Archaeology in the Public Domain
Sheffield, 9 March 2002

Contemporary Paganism and Archaeology: Irreconcilable?


As newspapers, television documentaries and email discussion lists attest, archaeologists must increasingly respond to ‘the public’. Yet favourite ‘public’ figures for ridicule by archaeologists and the media are contemporary Druids, Pagans, neo-Shamans and members of other ‘alternative’ interest groups whose approaches to the past are deemed ‘fringe’ and ‘inauthentic’. Nonetheless, as many Pagans campaign for rights to engage with so-called ‘sacred sites’, in their own ways, and to state their own theoretical understandings of these prehistoric sites, archaeologists can not afford to turn a blind eye: contests over ‘Seahenge’ and Stonehenge, for instance, demonstrate needs for alternative interests in and engagements with archaeological monuments to be taken seriously by heritage management, field workers and academic archaeologists. Rather than seeing their aims and objectives as under threat by all Pagans, however, we argue a significant proportion of this growing ‘public’ shares many interests with archaeologists, that from those commonalities of interest there are opportunities to develop creative understandings of site use and conservation; and we offer some tentative strategies for reciprocal action which might facilitate dialogic engagement.

Jenny Blain, School of Social Science and Law, Sheffield Hallam University,

Robert J. Wallis, Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton


One of the reasons this conference has been set up, we presume, is that archaeologists must now involve themselves very heavily with ‘the public’. The specific public interest group we will discuss today is contemporary Pagans who engage with archaeology, sites in particular, in ways which archaeologists must increasingly address. The common perception of Pagans is that they are fringe and eccentric, and that some of their activities, particularly ‘festivals’ damage archaeological sites. The following are some perceptions of Pagans and related interest groups such as travellers, which appear in the press and are worthy of mention in this regard:

After the battle of the beanfield — when there were contentious engagements between police and those travelling to Stonehenge for the summer solstice — in 1985 the headlines read ‘sponging scum’, ‘invasion of the giro gypsies’, and ‘Stonehenge scarred in raid by travellers’ (cited in Bender 1998:162). Similarly, when some Pagans, travellers and others gained entry to Stonehenge at the summer solstice in 1999, the press described them as ‘smellies’ (The Sun), ‘hippies’ (The Daily Mail), ‘ravers’ (3rd Stone magazine), and ‘New Age travellers’ (The Times: De Bruxelles 1999:13; The Daily Telegraph: Fleet 1999:4; The Independent: Davison et al. 1999:3; Orr 1999:5), and their actions as an ‘invasion’. And more recently, at the winter solstice of 2001, the press reported ‘revellers break into Stonehenge’ ( 27.12.01)

Needless to say, such perspectives stereotype and homogenise a great diversity of celebrants from Pagans, Druids, Wiccans, Heathens and travellers, to local people, tourists, academic researchers, and so on, who were all represented at the summer solstices over the last two years. We ought to add that breaking and entering, and causing intentional criminal damage, is also atypical practice. We argue that a more nuanced and sensitive understanding of contemporary Pagan engagements with archaeological sites is required.

Image: Stonehenge, Winter Solstice, 2001. 'Breaking in'?

Last summer at Stonehenge we spoke to a number of people - pagans, druids, travellers, local people, celebrants generally - who were there to witness the summer solstice sunrise. Several referred those gathered as 'the tribes' and this usage is common in some, not all, pagan cultural contexts (paganism, as we will make plain, is diverse). This sense of 'tribes' or 'neo-tribes' connects with academic discourse through re-evaluation of societies of postmodernity, most notably Michel Maffesoli's 'the Time of the Tribes' (1996), where he refers to the shifting and fluid fragmentary associations within which today's denizens of postmodernity live their lives. Andy Letcher, in a recent doctoral thesis (2001a) at King Alfred's College, Winchester, has commented on this usage of 'neo-tribes' and extended Maffesoli's analysis to those people who indeed call themselves 'tribes' (see also Letcher 2001b). We are adopting this usage in our work. As an archaeologist and an anthropologist, we are attempting to explore how those tribes (among whom we also locate ourselves) relate to land, place, archaeological monuments and landscapes, and how prehistoric archaeology and archaeological discourses of place form part of (or are resisted through) collective and personal understandings of past and present. In short, monuments such as circles and chambered tombs become places of meditation or celebration, of communication with divinities or spirits, and particularly places where communication with Ancestors (spiritual or physical) is possible or even required. Thus, some pagans talk of being called by the ancestors, waking up the stones, reclaiming identity through a developing understanding of how people can relate to place and past.

