Stonehenge road proposals and the 'reburial issue'
R.J. Wallis and J. Blain

Short position statement submitted as part of evidence to the Stonehenge Inquiry, February 2004
Contact project'at'sacredsites.org.uk
or J. Blain at 07919 556371

Introduction

Paganisms are very diverse, and pagan engagements with Sacred Sites range from caring for sites as 'guardians' (official or unofficial), negotiating protection and clearing up the traces left by other visitors, to negotiating access and celebrating personal events or festivals, and practices involving leaving offerings (as a mark of respect or to honour the spirits of the site). Pagan relationships with sacred places are complicated, but often involve ideas about 'ancestors' and relationships constructed with these - ancestors being those who have made use of the site in the past, particularly in a perceived 'sacred' context. Human remains found in sacred pre-christian contexts are therefore of importance to many pagans.

Our work adopts an ethnographic approach to analysing pagan accounts of 'ancestors' and landscape. This kind of material is not easily amenable to a quantitative analysis: it is therefore often dismissed and we are concerned that the qualitative meanings of landscape are being dismissed within, for instance, the environmental statement relating to the Stonehenge proposals. We therefore wish to point out that this type of analysis is central within the disciplines of anthropology and cultural studies; it is predominant in studies of indigenous groups worldwide; and it is increasingly being adopted within archaeology and heritage studies.

Our project is making some analysis of impacts of the road proposals on what the landscape of Stonehenge means to people. In this document we focus solely on the issue of sensitive reburial of human remains uncovered during potential excavation, whether in the Stonehenge area or elsewhere. This should not be construed as approval for the project plans.

Note: some material here is based in an article we are preparing for publication in British Archaeology

Context: Negotiating the Issues

For instance, a recent (21st November) event at the British Museum facilitated the re-engagement of a London-based Maori community (Ngati Ranana) with various Taonga (what many in the west would misleadingly and too simply term 'ritual artefacts') collected during the Cook voyages, exemplifying how a mutually beneficial and dialogic relationship between indigenous peoples and the current curators of such 'sacred' artefacts can be established.

There are issues here of how 'sacredness' and direct 'claims' to ancestors are established. While some indigenous communities may be able to demonstrate genetic or cultural links in order to claim return of remains, addressing the extent to which pagans can claim British prehistoric remains are 'theirs' is to miss the point.

Most pagans, whatever their claims on the past, generally do not claim an exclusive relationship to 'the ancestors'. Rather, they are emphasising an understanding of landscape, people and respect that is growing within contemporary Britain. Increasingly comments are voiced - from the general public and from archaeologists - about the display of remains in museums and retention of remains in boxes on shelves, both of which are perceived as problematic. Dialogues with christian communities are resulting in a critical assessment of christian remains; but there is apparently no 'pre-christian' community to make representations on behalf of pre-christian remains. Some pagans are therefore attempting to do this, as part of the community of Britain.

The issue - rather than being one solely of academic/heritage discourse versus public understanding, or of (scientific) authenticity versus (perceived 'wacky' pagan) inauthenticity - is of multivocality as well as forms of knowledge and power. In the current politically aware and interpretative climate of archaeology, with its emphasis on community engagement and dialogue, there is need for archaeologists, heritage managers and others to be self-reflective, accountable and transparent, and for them to open up their research/data to external scrutiny. So the issue is really whether archaeologists are prepared to address such pluralities and engage with them dialogically, rather than dismiss them as 'fringe' and 'eccentric'.

Sacredness vis-à-vis Science

We see the report as having opened up a considerable debate, with room on all sides to explore the contested territory of what is 'sacred' and how 'science' may negotiate with the sacred. Indeed, pagans, indigenous people, and many British people today - including some archaeologists - are indicating that 'sacredness', rather than perceived 'objective' and universally applicable scientific knowledges, should indeed be the default position. Prehistoric burials and other funerary remains consistently involve the deliberate deposition of a person within a landscape. While indeed we cannot know the particular interpretations of that landscape, or the person's relation to it pertaining at the time of deposition, we do know that there was an intention which, from comparison with ethnographic records and indigenous accounts today, suggests a consistent 'sacred' - or at least 'respectful' - relationship. By breaking the association of person, land, and grave-goods, archaeology and other forms of human disturbance interrupt that relationship. We do not negate claims of scientific knowledge; nor do we automatically support cases for reburial that may be put forward. We do suggest that the evaluation of respect for British prehistoric remains (human, animal and cultural) is every bit as pressing as that for overseas indigenous claims. We posit that science should have to make a particular case for the retention, in the private or public eye, of such material. We commend the report on Human Remains, and anticipate seeing similar recommendations for indigenous British material in the near future.

With specific reference to the Stonehenge situation