheiveley, Capall Bann

English Heritage ndb. About Us. English Heritage. Available from: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/ server/show/nav.1664 [accessed 23 Feb 09]

DCMS 2005. Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums, London, HMSO Available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/ http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/ GuidanceHumanRemains11Oct.pdf [accessed 21 Nov 2012]

English Heritage ndc. Our Proposals for Stonehenge. English Heritage. Available from: http://www.englishheritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/stonehenge/ourplans/our-proposals/ [accessed 24 Jan 2013]

DCMS 2009. Planning Policy Statement: Consultation, London, HMSO Available from: http://www. communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/ pdf/consultationhistoricpps.pdf [accessed 21 Nov 2012]

English Heritage ndd. History of English heritage. English Heritage. Available from: http://www.english-heritage. org.uk/about/who-we-are/history-of-english-heritage. html [accessed 21 Sep 2010]

Dead to Rights 2006. Yahoo Groups – Dead to Rights. Available from: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dead_ to_Rights/?yguid=169688030 [accessed 09 Jul 09]

English Heritage nde. Prices and Opening Times for Stonehenge. English Heritage. Available from: http:// www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/ stonehenge/prices-and-opening-times [accessed 21 Jan 2013]

Detzer, D. 2005. Donnybrook: The Battle of Bull Run, 1861, s.l. Harvest Books

English Heritage ndf How We Are Funded, English Heritage, Available from: http://www.english-heritage. org.uk/about/who-we-are/corporate-information/howwe-are-funded/ [accessed 22 Mar 2013]

Devereux, P. 2000. The Sacred Place: The Ancient Origin of Holy and Mystical Sites, London, Cassell & Co Dick, C. 2011. The Perils of Identity, Vancouver, UBC press

English Heritage unpublished. Stonehenge Audio Tour Script

Dickson, C. Vellocott, C. & Carew-Jones, O. 1998. Setting up a Charitable Trust, s.l. CEM

English Heritage 2009a. Avebury Reburial Consultation. Available from: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/ server/show/nav.19819 [accessed 09 Jul 2009]

Dickson, J.H. Oeggl, K. Holden T.G. Handley, L.L. O’Connell, T.C. & Preston T. 2000. The omnivorous Tyrolean Iceman: colon contents (meat, cereals, pollen, moss and whipworm) and stable isotope analysis, Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 355(1404) 1843-1849

English Heritage 2009b. Managing Heritage Assets. Available from: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/ publications/managing-heritage-assets/ [accessed 14 Nov 2012]

Directgov nd. Coroners, Post-Mortems and Inquests. Available from: http://www.direct. gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Death/ WhatToDoAfterADeath/DG_066713 [accessed 30 Jan 2012]

English Heritage 2012. National Planning Policy Framework, Available from: http://www.englishheritage.org.uk/about/news/eh-responds/nationalplanning-policy-framework/ [accessed 21 Oct 2013] English Heritage 2017. English Heritage Annual Report 2016/2017, Available from: http://www.english-

Doeser J. 2007. Rationality, Archaeology and Government Policy in Hull D. Grabow S. & Waterton E. (Eds) Which Past, Whose Future, Oxford, BAR 136

Bibliography Friends of Thornborough ndb. Friends of Thornborough Henges – Latest News. Available from: http://www. friendsofthornborough.org.uk/latest_news.htm [accessed 30 Nov 2012]

heritage.org.uk/content/AboutUs/3439010/EHT_ Annual_Report_2016-17.pdf [accessed 20 Jul 2018] Evans C. 1998. Historicism, chronology and straw men: situating Hawkes’ ‘Ladder of inference’ in Antiquity (72) 398-404

Fryer J. 2009. Druid Wars: How a drunken row over 4,000-year-old bones is causing chaos in pagan circles. Daily Mail. Available from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ news/article-1127430/Druid-wars-How-drunken-row4-000-year-old-bones-causing-chaos-pagan-circles. html [accessed 08 Jun 2009]

Evans, E.J. 1998. Thatcher and Thatcherism, London & New York, Routledge Everill, P. 2009. The Invisible Diggers: A Study of British Commercial Archaeology, Oxford, Oxbow

Fuller, C.J. 1992. The Camphor Flame: Popular Hinduism and Society in India, Princeton, Princeton University Press

Faulkener, N. 2008. Whose Death is it anyway? The human remains controversy, Current Archaeology (214) 40-44 Faulkener, N. 2009. Who Killed Lindow Man? Current Archaeology (233) 22-8

Gibson, J.L. 2006. The Contributions of Truth to Reconciliation: Lessons from South Africa, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(3) 409-432

Fforde, C. 2004. Collecting the Dead: Archaeology and the Reburial Issue, London, Duckworth

Gillings, M. & Pollard, J. 2004. Avebury, London, Duckworth

Fife, W. 2005. Doing Fieldwork: ethnographic methods for research in developing countries and beyond, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan

Gilmour, T. 2007. Sustaining heritage: Giving the past a future, Sydney, Sydney University Press

Filan, K. & Kaldera, R. 2013. Talking To The Spirits: Personal Gnosis in Pagan Religion, Rochester & Toronto, Destiny

Glastonbury Order of Druids 1992. Glastonbury Order of Druids, The Druids’ Voice (1) 29

Fisher, A. & Ramsay, H. 2000. Of Art and Blasphemy, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3(2) 137-167

Gleeson, J. 2016. Ancient Henges Win Protesction. Northern Echo. Available from: https://www. thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/14906732.ancienthenges-win-protection/ [accessed 24 Oct 2020]

Fleming, A. 1972. Vision and Design: Approaches to Ceremonial Monument Typology, Man 7(1) 57-73

Glob, P.V. 2004. The Bog People: Iron Age Man Preserved, London, Faber

Ford, N. 2009. The Care of Elderly Souls and the Rights of Bone Fragments to a Quiet Life. Available from: http:// pagantheologies.pbworks.com/w/page/13622300/ The%20Care%20of%20Elderly%20Souls%20and%20 the%20Rights%20of%20Bone%20Fragments%20 to%20a%20Quiet%20Life [accessed 21 Nov 2012]

Gobo, G. (Trans: Belton A.) 2008. Doing Ethnography; Los Angeles, London, New Delhi & Singapore; Sage Godelier, M. 2002. Some Things You Give, Some Things You Sell But Some Things You Must Keep for Yourselves: What Mauss Did Not Say About Sacred Objects; in Boynton, E. Goux, J.-J. & Wyshogrod, E. (Eds) The Enigma of Gift and Sacrifice; New York; Fordham University Press 19-37

Fortune, D. 1932. The Golden Tryst, The Occult Review 56 p21 Fortune, D. 1987. Sane Occultism, Wellingborough, Aquarian Press

Gold, T. 2010. Of all the silly religions – and I think that all religions are silly – witchcraft is the least dangerous and most benign, The Guardian (16 Feb 2010) 5

Fowler, B. 2001. Iceman: uncovering the life and times of a prehistoric man found in an alpine glacier; London, Basingstoke & Oxford; Macmillan

Golding, F.N. 2000. Stonehenge Past and Future, in Cleere, H. (Ed) Archaeological Heritage Management in the Modern World, London & New York, Routledge

Fowler, P. 1990. Stonehenge in a Democratic Society, in Chippindale, C. Devereux, P. Fowler, P. Jones, R. & Sebastion, T. Who Owns Stonehenge? London, Batsford 139-160

Goodnow, K. 2006. Why and When do Human Remains Matter: Museum Dilemmas, in Lohman, J. & Goodnow, K. (Eds) Human Remains and Museum Practice, Paris & London, UNESCO & Museum of London 16-20

Fox, K. 2004. Watching the English: The Hidden Rules of English Behaviour, London, Hodder Frazer, Sir J. 2000. The Golden Bough: A History of Myth and Religion, London, Chancellor Press

Goodwin, N. & Morris, G. 2005a. Interview with Nick Davies, in Worthington, A. (Ed) The Battle of the Beanfield, Teignmouth, Enabler, 79-87

Friends of Thornborough nda. Effects of Quarrying. Available from: http://www.friendsofthornborough. org.uk/effects_of_quarrying.htm [accessed 27 Mar 2012]

Goodwin, N. & Morris, G. 2005b. Interview with Kim Sabido, in Worthington, A. (Ed) The Battle of the Beanfield, Teignmouth, Enabler, 88-93 137

Contested Heritage Goodwin, N. & Morris, G. 2005c. Interview with the Earl of Cardigan, in Worthington, A. (Ed) The Battle of the Beanfield, Teignmouth, Enabler, 94-108

Hardacre, H. 2005. Ancestor Worship, In Jones, L. (Ed in C) The Encyclopedia of Religion, London, Thomson Gale, 320-325

Graeber, D. 1995. Dancing with Corpses Reconsidered: An Interpretation of “famadihana” (In Arivonimamo, Madagascar) American Ethnologist, 22(2) 258-278

Hardman, C. & Harvey G, (Eds) 1996. Paganism Today, Hammersmith & San Francisco, Thorsons Hardman, C. 2007. “He may be lying but what he says is true”: The sacred tradition of don Juan as reported by Carlos Castañeda, anthropologist, trickster, guru, allegorist, in Lewis, J.R. & Hammer, O. (Eds) The Invention of Sacred Tradition, Cambridge & New York, Cambridge University Press 38-55