Rather than the rather mocking approach often taken by archaeologists or others who homogenise paganisms or who reject spiritual engagements with sites as ‘fringe’, seeing pagan approaches only as problems to be overcome, we see a future in dialogue and understanding. There is considerable basis for mutual understanding and support, and we welcome some directions within heritage management and archaeology where attempts are made both to inform and to listen - just as we welcome approaches within paganism that seek to explore and appropriate archaeological understandings rather than rejecting them as alien or overly 'academic'. There are, however, historical and political problems in the way of dialogue, and we will explore some of these in this paper.

      Image: Doll Tor circle, 2002. Photo Tim KennedyFirst, though, some sense of the diversity of paganisms and pagan approaches to 'the past', and how these may be perceived. Some pagans appear to engage in a rather romanticised interaction with 'past', ‘ancestors’ or 'spirits' - perhaps one in which they can consider themselves powerful, magical manipulators of ancestors and god/desses, or inheritors of a remote (and magical) golden age (see e.g. Blain 2001). This is most evident in (for instance) email discussions with rather young or new pagans who watch American TV or read introductory pagan 'how to' books written with little recourse to research or archaeology. They may reproduce some of the excessive displays which can be found at sites such as the Derbyshire Nine Ladies on boxing day 2001 when the site was 'spiked' with joss-sticks, Waylands Smithy or (particularly!) WKLB, and other sites such as Doll Tor (shown here) Many heritage managers (or journalists) may derive their only notion of 'pagans' from this excess. Alternatively, there is the familiar association of white-clad druids with Stonehenge. A third perception is, as mentioned, of pagans as wild revellers.

Image: Doll Tor circle. Photo by Tim Kennedy

Possibly surprisingly, the same people may be perceived as moving between all of these 'categories' - or rather, the categories are rather artificial ones, constructed in ways that do not describe the people. If you take only one idea from this paper, let it be this. Pagans are found in all walks of life. They are not a homogenous category: the 'tribes' are indeed mixed, fluid - but there is an underlying identity focus here, which may make these 'tribes' more persistent than some others of postmodernity. Most pagans in Britain share some sense of ancestors, and some sense of the past as important for the present - and seek to make connections with ancestors and past in ways which relate directly to their everyday lives and concerns today, constituting individual selves and collective identities thereby, through the approaches they make and the theoretical frameworks in which they constitute these.

Guardians of place

Pagans in some areas have appeared as guardians of sites. When Men-an-Tol in Cornwall was vandalised with home-made 'Napalm' by a group calling themselves ‘Friends of the Stone’, pagans volunteered to work with English Heritage to restore it. Elsewhere, the attempts to 'adopt' sites and basically clear up the mess left there - including both the crisp packets and cigarette butts from casual visitors, and the 'ritual litter' left by the new-age and by other (often new) pagans. In Cornwall again, a huge collaborative effort was mounted by various local Pagan groups and heritage managers to encourage non-damaging behaviour during the time of the 2000 solar eclipse.

Silbury Hill

      Image: Silbury sunset, solstice 2000Silbury Hill, on the other hand, part of the Avebury complex, is a known landmark, a so-called ‘sacred site’, and a place of concern to pagan activists, who have followed the stories of the appearance of 'Silbury Hole', its spread, and the attempts to deal with this problem. Last year at midsummer, the Ancient Sacred Landscapes Network (ASLaN) collaborated with local National Trust and English Heritage representatives in seeking volunteers to protect the hill, many of these from within the pagan community. One of those who responded, Matt, described to us some events of the night. Numerous people attempted to climb the hill, and when he explained its precarious situation (and risks to themselves at the summit) almost all went to celebrate elsewhere. Very few insisted on 'rights' to ascend to the top. A little polite education provided by a volunteer - albeit one who was 6.7 high and leaning on an oak staff - went a long way. Matt also talked extensively to the English Heritage personnel there about Heathenry (his religious path) and why prehistoric sites were important to him.

Image: Silbury sunset, solstice 2000

However, when earlier there had been little word from EH on the progress of assessing and repairing 'Silbury Hole', a protest was called by Clare Slaney (of Save Our Sacred Sites) and others, who organised a demonstration - on the road because of on-going foot and mouth restrictions - to draw attention to the problems of the hill (which had slipped from public awareness). Two press releases were forthcoming from EH, within a few days, to the effect that the hill's situation was under study. Pagan activists in this case considered that their actions pushed EH into at least indicating what it was doing, and certainly displayed that there were interested people out there. EH would, not doubt, argue this timing was coincidental!