Graeber, D. 2009. Direct Action: An Ethnography, Oakland & Edinburgh, AK Press Graham, M. 2008 Leicestershire Pagans Museum Ritual to Honour the Dead. Available at http://www.honour. org.uk/node/241 [accessed 02 May 2011]

Harding, J. 2003. Henge Monuments of the British Isles, Stroud and Mount Pleasant, Tempus

Graham, M. ([email protected]) 10 Mar 2012 2345. Re: Stonehenge Free Festival [email to William Rathouse] ([email protected])

Harris, A. 2010. Honouring the Outcast Dead: The Cross bones Graveyard. Available from: http://www. thegreenfuse.org/papers/Cross_Bones/index.htm [accessed 10 Sep 2012]

Green, M.J. 1997. Exploring the World of the Druids, London, Thames & Hudson Greenwood, S. 2000. Magic, Witchcraft and the Otherworld: An Anthropology; Oxford & New York, Berg

Harris J.H. 1995. A Soldier’s Pocket Book, Beverley, Military Pocket Books Harris, O. 1986. The dead and the devils among the Bolivian Laymi, in Bloch, M. & Parry, J. Death and the Regeneration of Life, Cambridge & London, Cambridge University Press 45-73

Greenwood, S. 2003. British Paganism, Morality and the Politics of Knowledge, in Caplan, P. (Ed) The Ethics of Anthropology: debates and dilemmas, London & New York, Routledge, 195-209

Harris, R. & Paxman J. 1982. A Higher From of Killing, London, Chatto & Windus

Greenwood, S. 2009. The Anthropology of Magic, Oxford & New York, Berg

Harrison, R. 2010. Understanding the politics of Heritage, Manchester, Manchester University Press

Grenville, J. 1993. Curation Overview, in Hunter, J. &Ralston, I. (Eds) Archaeological Resource Management in the UK: An Introduction, Stroud, Sutton 125-133

Harte, J. 2004. Explore Fairy traditions, Loughborough, Heart of Albion

Gross, P.R. 2004. Politics and Science, in Salzano, F.M. & Hurtado, A.M. (Eds) Lost Paradises and the Ethics of Research and Publication, Oxford & New York, Oxford University Press 59-69

Hartshorne C. 1987. Pantheism and Panentheism, in Eliade M. (Ed) The Encyclopedia of Religion, New York, MacMillan 165 Harvey G. 1997. Listening People, Speaking Earth: Contemporary Paganism, London, Hurst & Co

Gundarsson, K. 1993. Teutonic Religion, Folk Beliefs and Practices in the Northern Tradition, St Paul, Llewelyn

Harvey G. 2000. Boggarts and Books: Towards an Appreciation of Pagan Spirituality, in Sutcliffe S. & Bowman M. (Eds) Beyond New Age: Exploring Alternative Spirituality, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press 155-168

HAD 2004-2008. Statement of Intention – Honouring the Ancient Dead. Available from: http://www.honour.org. uk/node/5#aims [accessed 23 May 2009] HAD 2012. Definitions for Honouring the Ancient Dead. Available from: http://www.honour.org.uk/system/ files/file/HAD%20Definitions%202012_final.pdf [accessed 21 Nov 2012]

Harvey, G. 2004a. Pagan Studies or the Study of Paganisms? In Blain, J. Ezzy, D. & Harvey, G. (Eds) Researching Paganisms; Walnut Creek, Lanham, New York, Toronto & Oxford; Altamira 241-255

HAD, Restall Orr, E. Bienkowski, P. Peers, L. Aburrow Y. & Grant, A. 2004-2008. Defining Respect. Available from: http://www.honour.org.uk/node/299 [accessed 13 Oct 2009]

Harvey, G. 2004b. Endo-cannibalism in the making of a recent British ancestor, Mortality 9(3) 255-267 Harvey, G. 2005. Animism: Respecting the Living World, London, C. Hurst & Co.

Hall, J. 1995. Sangoma: My Odyssey into the Spirit World of Africa, New York & London, Simon & Schuster

Harvey, G. 2011. Inventing Paganisms: Making Nature, in Lewis, J.R. & Hammer, O. (Eds) The Invention of Sacred Tradition, Cambridge, CUP 277-290

Hardacre, H. 1987. Ancestor Worship, in Eliade, M. (Ed) The Encyclopaedia of Religion, New York, MacMillan, 263-268

138

Bibliography Harvey, G. 2013. Food, Sex & Strangers: Understanding religion as everyday life, Durham & Bristol, Acumen

Historic England n.d. How We Are Funded, Available from: https://historicengland.org.uk/about/who-weare/how-we-are-funded/ [accessed 20 Jul 2018]

Haycock, D.B. 2002. William Stukeley: Science, Religion and Archaeology in Eighteenth Century England, Woodbridge, Boydell Press

Historic Scotland 1997. The Treatment of Human Remains in Archaeology, Edinburgh, Historic Scotland

Hebdige D. 1989. Subculture: the meaning of style, London, Routledge

Hitchens, C. 2007. God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, New York & Boston, Twelve

HEFCE, nd. HEFCE: What We Do, Available from http:// www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/ [accessed 14 Mar 2013]

Hockey, J. 1990. Experiences of Death: An Anthropological Account, Edinburgh & New York, Edinburgh University Press

Henson, D. 2010. Local and national vying for attention in Southwark. 32nd Theoretical Archaeology Group meeting, University of Bristol. Theoretical Archaeology Group, 17-19 Dec 2010

Hodkinson, P. 2002. Goth: Identity Style and Subculture, Oxford & New York, Berg Holme-next-the-sea 2012. Holme-next-the-sea: Seahenge. Available from: http://www.holme-next-the-sea.co.uk/ seahenge.htm [accessed 04 Sep 2012]

Heritage: The Battle for Britain’s Past. From Old Bones to Precious Stones. BBC 4. 07 Mar 2013 Her Majesty’s Government 1857. Burial Act 1857. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ ukpga/1857/81/pdfs/ukpga_18570081_en.pdf [accessed 09 Dec 2012]

Holland, R. 2008. Haunted Wales, Stroud, Landmark Press Holt, T. & Holt, V. 1998. Battlefields of the First World War: A Traveller’s Guide, London, Parkgate Books Holtorf, C. 2007. Archaeology is a Brand, Oxford, Archaeopress

Her Majesty’s Government 1882. Ancient Monuments Act 1882. Available from: http://heritagelaw.org/AMA1882- [accessed 11 Jun 2012]

Hooper-Greenhill, E. 2007. Interpretive Communities, Strategies and Repertoires, in Watson, S. (Ed) Museums and Their Communities, Abingdon & New York, Routledge, 76-94

Her Majesty’s Government 1979. Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. Available from: http://legislation.data.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/46/data. htm?wrap=true [accessed 14 Mar 2012]

Hope, M. 1987. Practical Celtic Magic, London, Aquarian

Her Majesty’s Government 2004. Human Tissue Act 2004. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov. uk/ukpga/2004/30/pdfs/ukpga_20040030_en.pdf [accessed 18 May 2011]

Howe, S. 2008. Wiccan Ethics, Pagan Dawn (169) 44-45 Hubert, J. 1994. A proper place for the dead: a critical review of the ‘reburial’ issue, in Layton R. (Ed) Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions, London & New York, Routledge 131-166

Her Majesty’s Government nd. Planning Portal: Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment. Available from: h t t p : / / w w w. p l a n n i n g p o r t a l . g o v. u k / p l a n n i n g / planningpolicyandlegislation/previousenglishpolicy/ ppgpps/pps5 [accessed 17 Jan 2013]

Hughes, K. [email protected] 2011. RE: Mortuary procedures, [email] Message to William Rathouse ([email protected]) Sent 13 Apr 2011 22:30, Human Planet. Mountain People. BBC1. 10 Feb 2011. 2000

Hester, R. 2005. Interview with Deputy Chief Constable Ian Readhead, in Worthington, A. (Ed) The Battle of the Beanfield, Teignmouth, Enabler, 139-145

Hunter, J. Roberts, C & Martin, A. 1996. Studies in Crime: An Introduction to Forensic Archaeology, London & New York, Routledge

Hewison, R. 1987. The Heritage Industry: Britain in a Climate of Decline, London, Methuen

Hurtado, A.M. & Salzano, F.M. 2004a. Introduction, in Hurtado, A.M. & Salzano, F.M. (Eds) Lost Paradises and the Ethics of Research and Publication, Oxford & New York, Oxford University Press 3-26

Hide, L. 2008. King’s Lynn Museum, King’s Lynn, Norfolk, Museums Journal 108(6) 50-51 Highways England 2020. A303 Stonehenge (Amesbury to Berwick Down), Available from: https:// highwaysengland.co.uk/our-work/a303-stonehenge/ [accessed 17 Oct 2020]

Hurtado, A.M. & Salzano, F.M. 2004b. Conclusions, in Hurtado, A.M. & Salzano, F.M. (Eds) Lost Paradises and the Ethics of Research and Publication, Oxford & New York, Oxford University Press 211-228

Hillman G. 1986. Plant Foods in Ancient Diet: The Archaeological Role of Palaeofaeces in General and in Lindow Man’s Gut Contents in Particular, in Stead, I.M. Bourke, J.B. & Brothwell, D. (Eds) Lindow Man: The Body in the Bog, London, British Museum

Hutton, R. 1996. The Roots of Modern Paganism, in Harvey, G. & Hardman, C. (Eds) Paganism Today, London & San Francisco, Thorsons 3-15

139

Contested Heritage Hutton, R. 1997a. The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles; Their Nature and Legacy, Cambridge, Blackwell

Jenkins, S. 2006. The Guardian: The curse of Stonehenge will remain until it is handed back to the Druids. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/ artanddesign/2006/jan/27/heritage.society7 [accessed 14 Apr 2011]

Hutton, R. 1997b. The New Druidry, in Druidlore (1) 1921

Jenkins T. 2009. The Crisis of Cultural Authority in Museums: Contesting Human Remains in the Collections of Britain, Ph.D. Canterbury, University of Kent in Canterbury

Hutton, R. 1998. The Discovery of the Modern Goddess, in Nature Religion Today: Paganism in the Modern World, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press 89-100 Hutton, R. 2001. The Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft, Oxford, Oxford University Press

Jenkins, T. 2011. Contesting Human Remains in Museum Collections: The Crisis of Cultural Authority, New York & Abingdon, Routledge

Hutton, R. 2006. Witches, Druids and King Arthur, London & New York, Hambledon Continuum

Jennings, P. 2002. Pagan Paths: A Guide to Wicca, Druidry, Asatru, Shamanism and Other Pagan Practices; London, Sydney, Auckland and Parktown; Rider

Hutton, R. 2007.The Druids, London & New York, Hambledon Continuum

John, nd. Gospel of John, King James Bible, Available from: http://www.biblegateway.com/ passage/?search=John%2011:21-24&version=ERV [accessed 13 Mar 2013]

Hutton, R. 2008. The origins of modern Druidry, in CarrGomm P. Hutton R. Cooper G. Greer J.M. Matthews C. Stout A. Rotherham R. & Maertins J. The Mount Haemus Lectures, Lewes, Oak Tree Press, 4-26

Johnson M. 2006. Archaeological Theory: An Introduction; Malden, Oxford & Carlton; Blackwell

Hutton, R. 2009. Blood and Mistletoe: The History of the Druids in Britain, New Haven & London, Yale University Press

Jones, P. & Pennick, N. 1995. A History of Pagan Europe, London, Routledge

ICOM 2006. Code of Ethics. Available from: http://icom. museum/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Codes/code2006_ eng.pdf [accessed 18 May 2011]

Joy, J. 2009. Lindow Man, London, British Museum Kant, I. 1963. Lectures on Ethics, New York, Harper Torchbook

ICOM nd. ICOM in Brief. Available from: http://icom. museum/who-we-are/the-organisation/icom-in-brief. html [accessed 30 Jan 2012]

Kauffman, D.T. 1975. (Ed) Baker’s Pocket Dictionary of Religious Terms, Grand Rapids, Baker

IfA 2010. Bylaws: Code of Conduct. Available from: http://www.archaeologists.net/sites/default/files/nodefiles/code_conduct.pdf [accessed 06 Jan 2011]

Kennedy, M. 1999. Avebury Stones daubed in GM protest, The Guardian. Available from: http://www. guardian.co.uk/environment/1999/jun/19/gmcrops. gm?INTCMP=SRCH [accessed 26 Mar 2012]

IfA nd Jobs Information Service, Available from: http:// www.archaeologists.net/jis/online [accessed 31 Oct 2013]

Kerton, N. 2007. Druids call for burial, Gazette and Herald, Available from: http://www.gazetteandherald. co.uk/news/1164290.Druids_call_for_burial/ [accessed 18 Jul 09]

Indymedia UK 2004. Direct Action Saves the Roundhouse. Available from: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/ en/2004/04/289349.html?c=on#comments [accessed 21 Aug 2012]

Kilminster, H. 2003. Visitor Perceptions of Ancient Egyptian Human Remains in Three United Kindom Museums, Papers from the Institute of Archaeology (14) 57-69

Ivakhiv, A.J. 2001. Claiming Sacred Ground: Pilgrims and Politics at Glastonbury and Sedona, Bloomington, Indiana University Press

King, T.F. 2008. The Law is an Ass, in Burke, H. Smith, C. Lippert, D. Watkins, J. & Zimmerman, L. (Eds) Kennewick Man: Perspectives on the Ancient One, Walnut Creek, Left Coast Press 138-140

Jackson, M. & Colwell, J. 2002. A Teacher’s Handbook of Death, London, Jessica Kingsley Jakobsen, M.D. 1999. Shamanism: Traditional and Contemporary Approaches to the Mastery of Spirits and Healing, New York & Oxford, Berghahn

Kinsella, T. 1970. The Táin, London & New York, Oxford University Press La Fontaine, J.S. 1998. Speak of the Devil: Tales of Satanic Abuse in contemporary England; Cambridge, New York & Oakleigh, Cambridge University Press

James, N. 2008. Repatriation, display and interpretation, Antiquity (82) 770-777 Jarman, N. 1995. Intersecting Belfast, in Bender, B. (Ed) Landscape: Politics and Perspectives, Providence & Oxford, Berg 107-138

Lambrick, G. 1983. The Rollright Stones: The Archaeology and Folklore of the Stones and their Surrounding Landscape, Oxford, Oxford Archaeological Unit 140

Bibliography Lambrick, G. 1988. The Rollright Stones: Megaliths, Monuments and Settlement in the Prehistoric Landscape, London, Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England

MacPherson, W. 1998. Sir William Macpherson’s Inquiry into the Matters Arising From the Death of Stephen Lawrence on 22 April 1993 to Date, In Order Particularly to Identify the Lessons to Be Learned for the Investigation and Prosecution of Racially Motivated Crimes. Available from: http://news.bbc. co.uk/hi/english/static/special_report/1999/02/99/ stephen_lawrence/report/ [accessed 01 Dec 2012]

Leahy, K. 2009. Human Remains, letter in British Archaeology (105) 10 Leary, T. 1994. Chaos and Cyberculture, Berkeley, Ronin

MagicOak 2009. Aubrey protest2. Available from: http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfZO0rAfEZg [accessed Mar 2009]

Lennon, J. 2007. Review of ‘Uses of Heritage’ by Laurajane Smith, Australian Archaeological Association. Available from http://australianarchaeology.com/ journal/review-of-uses-of-heritage-by-laurajane-smith/ [accessed 13 Nov 2014]

Magliocco, S. 2004. Witching Culture: Folklore and NeoPaganism in America, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press

Lewellen, T.C. 1992. Political Anthropology an Introduction, Westport & London, Bergin & Garvey

Malone, C. 1989. Avebury, London, Batsford English Heritage

Lewis, J.R. & Hammer, O. 2007. The Invention of Sacred Tradition, Cambridge & New York, Cambridge University Press

Malone, C. 2004. Neolithic Britain and Ireland, Stroud, Tempus

Liberty 2009. Your Rights - Article 8 - the right to respect for private and family life. Available from: http://www. yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/privacy/article-8-theright-to-respect-for-private-and-family-life-home-andcorresp.html [accessed 20 Nov 2012]

Manchester Museum 2007. Lindow Man at the Manchester Museum Blog 2010 in review. Available from: http:// lindowmanchester.wordpress.com/ [accessed 30 Oct 2012] Manchester Museum nd. Lindow Man: a bog body mystery. Available from: http://www.museum. manchester.ac.uk/whatson/exhibitions/pastexhibitions/ lindowmanabogbodymystery/ [accessed 30 Oct 2012]

Licklider, J.C.R. and R.W. Taylor (1968) ‘The Computer as a Communication Device’, International Science and Technology (April) Little B.J. 2009. Public Archaeology in the United States, in Sørensen, M.L.S. & Carman, J. (Eds) Heritage Studies: Methods and Approaches, London & New York, Routledge 29-51

Maples, W.R. 1989. The Practical Application of AgeEstimation Tech- niques, In Iscan, M.Y. (Ed) Age Markers in the Human Skeleton, Springfield, Charles Thomas, 319-324.