The co-called 'Seahenge' (Holme-next-the-sea) is another case in point, perhaps even more complicated, and equally illustrating pagan involvements with, and concern for, a 'sacred site' (e.g. Wallis 1999, forthcoming). We omit it today only for reasons of space and time..

Context - political and historical


The context of today's celebrations at Stonehenge is complex and politicised by the events of the 70s, 80s and 90s - the free festival and its close, a challenge in the European court by druids who could not conduct ceremonies which had by now become traditional. These form a backdrop to the extended negotiations and eventual reopening of public access at solstice and equinoxes - the most notable, and contentious, being the summer solstice event. Our short report on last summer's event is on the internet at Before that we had attended as participant observers - Robert in 1999, Jenny in 2000. Various accounts of the earlier contested access are available on the internet and in publications (e.g. Chippindale 1986; Craig 1986; NCCL 1986; Stone 1996; Sebastion 2001; and the account by Tash at

Today, Stonehenge is a tourist attraction and an icon of Britishness, with considerable commercial appropriation. Tourists are restricted to a path around the stones, though within the henge bank and ditch. Special access arrangements are available to groups with a maximum of 26 people, who must book months in advance and pay 8 (now 12) per head, even if they are EH members. Some Druids and other others avail themselves of this opportunity, but even though they become paying customers they are subject to considerable scrutiny and considerable restrictions on what they can do. On a recent visit at which I (Jenny) was a participant observer, the group organiser had to produce a list of all items we would take in with us, and was told that any photographs taken were to be used for personal purposes only. In response to this, she asked about my situation with respect to our (totally non-commercial) sacred sites project, but was given to understand that my use of photographs for teaching, website or project use - including this talk - would not be permitted and that further requests would be met with a similar refusal.

Negotiations over summer solstice 2002 are ongoing and at a recent meeting where we discussed these issues, Clews Everard, Site Director of Stonehenge, was giving very little away. EH has indicated that access must be for a shorter time than last year (because apparently of lost revenue), and discussions are onway with regards to an 'afterparty' to be held elsewhere. The contestations still accruing from the events of the 80s mean that negotiations are subject to a degree of suspicion (on all sides), and the sense among many participants that concessions have to be wrested from EH and other bodies, rather than emerging from consensus, does not help to defuse this hostility. Stonehenge - and future plans - remain highly political. The 'management plan' for the future currently rests on locating the A303 in a tunnel, which is debated hotly. However, while 'use' at the solstice may to some extent divide archaeologists and pagans (or some archaeologists and some pagans) the tunnel proposal brings together unexpected allies in opposition. The EH website is (perhaps deliberately) unclear about the tunnel and its effect on archaeology. This image (of a map with a swathe showing where tunnel construction will occasion destruction) comes from the Stonehenge Alliance (savestonehenge) site, which features articles by Ian Baxter and Christopher Chippindale, amongst others. The EH page refers the viewer to the Stonehenge masterplan page (the 'masterplan' setting out tunnel proposals preceded the 'management plan'), this in turn gives some information about the proposals including a map showing how the A303 will disappear (a dotted line), rather than the extent of earth-moving that will be required. This masterplan site then refers to a summary of the more recent 'management plan' - but the link does not work (resulting in a page that says only, 'test'), and other items on the masterplan site are seriously out of date. Is this 'archaeology in the public domain'?

Stanton Moor

In the Peak district, proposed quarrying on Stanton Moor near the Nine Ladies circle is another politicised, contested issue.

Limited space and time forbids a detailed exploration (and we have addressed this elsewhere e.g. Blain & Wallis 2002), but a protracted set of negotiations and trade-offs, and a protest camp, all form part of the picture. The Nine Ladies circle has been extensively used for parties and raves, local opinion is divided on pagan use (though appears to be against the quarries), and the Peak Park Authority (and its rangers) attempt to mediate between pagans, protestors, local people (some pagan, and some protesting) and so on. Excavations designed to indicate the extent of erosion are seen by some, especially Pagans, as related to the quarrying — a similar form of destruction. Boundaries are not clear on any issues here, and the hearing for one quarry application has been postponed on several occasions. Indeed this is not an easy decision. It is difficult to balance the needs of archaeology conservation, site access, quarrying and other activities in an archetypal ‘lived in’ National Park landscape.