Loe, L. 2008. The Treatment of Human Remains in the Care of Oxford Archaeology: Policy Document. Available from: http://thehumanjourney.net/images/ stories/burials/policy_document.pdf [accessed 20 Jun 2012]

Marcus, G.E. 1995. Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography, Annual Review of Anthropology, (24) 95-117 Marsden, B.M. and Nurse, B. 2007. Opening the Tomb, in Royal Academy, Making History: Antiquaries in Britain 1707-2007, London, Royal Academy and Thames & Hudson

Loyal Arthurian Warband 2009. Free Stonehenge. Available from: http://www.warband.org.uk/freestonehenge.html [accessed 07 Nov 2012]

Mattessich, P.W. Monsey, B.R. & Roy, C. 1997. Community building: what makes it work, St Paul, Amherst H. Wilder Foundation

Lucanus, M.A. (Trans Ridley, E.) nd. Pharsalia. Available from: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=P erseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0134%3Abook%3D1%3 Acard%3D396 [accessed 29 Jan 2012]

Mason P. & Kuo I. R. 2006. Visitor Management at Stonehenge, UK, in Leek A. & Fyall A. (Eds) Managing World Heritage Sites, London & Oxford, Elsevier 181194

Luhrmann, T.M. 1991. Persuasions of a Witch’s Craft, Cambridge Mass, Harvard University Press Luke, nd. Gospel of Luke, King James Bible, Available from: http://www.biblegateway.com/ passage/?search=Luke%2023:43&version=ERV [accessed 13 Mar 2013]

Maughfling, R. 1997. Druids and Stonehenge, Druidlore (1) 8-10 Maughfling, R. 2000a. Stonehenge and Druidry in the Twenty-first Century, Druidlore, (3) 4-6

Lynch, F. 2004. Megalithic Tombs and Long Barrows in Britain, Princes Risborough, Shire

Maughfling, R. 2000b. The Fight to Save Seahenge, Druidlore (3) 10-13

MacAlister R.A.C. (Trans. & Ed.) 1941. Lebor Gabala Erenn: The book of the taking of Ireland Part IV, Dublin, Irish Texts Society

Maughfling, R. 2007. All the Orders involved in CoBDO have a common principle, [online] (updated 2010) 141

Contested Heritage Minthorne, A. 2008. Human Remains Should be Reburied, in Burke, H. Smith, C. Lippert, D. Watkins, J & Zimmerman, L. (Eds) Kennewick man: Perspectives on the Ancient One, Walnut Creek, Left Coast Press, 42-43

Available from: http://www.cobdo.org.uk/index.html [accessed 25 Nov 2013] Maughfling, R. 2009. CoBDO Reburial Statement [online] (Updated January 2009) Available from: http://www. cobdo.org.uk/html/reburial_statement.html [accessed 28 Mar 2011]

Monmouth, G. (Trans. Thorpe, L.) 1966. The History of the Kings of Britain, London & New York, Penguin

Mays, S, nd. Advisory Panel on Archaelogy of Burials in England (APABE). Available from: http://www. archaeologyuk.org/apabe/ [accessed 28 Aug 2012]

Moorey, T. 1996. Paganism: A Beginner’s Guide, London, Hodder & Stoughton Morgan, P. 1992. From Death to a View: The Hunt for the Welsh Past in the Romantic Period, in Hobsbawm, E.J. & Ranger, T.O. (Eds) The Invention of tradition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

McDavid, C. 2000. Archaeology as Cultural Critique. Pragmatism and the Archaeology of a Southern United States Plantation, in Holtorf, C. & Karlsson, H. (Eds) Philosophy and Archaeological Practice: Perspectives for the 21st Century, Goteborg, Bricoleur Press 221-232

Morgannwg, I. 1998. The Voice Conventional, in Matthews, J. (Ed) The Bardic Source Book: Inspirational Legacy and Teachings of the Ancient Celts, London Blandford, 296-309

McDavid, C. 2002. Archaeology that Hurts; Descendants that Matter: A Pragmatic Approach to Collaboration in the Public Interpretation of African-American Archaeology, World Archaeology 34(2) 303-314

Morris, R. 1993. A Public Past: in Swain, H. (Ed) Rescuing the Historic Environment. Hertford, Rescue BAT 9-16

McDavid, C. 2009. The Public Archaeology of African America: Reflections on Pragmatic Methods and Their Results in Sørensen, M.L.S. & Carman, J. (Eds) Heritage Studies: Methods and Approaches, London & New York, Routledge 217-234

Moshenska, G. 2009. The Reburial Issue in Britain, Antiquity (321) 815-20 Moss, S. 2011. The secrets of Paviland Cave, The Guardian, Available from http://www.guardian.co.uk/ science/2011/apr/25/paviland-cave-red-lady [accessed 14 Mar 2013]

McGhee, R. 2008. Aboriginalism and the Problems of Indigenous Archaeology, American Antiquity 73(4) 579-597

Mullhall, I. 2010. The Peat Men from Clonycavan and Oldcroghan, British Archaeology, (110) 34-9

McLean, F. 2008. Museums and the Representation of Identity, in Graham, B.J. & Howard, P. (Eds) The Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage and Identity, Aldershot & Burlington, Ashgate 283-296

Mulvaney, D.L. 1991. Past regained, future lost: the Kow Swamp Pleistocene burials, Antiquity (65) 12-21

Meaden T. 1999. The Secrets of the Avebury Stones, Britain’s Greatest Megalithic Temple, London, Souvenir Press

Murphy, K. Murphy, F. & Wilson, H. 2010. Excavation of Two Bronze Age Round Barrows at Pant Y Butler, Llangoedmor, Ceredigion, 2009, Llandeilo, Dyfed Archaeological Trust.

Merriman, N. 1991. Beyond the Glass Case: the public, museums and heritage in Britain, London, Leicester University Press

Murray, L. 2007. About CoBDO. Available from: http:// www.cobdo.org.uk/html/about_cobdo.html [accessed 15 Mar 2012]

Merriman, N. 2004. Involving the Public in Museum Archaeology, in Merriman, N. (Ed) Public Archaeology, London, Routledge,

Museum of London 2006. Policy for the care of human remains in Museum of London Collections. Available from: http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/CollectionsResearch/LAARC/Centre-for-Human-Bioarchaeology/ Policies/MuseumPolicyomHumanRemains.htm [accessed 30 Jan 2012]

Metcalf, P. & Huntington, R. 1991. Celebrations of Death: The Anthropology of Mortuary Ritual, New York, Cambridge University Press Michell, J. 1969. The View Over Atlantis, London, Sago Press

Museums Association nda. Museums Association: About. Available from: http://www.museumsassociation.org/ about [accessed 30 Jan 2012]

Michell, J. 2001. The New View Over Atlantis, London, Thames & Hudson

Museums Association ndb. Museums Association: About: Frequently Asked Questions. Available from: http:// www.museumsassociation.org/about/frequently-askedquestions [accessed 14 Mar 2013]

Michell, J. 1997. Stonehenge: Its Druids, Custodians, Festivals and Future, Druidlore (1) 4-7 Miller, G. 2005. Census Results for Religion Analysed, Pagan Dawn (154) 17

Museums Association 2008. Code of Ethics for Museums: Ethical principles for all who work for or govern museums in the UK, London, Museums Association,

Miller, H. 2000. Secrets of the Dead, London, Channel Four Books 142

Bibliography Available from: http://www.museumsassociation.org/ download?id=15717 [Accessed 14 May 2012]

Pagan Federation 1996. Pagan News, Pagan Dawn (120) 6-7

Mytum, H. & Webster, C. 2001. Survey and Excavation at Henllys Top

Pagan Federation 1997. Pagan News, Pagan Dawn (122) 6-7

Field and Cwm Gloyne Enclosures, Studia Celtica, (35), 89–108

Pagan Federation nd. The Pagan Federation. Available from: http://www.paganfed.org/intro.php [accessed 14 Mar 08]

Nagata, J. 2001. Beyond Theology: Toward an Anthropology of “Fundamentalism”, American Anthropologist 103(2) 481-98

Pagan Warriors 2008. Pagan Warriors UK Protest Forum. Available from: http://paganwarriorsuk.co.uk/ [accessed 20 Jul 09]

National Association of Funeral Directors 1990. Code of Practice, Solihull, National Association of Funeral Directors

Park, V.M. Roberts, C.A. & Jakob, T. 2010. Palaeopathology in Britain: A Critical Analysis of Publications with the Aim of Exploring Recent Trends (1997-2006), The International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 20(5) 497-507

National Museum of Wales 2006. Collection Management Policies - Policy on Human Remains. Available from: http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/1181/ [accessed 13 Aug 2012]

Parker Pearson, M. 1982. Mortuary Practices, Society and Ideology: An Ethnoarchaeological Study, in Hodder, I. (Ed) Symbolic and Structural Archaeology; Cambridge, London, New York, New Rochelle, Melbourne & Sydney, Cambridge University Press 99-114

National Trust 2008. Avebury, s.l. National Trust National Trust nda. About Us. Available from: http://www. nationaltrust.org.uk/about-us/ [accessed 04 Feb 2013] National Trust ndb. What We Do. Available from: http:// www.nationaltrust.org.uk/what-we-do/ [accessed 05 Sep 2012]

Parker Pearson, M. 2003. The Archaeology of Death and Burial, Stroud, Sutton Parker Pearson, M. 2005. The Earlier Bronze Age, in Hunter, J. & Ralston, I. (Eds) The Archaeology of Britain: An introduction from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Industrial Revolution, London & New York, Routledge 77-94

Nolan, B. nd. The Upside Down Tree Circle. Available from: http://www.talkingtrees.net/Seahenge-Theupside-down-tree-Circle [accessed 20 Jul 09] North Yorkshire County Council 2011. Online planning register - Planning application - NY/2011/0242/ ENV. Available from: https://onlineplanningregister. n o r t h y o r k s . g o v. u k / r e g i s t e r / P l a n A p p D i s p . aspx?recno=8037 [accessed 30 Nov 2012]