'Sacred sites'?

Questions remain about the meaning of sites, and particularly the term 'sacred site' (e.g. Wallis & Blain 2002). Both the term 'sacred sites', and individual 'sites' themselves are polysemic. Multiple meanings accrue within paganism, and organisations - in part based on and reconstituting these meanings - are accumulating. ASLaN - whose conference in Chesterfield this summer is on People, Power and Place - is attempting to promote responsible use and care of sites, saying:

The Ancient Sacred Landscape Network aims to be a national focus for the exchange of information between the public, local groups and national bodies. We will be a contact point for information on local initiatives and problems, for communication between bodies involved in the ownership and administration of sacred sites, and for the circulation of results of the Network's discussions with other professional and official bodies. The ultimate aim is:
the preservation and protection of sacred sites and their setting, and maintenance of access to them.
(ASLaN website at

Other organisations adopt more contentious positions. those promoting or defending sites by a variety of means include amongst others FOGS (friends of the Grampian Stones), the Loyal Arthurian Warband, and Cruithni. The last (Cruithni) is described by its members as a sort of 'shock troops' where defence (against defacement, development, quarrying, 'pagan' offerings, or perceived neglect by EH) is concerned, but is regarded with suspicion by some pagans because its website holds that 'we cannot know the purpose' of prehistoric monuments. They state their aims are based in:

However, a major distinction in ways the term 'sacred sites' is used lies in its application to specific well-known places. While most would agree that Stonehenge or Avebury might be described as a 'sacred site', would the term equally apply to a small circle such as Doll Tor, or the rock-art at Rowtor Rocks, for instance? Further, is a site sacred if no-one worships there? Carmichael et al (1994) following Saunders (1994) indicate that human activity confers sacredness on a site. This understanding appears also in some pagan discourses - for instance, King Arthur Pendragon, interviewed at a protest ritual at Stanton Moor in September 2001, commented that a site was sacred when people make ritual there. Yet some pagans hold that the sacredness is inherent in the land (e.g. Wallis and Blain 2002) or that, of course, there is always some ‘person’ 'about' - ancestors, land-spirits, animals or plants who have their own relationship to the site — human people and ‘other-than-human-people -so that sacredness is not purely a human inscription of meaning, or at least not purely that of today's humans (e.g. Harvey, 1997). The past resonates in the present, and different levels of meaning intersect here.

Present-day heritage management practice involves selecting sites - neglecting some sites to prioritise others. Ucko (1994) has indicated how problematic this is for indigenous peoples (for whom 'archaeologically significant' sites are not necessarily more spiritually 'significant') - and it is problematised likewise by the 'new-indigenous' pagan neo-tribes. (Though we do not make a direct comparison between indigenous communities and Pagans, it is impossible to avoid drawing attention to the sources for such new identities as ‘new indigenes’). People seek sites near to where they live, and these may be neglected or in danger of 'development' or obliteration. Likewise, local people - pagan or otherwise - feel connections to 'their' sites and may resent outsiders (whether pagans or archaeologists) who attempt to appropriate these or create other meanings.

Image: This site - in west Dundee - seems left to the mercy of those with spray paint guns.

In a political context in which 'sacred sites' are seen as a luxury - something which needs maintaining - increasing neglect may mean that local people (including local pagans) often do not know of a site or cannot obtain information about it - or face problems in accessing it where there are no rights of way or when access is denied by landowners. Today, much of the pressure on the 'honeypot' sites of Avebury and Stonehenge may be from people who have no connections to their own localities. During foot and mouth restrictions, one pagan said to us that 'if any other group were denied access to the sacred sites, there would be a riot'. Some pagans are in situations where they endeavour to protest about damage to sites (through neglect, by encroaching vegetation, by deliberate vandalism or gradual removal of parts of the site) but their voices apparently go unheard by agencies such as English heritage or Historic Scotland - despite English Heritage's proclamation that 'We hold the past in stewardship both for the communities of today and on behalf of future generations' (EH website,, click on 'Protecting your Heritage').