Parker Pearson, M. 2012. Stonehenge: Exploring the Greatest Stone Age Mystery; London, New York, Sydney, Toronto & New Delhi; Simon & Schuster Parker Pearson, M. Chamberlaine, A. Craig, O. Marshall, P. Mulville, P. Smith, H. Chenery, C. Collins, M. Cook, G. Craig, G. Evans, J. Hiller, J. Montgomery, J. Schwenninger, J-L. Taylor, G. & Wess, T. 2005. Evidence for Mummification in Bronze Age Britain, Antiquity 79(305) 529-46

Nyiszli, M. (Trans. Kremer, T. & Seaver, R.) 1985. Auschwitz, London, Panther Granada OBOD nd. Ethics & Values In Druidry II. Available from: http://www.Druidry.org/Druid-way/whatDruidry/ethics-values-Druidry/ethics-values-Druidism [accessed 01 Dec 2012]

Parker Pearson, M. Pollard, J. Richards, C. Thomas, J. Tilley, C. Welham, K. Allen, M. Bennett, W. Field, D. French, C. Linford, N. Payne, A. Robinson, D. & Ruggles, C. 2006. The Stonehenge Riverside Project: Summary interim Report on the 2006 Season. Available at: http://www. shef.ac.uk/content/1/c6/02/21/27/summary-interimreport-2006.pdf [accessed 01 Dec 2012]

Office for National Statistics 2012. Religion in England and Wales 2011. Available from: http://www.ons.gov. uk/ons/dcp171776_290510.pdf [accessed 12 Dec 2012] Ordnance Survey 2006. North Pembrokeshire / Gogledd Sir Benfro, Southampton, Ordnance Survey Ordnance Survey 2008. Marlborough & Savernake Forest, Southampton, Ordnance Survey

Parker Pearson, M. & Pryor, F. 2006. Visitors and Viewers Welcome? In Hunter, J. & Ralston, I. (Eds) Archaeological Resource Management in the UK: an introduction, Stroud, Sutton 316-327

O’Regan, S. 1994. Maori Control of the Maori Heritage, in Gathercole,P. & Lowenthal, D. (Eds) The Politics of the Past, London & New York, Routledge 95-106

Parker Pearson, M. & Ramilisonina 1998. Stonehenge for the ancestors: the stones pass on the message, Antiquity, 72(276) 308-26

Oringer, M. 1998-2001. Jewitchery – Essays: Jewitchery. Available from: http://www.jewitchery.com/essays/ jewitchery.html [accessed 18 Jul 09]

Parry, G. 2007. Mists of Time, in Royal Academy, Making History: Antiquaries in Britain 1707-2007, London, Royal Academy and Thames & Hudson 17-36

Pagan Federation 1992. The Pagan Federation Information Pack, London, Pagan Federation 143

Contested Heritage Partridge, C. (Ed) 2002. Dictionary of Contemporary Religion in the Western World, Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press

Pitts, M. 2009. A year at Stonehenge, Antiquity (83) 184194 Pitts, M. 2011a. A Quick Spin Around Stonehenge. Available from: http://mikepitts.wordpress.com/ category/stonehenge/ [accessed 09 Mar 2012]

Partridge, C. 2004. The Re-Enchantment of the West Vol 2, London, T&T Clark Pearsall & Trumble (Eds) 2003. Oxford English Reference Dictionary, Oxford, Oxford University Press

Pitts, M. 2011b. Digging Deeper. Available from: http:// mikepitts.wordpress.com/2011/08/ [accessed 19 Sep 2012]

Pearson, J. 1998. Assumed Affinities: Wicca and the New Age, in Nature Religion Today: Paganism in the Modern World, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press 45-56

Pizza, M. 2009. Schism as Midwife: How Conflict Aided the Birth of a Contemporary Pagan Community, In Lewis, J.R. & Lewis S. (Eds) Sacred Schisms: How Religions Divide, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 248-261

Pearson, J. 2001. Going Native in Reverse, Nova Religio, 5(1) 52-63

Pluciennik, M. 2001. Introduction: the responsibilities of archaeologists, in Pluciennik, M. (Ed) The Responsibilities of Archaeologists: Archaeology and Ethics, British Archaeological Reports International Series 981, Oxford, BAR Publishing 1-8

Pendragon, A. 2011a. Open Letter to H.A.D (Honouring the Ancient Dead). Available from: http://www.facebook.com/#!/note. php?note_id=10150431149595192 [accessed 25 Mar 2011]

Plutarch (Trans. Perrin, B.) 1920. Pyrrhus Ch 26 . Available from: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/ text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0060%3Acha pter%3D26%3Asection%3D6 [accessed 01 Feb 2013]

Pendragon, A. 2011b. A Write Royal Rant. Available from: http://www.warband.co.uk/a-write-royal-rant.html [accessed 01 Nov 2012] Pendragon, A. nd. Resolving the Human Remains Crisis in British Archaeology: The Counter Argument. Available from: http://pia-journal.co.uk/article/view/pia.373/434 [accessed 09 Jul 2012]

Pollard, J. & Reynolds, A. 2002. Avebury: The biography of a landscape, Stroud, Tempus Postins, M.W. 1987. Stonehenge: Sun, Moon, Wandering Stars, Kenilworth, BJT Print Services

Pendragon, A. & Stone, C.J. 2003. The Trials of Arthur: the life and times of a modern-day king, London, Element

Poulton Research Project 2010. Golden Rules For Human Remains, s.l. Poulton Research Project

Pengelly, J. & Waredale, D. 1992. Something out of Nothing, London, The Pagan Federation

Pratchett, T. Stewart, I. & Cohen, J. 2003. Science of Discworld II: The Globe, Ebury Press, London, Sydney & Parktown

Phillips, M. 2010. Druids as an official religion? Stones of Praise here we come, Daily Mail 04 Oct 2010, (available online from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ debate/article-1317490/Druids-official-religionStones-Praise-come.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)

Price, D. 2010. Eternal Idol: Unlock the Gates of Janus. Available from: http://www.eternalidol.com/?p=4644 [accessed 14 Apr 2011] Pryor, F. 2002. Seahenge: a quest for life and death in Bronze Age Britain, London, HarperCollins

Phillips, W.D. & Phillips C.R. 2010. A Concise History of Spain, Cambridge & New York, CUP

Pryor, F. 2003. Britain BC: life in Britain and Ireland before the Romans, London, Harpercollins

Piggott, S. 1968. The Druids, London, Thames & Hudson Pike, S.M. 2004. Gleanings from the Field: Leftover Tales of Grief and Desire, in Blain, J. Ezzy, D. & Harvey, G. (Eds) Researching Paganisms; Walnut Creek, Lanham, New York, Toronto & Oxford; Altamira

Pullman, P. 2001. His Dark Materials, London, Scholastic Press Quote Investigator. 2013. We Do Not Inherit the Earth from Our Ancestors; We Borrow It from Our Children. Available from: http://quoteinvestigator. com/2013/01/22/borrow-earth/ [accessed 2014]

Pitts, M. 1996. The Vicar’s Dewpond, The National Trust Shop and the Rise of Paganism, in Evans, D.M. Salway, P. & Thackray, D. (Eds) The Remains of Distant Times: Archaeology and the National Trust; Woodbridge & Rochester; Boydell Press, Society of Antiquaries & the National Trust

Rahtz, P. 1991. Invitation to Archaeology, Oxford and Cambridge, Blackwell

Pitts, M. 2000. Hengeworld, London, Century 2000

Rahtz, P. 1993. Glastonbury, London, Batsford English Heritage

Pitts, M. 2008. Major New Galleries Open in Cardiff, British Archaeology, (98) 6

Raphael, M. 1999. Introducing Thealogy: Discourse on the Goddess, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press

144

Bibliography Rapport, N. 2002. The Body of the Village Community, in Rapport, N. (Ed) British Subjects: An Anthropology of Britain, Oxford & New York, Berg 299-319

Richards, J. 1999. Meet the Ancestors: Unearthing the evidence that brings us face to face with the past, London, BBC

Rathouse, W.W.O. 2007. Social Stigma and the experience of coming out as Pagan, unpublished undergraduate coursework, University of Wales: Lampeter.

Richards, J 2005. Stonehenge, London, English Heritage Richards, J. 2013. Stonehenge, London, English Heritage Robbins, B. 1993. Secular Vocations: Intellectuals, Professionalism, Culture, London, Verso

Rayner, J. 2012. A Pilgrim’s Guide to Stonehenge: The Summer Solstice Celebrations, Winter Solstice and Equinox Dawn Gatherings, Great Britain, Choir Press

Roberts, C.A. 2009. Human Remains in Archaeology: A Handbook, York CBA

Reid, P. 2006. The Stolen Generations: The Removal of Aboriginal Children in New South Wales 18831969. Available from: http://www.daa.nsw.gov.au/ publications/StolenGenerations.pdf [accessed 01 Apr 2011]

Roberts, C. & Manchester, K. 2005. The Archaeology of Disease, Stroud, Sutton Roberts, S. 1979. Order and Dispute: an introduction to legal anthropology, Harmondsworth, Penguin Ross, A. 1986. Lindow Man and the Celtic Tradition, in Stead, I.M. Bourke, J.B. & Brothwell, D. (Eds) Lindow Man: The Body in the Bog, London, Trustees of the British Museum 162-169

Reilly, S. 2003. Processing the Dead in Neolithic Orkney, Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 22(2) 133-54 Reiser, O.L. 1974. This holyest erthe : the Glastonbury zodiac and King Arthur’s Camelot, London, Perennial Books

Russell, M. 2002. Monuments of the British Neolithic: The Roots of Architecture, Stroud, Tempus

Restall Orr, E. 1996. Druids and Barrow-Loads of Trash, The Druids’ Voice (6) 26-28

St. Paul’s Cathedral. nd. Choose your tickets. Available from: https://www.stpauls.co.uk/secure/tickets-1.asp [accessed 24 Jan 2013]

Restall Orr, E. 2000a. Stonehenge: A View from the Moment, Tooth & Claw (9) 4-6

Salisbury Cathedral. nd. Tower tours – Salisbury Cathedral. Available from: http://www.salisburycathedral.org.uk/ visitor.tours.php [accessed 24 Jan 2013]

Restall Orr, E. 2000b. Ritual: A Guide to Life, Love and inspiration, London, Thorsons Restall Orr, E. 2004. Honouring the Ancient Dead. Available from: http://www.honour.org.uk/node/26 [accessed 09 Jul 2009]

Salway, P. 1996. Introduction, in Evans, D.M. Salway, P. & Thackray, D. (Eds) The Remains of Distant Times: Archaeology and the National Trust, Suffolk & Rocester, Boydell Press

Restall Orr, E. 2005. A Theology of Reburial. Available from: http://www.honour.org.uk/node/31 [accessed 30 Jun 2009]

Sayer, D. 2009. Is there a crisis facing British burial archaeology? Antiquity 83(319) 199-205

Restall Orr, E. 2006. Honouring the Ancient Dead, Pagan Dawn (159) 40-42

Sayer, D. 2010. Bones without barriers: digging cemeteries without hiding, Theoretical Archaeology Group 2010 conference, Bristol

Restall Orr, E. 2007a. Living with Honour: A Pagan Ethics, Winchester, O Books

Sayer, D. and Symonds, J. 2004. Lost Congregations: the crisis facing later post medieval urban burial grounds, Church Archaeology 5&655-61

Restall Orr, E 2007b. The Ongoing Tales of Lindow Man, Pagan Dawn, (163) 34, Available from: http://www. honour.org.uk/node/55 [accessed 21 Apr 2009]

Scarre, C. & Scarre, G. (Eds) 2006. The Ethics of Archaeology: philosophical perspectives on archaeological practice, Cambridge, CUP

Restall Orr, E. 2010. Re: Reburial or Retention of Human Remains from Stonehenge, Available from: http://www. honour.org.uk/system/files/MOJ+HAD+Response.pdf [accessed 12 Mar 2013]

Scarre, G. 2006. Can Archaeology Harm the Dead?, in Scarre, C. & Scarre, G. (Eds) The Ethics of Archaeology: philosophical perspectives on archaeological practice, Cambridge, CUP, 181-198

Restall Orr, E. 2012. The Wakeful World: Animism, Mind and the Self in Nature, Winchester and Washington, Moon Books

Schadla-Hall, T. 2004. The Comforts of Unreason, in Merriman, N. (Ed) Public Archaeology, London, Routledge, 255-271

Reyes-Cortez, M. 2012. Material culture, magic and the Santa Muerte in the cemeteries of a megalopolis, Culture and Religion: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 13(1) 107-131

Sebastion, T. 1990. Triad /|\: the Druid knowledge of Stonehenge, in Chippindale, C. Devereux, P. Fowler, P. Jones, R. Sebastion, T. Who Owns Stonehenge, London, Batsford 145

Contested Heritage Smith, L. & Waterton, E. 2009. Heritage, Communities and Archaeology, London, Duckworth

Sebastion, Tim 2001. Alternative archaeology: has it happened? in A Permeability of Boundaries?: New Approaches to the Archaeology of Art, Religion and Folklore, British Archaeological Reports International Series 936, Oxford, BAR Publishing 125-135

Snyder, C. 2011. Exploring the world of King Arthur, London, Thames & Hudson Society for Museum Archaeologists 1993. Selection, Retention and Dispersal of Archaeological Collections. Available from: http://www.socmusarch.org.uk/docs/ selectionretentiondispersalofcollections1.pdf [accessed 30 Jun 2010]

Seidman, S. 2004. Contested Knowledge, Oxford, Blackwell Servini, N. 1999. Pagans in Burial Bust Up, The Mirror, 22 Oct 1999, Available from: http://www.thefreelibrary. com/Pagans+in+burial+bust-up.-a060406147 [accessed 20 Nov 2012]

Sommer, M. 2007. Bones and Ochre: The Curious Afterlife of the Red Lady of Paviland, London & Cambridge, Harvard University Press

Shallcrass, P. 1996. Druid News and Views, The Druids’ Voice (7) 30-34

Somers, F. 2010. Stonehenge Druids: Did archaeologists deface the archer? Available from: http://www. stonehenge-Druids.org/ [accessed 14 Apr 2010]

Shallcrass, P. 1998. A Priest of the Goddess, in Nature Religion Today: Paganism in the Modern World, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press 157-169

Somers, F. & Pendragon, A. 2010. Formal Response to Dept. of Justice. Available from: www.warband.org. uk/Formal%20Response%20to%20DoJ%20v1.0.pdf [accessed 10 Jul 2011]

Shallcrass, P. 2000. Druidry, London, Piatkus Shallcrass, P. 2004. Respect and Reburial in Action, Pagan Dawn (150) 28-29

Somers, F. & Pendragon, A. 2011. Open Letter to HAD (Honouring the Ancient Dead). Available from: http:// www.facebook.com/#!/note.php?note_id=10150431 [accessed 07 Mar 2011]

Shallcrass, P. 2008. Re: Druid Shaman. Available from: http://www.Druidry.co.uk/forum/the-shamanic-path/ Druid-Shaman-t386.html [accessed 06 Aug 2012] Shallcrass, P. 2009. Letter to Sebastian Payne. Available at http://www.Druidry.co.uk/BDO%20Reburial%20 Response.pdf [accessed 30 Jun 2010]

Souden, D. 1997. Stonehenge Revealed, New York, Facts on File Sperber, D. 1994. On Anthropological Knowledge: Three Essays; Cambridge, New York & Melbourne; Cambridge University Press

Shallcrass, P. (address withheld) 09 Mar 2012. Re: Stonehenge Free Festival [email to William Rathouse] ([email protected])

Spivak, G. 1990. Practical Politics of the Open End, in Harasym, S. (Ed) The Post-Colonial Critic: Interviews, Structures, Dialogues, New York & London, Routledge 95-112

Sheets-Pyenson, S. 1988. Cathedrals of Science: The Development of Colonial Natural History Museums During the Late Nineteenth Century, Kingston & Montreal, McGill-Queens University Press

Spoerry, P. 1993. Archaeology and Legislation in Britain, Hertford, British Archaeological Trust

Shelley, P. ([email protected]) 23 Sep 2010. RE: Stonehenge protests, [email to William Rathouse] ([email protected])

Starhawk 1999. The Spiral Dance: a rebirth of the ancient religion of the great goddess, New York, Harper San Francisco

Simpson, M. 2001. Making Representations: museums in the post colonial era, London & New York, Routledge

Stead, I.M. Bourke, J.B. & Brothwell, D. (Eds) Lindow Man: The Body in the Bog, London, Trustees of the British Museum

Sitch, B. ([email protected]) 03 Sep 2010. RE: Researching contemporary Pagan engagements with heritage, [email to William Rathouse] (pg186@ lamp.ac.uk)

Steckel, R. Larsen, C.S. Sciulli, P. & Walker, P. 2006. The Scientific Value of Human Remains in Studying the Global History of Health, in Lohman, J. & Goodnow, K. (Eds) Human Remains and Museum Practice, Paris & London, UNESCO & Museum of London 60-70

Skeates, R. 2000. Debating the Archaeological Heritage, London, Duckworth Smith, I.F. 1965. Windmill Hill and Avebury: excavations by Alexander Keiller 1925-1939, Oxford, Clarenden Press

Stone, C.J. 1996. Fierce Dancing: Adventures in the Underground, London, Faber & Faber

Smith, L. 2004. Archaeological Theory and the Politics of Cultural Heritage, London & New York, Routledge

Stone, P. 2008. Stonehenge – A Final Solution?, in Fairclough, G. Harrison, R. Schofield, J. & Jameson, J.H. jnr. (Eds) The Heritage Reader, London & New York, Routledge, 525-535

Smith, L. 2006. Uses of Heritage, London & New York, Routledge

146

Bibliography Stonehenge Peace Process nd. Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Stonehenge. Available from: http:// www.stonehengecampaign.org.uk/greenleaf/trc.htm [accessed 14 Jan 2013]

Available from: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/ content/imported-docs/p-t/report-on-consultation.pdf [accessed 30 Mar 2011] Thackray, D. & Payne, S. 2010. Avebury Reburial Request: Summary Report. Available from: http://www.englishheritage.org.uk/content/imported-docs/a-e/aveburyreburial-request-summary.pdf [accessed 30 Mar 2011]

Stout, A. 2006. What’s Real and What is Not: Reflections Upon Archaeology and Earth Mysteries in Britain, Frome, Runetree Stout, A. 2008a. Creating Prehistory: Druids, Ley Hunters and Archaeologists in Pre-war Britain, Oxford & Malden, Blackwell