Reburial and sacredness

This question of multiple meaning has implication particularly for the issue of reburial. On this as on other issues, pagan opinion is divided. Any excavation is a disturbance of the relationships constructed over centuries or millennia between land, spirits, and communities of life (animal, plant, human). For some pagans, excavation is seen as opportunity to know about the past, so while disturbance may be mourned, the knowledge is welcomed. Others see it as inherently destructive. Where destruction must occur, most pagans on the whole would rather seen excavation done than not done - the divisions over the Seahenge issue come to mind here, yet there is a difference between leaving a circle to be taken by the sea, and leaving it to be scooped out by road-building or quarrying equipment. Yet here also the issue of prioritising sites - by the media as well as others - means that pagans may find out 'too late' that sites are in process of destruction. While media and protests focussed on Seahenge, the traces of a timber circle north of Kilmartin were quarried away.

Pagan approaches to the excavation of human remains focus around knowledge, sacredness, and display or storage (see Wallis and Blain 2001 at While there is a wide range of discursive positions here, increasingly pagans are stating publicly that remains should be replaced as close as possibly to the original burial. Controversy surrounds the use of ceremony - some saying that this should be performed by pagans, others that no ceremony is required though those involved should show respect. Again it has been pointed out that 'we don't know' what kind of ceremony would be suitable. Difficulties lie in making a specific claim of 'relationship' to those buried or cremated in the prehistoric past. Yet, as we point out, various pagans feel themselves (as 'new-indigenous') to be kin spiritually at least, and some experience excavation of remains as an attack on their identity - as in the call to action by Davies in The Druid's Voice.

Every day in Britain, sacred Druid sites are surveyed and excavated, with associated finds being catalogued and stored for the archaeological record. Many of these sites include the sacred burials of our ancestors. Their places of rest are opened during the excavation, their bones removed and placed in museums for the voyeur to gaze upon, or stored in cardboard boxes in archaeological archives…As far as archaeologists are concerned, there are no cultural implications to stop them from their work. As far as Druids are concerned, guardians and ancestors still reside at ceremonial sites such as Avebury and the West Kennet Long Barrow…

When archaeologists desecrate a site through excavation and steal our ancestors and their guardians, they are killing me as well as our heritage. It is a theft. I am left wounded. My identity as a Druid is stolen and damaged beyond repair. My heart cries. We should assert our authority as the physical guardians of esoteric lore. We should reclaim our past (Davies 1997:12-13)

Identity, contestation, and shared interests

This returns us to the question of identity - and to the proposed A303 tunnel past Stonehenge, a point on which some archaeologists and some pagans have expressed shared interests, and a willingness to campaign. A legal challenge has been proposed. Further, recent news that 'visitors' will not (as promised) be 'allowed' to walk amongst the stones, is a blow to many different visitors, pagans - and archaeologists - included. [1]

Baxter and Chippindale, in a discussion paper released this week (2002-03-05) have suggested that most 'tourists' visit Stonehenge to obtain 'primarily an emotional experience' - not to attend extravagant presentations on the monument in its landscape, but to see it for themselves, photograph family members in front of this 'icon', seek some kind of connection to the stones, etc. Few visitors, they suggest, have much interest in the landscape. They do not mention pagans, who, often, are the ones who do, and indeed perform rituals from time to time on or near the barrows, or people who seek a return to the 'free festival', who already know about the cursus and so on. Nor do they mention the pressure of solstice and equinox celebrations - currently accommodated by English Heritage, though not unproblematically so (as evidenced by EH proposals to reduce the time of access at this year's summer solstice, and misunderstandings and misreportings of access at the last winter solstice as previously mentioned). However, they do suggest that 'the display will give about equal space to historical Stonehenge as to the prehistoric Stones, and will display the multiple and emotional responses to the place' (p.5). Current experience suggests that tourists do have interest in the responses of others: rituals performed during 'special access' attract their own lookers-on, and those preparing for such an event are questioned by visitors, indeed asked by guides to explain their ritual 'performances' to the visitors.

Image: rituals attract lookers-on - who may walk away when the participant/observer pagan, heathen or druid photographs them in turn.

We welcome Baxter and Chippindale's proposals for consideration of a wide range of proposals, including minimal disruption and 'low tech' solutions, and appreciate their concern as to whether heritage management is '… imposing our beliefs and our desires through our control of planning for the future management of Stonehenge on visitors and on the physical archaeological remains themselves in an experimental fashion…' (p.5).