Thatcher, M 1995. The Downing Street Years, London, HarperCollins theclevercat 2012. Druid Ceremony: Summer Solstice at The Rollright Stones. Available from: http:// theclevercat.hubpages.com/hub/Summer-SolsticeCeremony# [accessed 22 Oct 2012]

Stout, A. 2008b. Universal Majesty, Verity & Love Infinite: A Life of George Watson MacGregor Reid, in CarrGomm P. Hutton R. Cooper G. Greer J.M. Matthews C. Stout A. Rotherham R. & Maertins J. The Mount Haemus Lectures, Lewes, Oak Tree Press, 83-170

The Sun, 2012. I want my man like he is, whether he is dead or alive. Available from: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/ homepage/news/4656956/woman-accused-of-hordingskeletons-for-sex.html [accessed 23 Nov 2012]

Stukeley, W. 2005. Stonehenge, in Burl, A. & Mortimer, N. (Eds) Stukeley’s Stonehenge, Newhaven & London, Yale University Press 21-133

This Is Bristol 2009. Avebury Residents Back Campsite for Solstice. Available from: http://www.thisisbristol. co.uk/Pagans-able-camp-Avebury-festivals/story11305510-detail/story.html [accessed 28 Feb 2012]

Strabo (trans Hamilton, H.C. & Falconer, W.) nd. Geography Book IV Chapter 4 Section 4. Available from: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc= Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0239%3Abook%3D4% 3Achapter%3D4%3Asection%3D4 [accessed 01 Dec 2012]

This Is Wiltshire 2009. This Is Wiltshire – Trust Nears Solution Over Avebury Solstice Campers. Available from: http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/ news/headlines/4111165.Trust_near_solution_over_ Avebury_solstice_campers/ [accessed 10 Mar 2010]

SuperSteve9219 2006. Penn And Teller Get Hippies To Sign Water Banning Petition. Available from: http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw [accessed 20 May 2011]

Thomas, H. 2000. Skull Wars: Kennewick Man, Archaeology and the Battle for Native American Identity, New York, Basic Books

Sykes, B. 2002. The Seven Daughters of Eve, London, Corgi

Thomas, L-V. 2005 Funeral Rites: An Overview, in Jones, L. (Ed) Encyclopedia of Religion, Detroit, Macmillan Reference

Tarlow, S. 2001. The Responsibility of Representation, in Pluciennik M. (Ed) The Responsibilities of Archaeologists: Archaeology and Ethics, British Archaeological Reports International Series 981, Oxford, BAR Publishing 57-64

Tierney, J. 2001. Darkness in El Dorado : how scientists and journalists devastated the Amazon, New York, Norton

Tarlow, S. 2006. Archaeological ethics and the people of the past, in Scarre C. & Scarre G. (Eds) The Ethics of Archaeology: philosophical perspectives on archaeological practice, Cambridge, CUP, 199-216

Tilley, C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments; Oxford, Berg Tilley, C. 2004. The Materiality of Stone: Explorations in Landscape Phenomenology, Oxford & New York, Berg

Tarlow, S. 2008. The Extraordinary History of Oliver Cromwell’s Head, in Borié, D. & Robb, J. (Eds) Past bodies: Body Centred Research in Archaeology, Oxford, Oxbow

Time Team. Special. The Mystery of Sea Henge. Channel 4. 29 Dec 1999 Timothy, D.J. 2007. Managing Cultural Heritage and Cultural Tourism Resources, Aldershot & Burlington, Ashgate

Taylor, T. 2002. The Buried Soul: How humans invented death, London Fourth Estate Thackray, D. & Payne, S. 2008. Draft Report on the Request for the Reburial of Human Remains from the Alexander Keiller Museum at Avebury. Available from: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/importeddocs/a-e/draftreport.pdf [accessed 22 Nov 2012]

Tonnies, F. (Trans Loomis C.P.) 1955. Community and Association, London, Routledge Tortorello, M. 2012. Made by Druids, Loved by Dragons, New York Times. Available from: http://www.nytimes. com/2012/08/23/garden/your-own-private-stonehenge. html?pagewanted=1&smid=pl-share[/url [accessed 23 Aug 2012]

Thackray, D. & Payne, S. 2009. Report on Consultation on the Request for Reburial of Prehistoric Human Remains from the Alexander Keiller Museum at Avebury. 147

Contested Heritage Toynbee, P. 1996. A being that works in mysterious ways: Who is to say what is a proper religion? That all-seeing judge of transcendental things, the Charity Commission, The Independent. Available from: http:// www.independent.co.uk/opinion/a-being-that-worksin-mysterious-ways-1328894.html [accessed 24 Sep 2012]

Walsham, A. 2010. Introduction: Relics and Remains in Walsham, A. (Ed) Relics and Remains past and present, Oxford, Oxford University Press 9-36 Walter, T. 1991. Modern Death: Taboo or Not Taboo, Sociology 25(2) 293-310 Warwick, C. [email protected]. 2003. Re: Dead to Rights and the Red Lady, [email] Message to William Rathouse ([email protected]) Sent 04 Mar 2013 20:26

Trubshaw, B. 2005. Sacred Places: Prehistory and the popular imagination, Loughborough, Heart of Albion

Watkins, A. 1974. The Old Straight Track, London, Abacus

Turner, R. 2004. Return ‘Red Lady’ to Wales, English urged. Available from: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/ news/wales-news/page.cfm?objectid=14235936&meth od=full&siteid=50082 [accessed 11 Nov 2012]

Watson, C. 2005. Seahenge: an archaeological conundrum, Swindon, English Heritage Weeks, J. 2008. Egypt Gallery, Bristol’s City Museum and Art Gallery, Museums Journal 108(6) 46-49

UNESCO 1992. Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated sites – UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available from: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/373 [accessed 10 Mar 2010]

Weigmann, K. 2001. In the Name of Science: The role of biologists in Nazi atrocities: lessons for today’s scientists, EMBO Reports, 2 (10) 871-5

UNESCO 2010. UNESCO World Heritage Centre Frequently Asked Questions. Available from: http:// whc.unesco.org/en/faq/#q2 [accessed 14 Mar 2012]

Wessex Archaeology nd Community and Outreach Services, Available from: http://www.wessexarch. co.uk/system/files/Outreach.pdf [accessed 31 Mar 2014]

University of Oxford Museums and Collections nd Community Outreach – Bringing the Museums to You, Available from: http://www.museums.ox.ac.uk/ drupal7/community-outreach [accessed 21 Mar 2014]

Western Daily Press. 2013. Druids protest outside new Stonehenge visitors centre. Available from http://www. westerndailypress.co.uk/Druids-protest-outside-newStonehenge-visitor/story-20337510-detail/story.html [accessed 25 Aug 2014]

University of Sheffield. 2009. Archaeologist at University finds ‘Bluestonehenge’ site. Available from: http://www. shef.ac.uk/mediacentre/2009/1363.html [accessed 14 Apr 2011]

Whelan, J. 2009. Land off Wellow Lane, Peasedown St. John, Bath and North East Somerset NGR ST70385692: Results of an archaeological evaluation, Hindon, AC Archaeology. Available from: http://idox.bathnes.gov. uk/WAM/doc/Consultation%20Response-337443. pdf?extension=.pdf&id=337443&location=VOLU ME2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1 [accessed 07 Oct 2012]

Urry, J. 1990. The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies, London, Sage Valiente, D. 1993. Witchcraft for Tomorrow, London, Robert Hale Van Gulik, L. 2009. On the Pagan Parallax: a sociocultural exploration of the tension between eclecticism and traditionalism in contemporary nature religions. Available from: http://www.leonvangulik. nl/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/On-thePagan-parallax-_final_-home-version.pdf [accessed 21 Sep 2012]

White, B. 2009. An Advisory Panel for the Archaeology of all burials on England? In The Archaeologist (72) 28-29 Whitley, J. 2002. Too Many Ancestors, Antiquity (76)119126 Whittle, A. 2005. The Neolithic Period c. 4000-2500/2200 BC, in Hunter, J. & Ralston, I. (Eds) The Archaeology of Britain: An introduction from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Industrial Revolution, London & New York, Routledge 58-76

Vardy, P. & Grosch, P. 1999. The Puzzle of Ethics, London, Fount Wade, E.C.S. & Bradley, A.W. 1965. Constitutional Law, London, Longmans Green & Co Ltd.

Williams, P. & Wallace, D. 1990. Unit 731, London, Grafton

Walker, B. & Maynard, J. 1997. Through Indian Eyes: The Untold History of Native American Peoples; Pleasantville, New York & Montreal; Readers Digest

Williams, C. 2010. Down Among the Dead Men: A year in the life of a mortuary technician, London, Constable

Wallis, R. J. 2000. Queer Shamans: Autoarchaeology and Neo-Shamanism, in World Archaeology 32(2) 252-262

Wilson, D.M. 1990. The British Museum: Purpose and Politics, London, British Museum Publications

Wallis, R. J. 2003. Shamans/Neo-Shamans: Ecstasy, Alternative Archaeologies and Contemporary Pagans, London, Routledge

Winter, J.C. 1984. Indian Heritage Preservation and Archaeologists, American Antiquity 45(1) 121-131

148

Bibliography Winton, T.E. 2004. Footprints in Stone: A Psychogeography of Rome, Available from http://www.akad.se/Winton. pdf [accessed 09 Apr 2013] Wittgenstein, L. 1933. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, London, Kegan Paul World Archaeology Congress 1989. the Vermillion Accord on Human Remains. Available from: http://www. worldarchaeologicalcongress.org/site/about_ethi. php#code2 [accessed 19 Jun 2012] Worthington, A. 2005a. Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion, Loughborough, Alternative Albion Worthington, A. (Ed) 2005b. The Battle of the Beanfield, Teignmouth, Enabler Worthington, A. 2008. Stonehenge and the summer solstice: past and present. Available from: http://www. andyworthington.co.uk/2008/06/21/stonehenge-andthe-summer-solstice-past-and-present/ [accessed 09 Mar 2012] Worthington, A. & Dearling 2005. Stonehenge and the Road to the Beanfield, in Worthington, A. (Ed) The Battle of the Beanfield, Teignmouth, Enabler 5-25 Wright, P. 2009. On Living in an Old Country, Oxford & New York, Oxford University Press York, M. 1995. The Emerging Network: A Sociology of the New Age and Neo-Pagan Movements, Lanham & London, Bowman & Littlefield York, M. 2005. Pagan Theology: Paganism as a World Religion, New York & London, New York University Press Yorkshire Post 2009. Fate of flock of birds holds up quarrying. Available from: http://www.yorkshirepost. co.uk/news/around-yorkshire/local-stories/fateof-flock-of-birds-holds-up-quarrying-1-2337856 [accessed 30 Nov 2012] Zwi Werblowsky, R.J. 1987. Polytheism, in Eliade M. (Ed) The Encyclopedia of Religion, New York, MacMillan 435-9

149

Personal Communications against the excavation of the Seahenge timber circle at Holme-next-the-Sea in Norfolk.

Aburrow, Yvonne (03 Apr 2009, 26-8 Jun 2009) Yvonne is a Wiccan high priestess and founder of Pagans for Archaeology.

Orbach, Emma (09 Nov 2010) Emma is the founder of the Tir Ysbridol (Spiritual Land) ecological community in Pembrokeshire.

Ayers, Brian (21 Apr 2009) Brian was County Archaeologist for Norfolk at the time of the excavation of the HolmeNext-the-Sea timber circle (aka Seahenge).

Parker Pearson, Mike (15 Dec 2006) Mike is Professor of Archaeology at UCL specialising in mortuary archaeology and British prehistory.

Bennett, Phil (06 Jun 06, 19 Oct 2010) Phil was the Chief Archaeological Officer for Pembrokeshire Coast National Park and is now their Manager of Culture and Heritage

Payne, Kim (21 Dec 2012) Kim is a regular pilgrim at Stonehenge and defines himself as Druid and as a Templar.

Caple, Chris (04 Jul 2010) Chris is a Senior Lecturer in Archaeology at Durham University and Director of the archaeological dig at Nevern Castle Carson, Peter (21 Dec 2008) Peter was English Heritage’s ‘Head of Stonehenge’.

Payne, Sebastian (12 Aug 2009) Sebastian is the Chief Scientist of English Heritage and has overseen the public consultation process over human remains in English Heritage and NT care.

Clegg, Margaret (14 Apr 2009) Margaret is responsible for the curation of human remains at the British Museum (Natural History) London and is on the Advisory Panel for the Archaeology of Burials in England (APABE).

Pendragon, Arthur (21 Dec 2008) Arthur is the titular chief of the Loyal Arthurian Warband, a Druid group dedicated to campaigning for environmental issues and Pagan civil rights.

Daughton, Eddie (14 Apr 2012) Eddie produced the newsletter for the Stonehenge Free Festival in the 1970s and 1980s.

Rawle, Sid (07 Aug 2009) Sid was one of the community leaders of the Stonehenge Free Festival and has helped to organise camping events for the British Druid Order and the Druid Network.

Davies, Paul (03 Apr 2009) Paul was the Reburial Officer for the Council of British Druid Orders and remains a strident campaigner for reburial of prehistoric human remains.

Restall Orr, Emma (07 Aug 2009) Emma has now retired as Chief of the Druid Network but continues leading Honouring the Ancient Dead, which she founded in 2004 to give contemporary Pagans a voice in the debate over human remains.

Ford, Nick (01 May 2009 & 06 Aug 2010) Nick is one of the community leaders of the ‘Grey Mare’ Pagan camp, a loose collection of largely polytheistic Pagans.

Shallcrass, Philip (25 Sep 2011) Philip is founder and leader of the British Druid Order.

Graham, Mark (July 2012) Mark is Archdruid of the Charnwood Order and attended the Stonehenge Free Festival in the 1980s.

Somers, Frank (24 Sep 2010) Frank is the founder of Stonehenge Druids and has worked closely with the Loyal Arthurian Warband. He has been active in campaigning for the reburial of the human remains from Aubrey Hole 7 at Stonehenge.

Grant, Angela (18 Aug 2011, 1 Sep 2011) Angela is a former HAD activist and freelance academic researcher Hanks, Nick (27 Jun 2009) Nick is a field archaeologist working in Western England.

Walker, Elizabeth (27 Apr 2010) Elizabeth is Collections Manager and Curator of Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Archaeology at the National Museum Wales, Cardiff.

Hutton, Ronald (22 Jun 2010) Ronald is Professor of English History at Bristol University and widely recognised as the leading scholar in the history of contemporary British Paganism.

Warwick, Chris (Kit) (12 Sep 2009) Kit was the Pagan Federation’s regional co-ordinator for South Wales. He also founded the campaign group Dead to Rights.

Joy, Jody (15 Apr 2009) Jody is Curator of the Iron Age collections in the British Museum including the preserved body of Lindow Man.

Webber, Mike (22 Apr 2009) When I interviewed him, Mike was the Education Officer at Flag Fen Archaeology Park. Previously he was an archaeologist working for the Museum of London Archaeology Service.

Nolan, Buster (21 Dec 2008 in person and 21 Apr 2009 by telephone) Buster was one of the leaders of the protest

151

210mm WIDTH

2021

This book examines the sometimes-fraught interactions and relationships between contemporary Pagan groups and archaeological heritage managers in the first decade and a half of the 21st century. It uses ethnographic field research, conducted by the author between 2008 and 2013, and literature analysis to analyse those interactions. The two key areas examined are access to, interpretation of and preservation of ancient sites, and the archaeological examination, storage and display or reburial of ancient human remains. The book includes a detailed analysis of the reasons presented in the discourse of contestation and the underlying attitudes behind the issues. It concludes with some thoughts on how heritage managers and archaeologists may better manage their interactions with the Pagan community in the future. ‘The particular contribution of this work is in synthesising and collating the varying attitudes of Pagans and archaeologists to present an overarching perspective that nonetheless avoids the (often dismissive) perspective of the archaeological profession and Pagan hostility to archaeology. The detailed coverage of Paganism and the diversity of its nature is especially important’.

‘The work offers an original and well researched examination of the relations between Pagan groups, archaeologists and heritage professionals in the UK, and the implications of these engagements for the interest groups. … Rathouse highlights diversity of thinking and the middle ground around which the interest groups might discuss and move forward’. Dr Robert J. Wallis, The Open University ‘There is no doubt that the relationship between Pagans on the one side and archaeologists and heritage managers on the other, has long been a vexed one which has produced considerable difficulty for all. It is equally undoubted that the three groups also have a lot in common, that none of them are personal and ideological monoliths, and that they contain many individuals with a good understanding of, and sympathy for, the other groups ... A better sense of why there have been tensions between them, which have regularly erupted into direct conflict, is therefore something which would be valuable to achieve. This work systematically provides that sense, with an analysis of the cultural and ideological underpinnings of each group, and of the spectra of opinions and instincts within each. In so doing, it also furnishes a series of exact case studies to show how and why conflict has occurred over individual sites and causes, and how in some cases this has been ameliorated. It concludes with some general suggestions for better relations in future’. Professor Ronald E. Hutton, University of Bristol Will Rathouse is a community engagement archaeologist for MOLA (Museum of London Archaeology) working on the Thames Discovery programme. His responsibilities include outreach to older Londoners and bringing in new groups to benefit from the project, including people with mental health problems and forces veterans. Previously, he was a support officer for Mind Aberystwyth and led archaeology projects to promote mental health. He has also volunteered with Operation Nightingale. His PhD research investigated contestation of prehistoric monuments and ancient human remains by contemporary Pagan groups in the UK.

BAR BRITISH SERIES 661

2021

297mm HIGH

Dr John Carman, Ironbridge International Institute for Cultural Heritage, University of Birmingham

210mm WIDTH

BAR  B661  2021  RATHOUSE  Contested Heritage

BAR BRITISH SERIES 661

11mm

Contested Heritage Relations between contemporary Pagan groups and the archaeological and heritage professions in Britain in the early 21st century

W I L L R AT H O U S E

Printed in England

210 x 297mm_BAR Rathouse CPI 11mm ARTWORK.indd 3

29/1/21 2:59 PM