We have suggested that plans for Stonehenge need to acknowledge pagan, traveller, and other interests - the 'tribes' are not going to go away. There are several separate, though linked, issues here, and a growing public awareness of each of these. They include: issues of access at festivals; issues of access at other times (walking freely amongst the stones); connections with the landscape; the devastation potentially occasioned by a tunnel; and the devastation already occasioned by a serious of factors including excavation, neglect, and Victorian and other graffiti. A recent meeting about the roads (held in London on a Wednesday) resulted in provision of some information, and raising of some questions

ASLaN member Andy Norfolk illustrates his perceptions of some of the debate. (from Britarch email list, used with permission)

I was also at the meeting representing ASLaN and I recall Andrew Lawson of Wessex Archaeology saying (that) the geophysical survey of the 135m wide road corridor has shown very little in the WHS part of the route as compared to the rest of the route near Winterbourne Stoke. He suggested that this supported the idea that this area was a special set-apart place. George Lambrick pointed out that geophys is bad at finding some sorts of archaeological features, such as Bronze-age structures remaining only as post-holes. ...

I'm still not convinced that the road is being properly considered in the context of the WHS as a whole... It would be a shame, for example, to end up with a tunnel portal destroying a barrow group when the University of Birmingham study shows how carefully such monuments were sited in relation to Stonehenge. If it's right to try to explain to visitors that Stonehenge isn't just an odd place in splendid isolation but is part of an intricate and interlinked landscape then any impacts of the road including the construction phase should surely not reduce opportunities for such interpretation.

There still seems to be reason for puzzlement, at least, over statements that the Management Plan is the "overarching" document taking precedence over the Master Plan and what is actually happening.

Finally we turn to a site where some pagans and some archaeologists appear to have made common cause, in part by drawing actively on the diversity of discursive interpretations and positionings. This is the Rollright Stones. Here a campaign beginning in 1997 has resulted in eventual purchase of the land by the Rollright Trust (with a board including archaeologists, a biologist, pagans and others) and plans are underway to foster interest in the stones and their setting in ways that permit use by pagans and others while setting and explaining limits. Not all is smooth-running: disputes occur and some pagans and others do feel marginalised. However the Rollrights provide an example of how past becomes part of present identities, and how 'guardians' can have their identities legitimated - occurring through the direct and intensive work of a number of people who have set out to accomplish shared meaning. Today's use, and yesterday's folklore, become simply part of the ways that the monument can be viewed. The official - secular - handing over of deeds occurred last year during a ceremony incorporating morris dancers and a play by the local primary school on the local (and relatively recent - Burl, 2000) story of the witch, the king and his men. Other uses of the stones include pagan rituals, family gatherings, and presentation of plays from Shakespeare to (this summer) Terry Pratchett's 'Lords and Ladies'.

The Rollrights are small yet much frequented. This is not a model for other sites - each with their unique attractions and problems - and we do not present it as such. Rather, we present it as an example of what can occur when archaeologists, pagans, and others actually listen to each other, attempting to learn each other's discourse and celebrate a multiplicity of understandings of a site, not as museum fodder, top-down 'education', or even as public display, but as living interpretation based on engagement that furthers identity.


1. Baxter and Chippindale, 2002, say:
Present plans for improving Stonehenge pursue an expensive solution with a new visitor centre in a greenfield development remote from the site. Instead of a brief visit from an adjacent car-park with cramped visitor provisions, visitors will spend much longer in learning about the Stonehenge landscape and the inconspicuous but archaeologically important elements to it. One compelling benefit of that scheme, the promise that visitors would once more be able to walk freely amongst the Stones, has recently been cancelled. (p1)
This information is apparently within the 2001 English heritage publication, The Stonehenge Project: Access to the Stonehenge Landscape, which we have not yet seen and which seems to have had a very small circulation to date. This information comes indirectly from Chippindale's reading of the report, conveyed to us by Ian Baxter, to whom we are indebted for this information.


ASLaN. Website, online at


English Heritage. Website, online at

Sacred Sites, Contested Rights/Rites Project.

Stonehenge Alliance.

Baxter, I. and C. Chippindale, 2002. A sustainable and green approach to Stonehenge visitation: the ‘brownfield’ option. Discussion paper circulated by I. Baxter, February 2002.

Bender, B. 1998. Stonehenge: Making Space. Oxford: Berg.

Blain, J. 2001. Shamans, Stones, Authenticity and Appropriation: Contestations of Invention and Meaning. In: R.J. Wallis and K. Lymer (eds) A Permeability of Boundaries? New Approaches to the Archaeology of Art, Religion and Folklore. BAR International Series 936. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports

Blain, J. and R.J. Wallis, 2001. Stonehenge Solstice access, 20-21 June, 2001: short report submitted to English Heritage on Summer Solstice 2001. Available online:

Blain, J. and R.J. Wallis, 2002. A living landscape? Pagans and archaeological discourse. Landscapes and Seascapes conference, Sheffield University, 8 February 2002.

Burl, A. 2000. The Rollright Stones. Banbury, Oxfordshire: Tattooed Kitten Publications.

Carmichael, D.L., J. Hubert, B. Reeves and A. Schanche, 1994. Sacred Sites, Sacred Places. London: Routledge.

Chippindale, C. 1986. Stoned Henge: Events and Issues at the Summer Solstice, 1985. World Archaeology 18(1): 38-58.

Craig, S. (ed.). 1986. Stonehenge ’85: Souvenir Issue — A Collection of Material to Commemorate ‘The Battle of the Beanfield’ June 1st 1985. Glastonbury: Unique Publications.

Davies, P. 1997. Respect and Reburial. The Druid’s Voice: The Magazine of Contemporary. Druidry. 8 (Summer):12-13.

Davison, J.; Brace, M. and A. Mullins. 1999. Mayhem at midsummer’s dawn as travellers storm Stonehenge fence. The Independent 22nd June: 3.

De Bruxelles, S. 1999. Violence wrecks the solstice celebration. The Times 22nd June:13.

Fleet, M. 1999. A Midsummer nightmare at Stonehenge. The Daily Telegraph 22nd June: 4.

Harvey, G. 1997. Listening People, Speaking Earth: Contemporary Paganism, London: C. Hurst & Co.

Letcher, A, 2001a. The Role of the Bard in Contemporary Pagan Movements. PhD Thesis, King Alfred's College, Winchester.

Letcher, A. 2001b. The Scouring of the Shire: Fairies, Trolls and Pixies in Eco-Protest Culture. Folklore 112:147-161.

Maffesoli, M. 1996. The Time of the Tribes: The Decline of Individualism in Mass Society. London: Sage.

NCCL (National Council for Civil Liberties). 1986. Stonehenge: A report into the civil liberties implications of the events relating to the convoys of summer 1985 and 1986. London: Yale.

Orr, D. 1999. Do the right thing, please. The Independent 22nd June: 5.

Saunders, N.J. 1994. At the mouth of the obsidian cave: deity and place in Aztec religion. in Carmichael, D.L., J. Hubert, B. Reeves and A. Schanche, 1994. Sacred Sites, Sacred Places. London: Routledge.

Sebastion, T. 2001. Alternative Archaeology - Has It Happened? In: R.J. Wallis and K. Lymer (eds) A Permeability of Boundaries? New Approaches to the Archaeology of Art, Religion and Folklore: 125-135. BAR International Series 936. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Stone, C.J. 1996. Fierce Dancing: Adventures in the Underground. London: Faber and Faber.

Ucko, P. J., 1994. Foreword, in Carmichael, D.L., J. Hubert, B. Reeves and A. Schanche, 1994. Sacred Sites, Sacred Places. London: Routledge.

Wallis, R.J. 1999. Autoarchaeology and Neo-shamanisms: The Socio-Politics of Ecstasy. PhD Thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton.

Wallis, R.J. forthcoming. Shamans/neo-Shamans/Autoarchaeology: Druids, Heathens, Pagans or 'plastic' medicine men. London: Routledge.

Wallis, R.J. and J. Blain. 2001. A British Reburial Issue? Statement by the Sacred Sites, Contested Rights/Rites, Project. Available online:

Wallis, R.J. and J. Blain 2002. Sacred Sites, Contested Rights/Rites: discussion document and report of current research. Available online:

text and design Copyright R.J. Wallis and J. Blain, 2002
Doll Tor image copyright T. Kennedy; all other images copyright R.J. Wallis and/or J. Blain, 2002


Dr Robert J. Wallis
02380 592911    07779 037269

Lecturer in Archaeology, Department of Archaeology
University of Southampton
Avenue Campus, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ

Dr Jenny Blain
0114 225 4413    07976 170812

Course leader, MA in Social Science Research Methods
Senior Lecturer in Sociology, School of Social Science and Law
Collegiate Crescent Campus, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield S10 2BP

Page last modified 7th April, 2002

sacred sites

news &
press releases
reports &
papers &
specific sites
photo gallery
email us
book shop J. Blain webpages