Sacred Sites, Contested Rights: Heritage discourse, Pagan resistance

Final Report
J. Blain, R.J. Wallis and A. Letcher

Submitted to ESRC, January 2004
Contact project'at'sacredsites.org.uk

Background

Associations of Druids and others with Stonehenge, in particular, had been documented for some time (see e.g. Chippindale 1986), and the phenomenon of traveller and other groups within 'alternative Britain' being drawn to Stonehenge at the summer solstice received notable political attention - with the free festival developed in the 70s, banning of this festival during the mid-80s and 90s, gradual relaxation of policy in the late 90s, managed open access during 2000 and 2001, and continued access in 2002-3 (Wallis and Blain 2002). Yet, little attention had been paid to pagan and alternative understandings of 'sacred sites' regarding their similarities with indigenous understandings and inscription of sacredness elsewhere (Hubert 1994). Often, pagan engagements with sites were seen only in terms of the problems they are assumed to pose - including deposition of flowers, coins, etc. but also fire, candle-wax and soot damage, deliberate graffiti and other effects stereotypically seen as 'pagan'. Many pagans have, however, been the first to demand that people 'leave only footprints' at sacred sites, having their own reasons - not all connected with the preservation ethos of heritage management - for doing so.

Three strands informing our project were those of heritage management discourse, alternative archaeology, and Pagan Studies, illustrating the diversity of meaning encompassed by the concepts of 'sacredness' and 'sacred site' (cf. Carmichael et al 1994). These strands were detailed in our application as pointing to a need for serious unpacking of meaning, to facilitate debate and solution. Here, after explaining the convergence of practices and emerging paganisms (see e.g. Greenwood 2000, Blain 2002), and theories of 'liquidity' within post-modernity and emerging 'neo-tribes' (Maffesoli 1996 and others, particularly Letcher 2001), we discussed the main work within Pagan Studies on people, sites, and identity, including our own developing Sacred Sites project. This project emerged from Wallis' earlier work on queer/alternative pagan/neo-Shamanic archaeologies (1999, 2000 and 2003), Blain's investigations of paganisms, identity and meaning, discourse, and auto-ethnography (2001, 2002), and our pilot study providing an overview of contemporary pagan engagements with sacred sites. We had addressed issues through a number of documents and discussions, on our website (www.sacredsites.org.uk) and through conference papers and articles addressed to both popular/practitioner and academic audiences.

Aims

Specific objectives were:

1. Making substantial contribution to development of theory and methodology.
   We meet this objective through presentations of our epistemology, methodology and theorising in appropriate forums. Conference presentations include: debating 'monuments' as 'texts' (BSA Study Group on Religion, 2003); discussing pagan groupings in light of 'neo-tribe' theories of post-modernity (ASANAS conference, 2003); critiquing and evaluating reflexive ethnographic methods and discussing fieldwork 'sites' (ASA, 2004, in prep.); applying methods and theories of discourse analysis to photographic presentations of Stonehenge (Tourism and Photography conference, 2003); discussing the performance of pagan and heritage identities (7th European Ethnology Group seminar, 2003) and presenting new directions for researching pagan appropriations of sites within constructions of ethnicity (TAG 2003). Two of these papers are submitted to appropriate forums, the remainder are in revision for journal submission. This theoretical discussion will be refined and elaborated in our forthcoming book and other forthcoming work.
2. Undertaking a detailed discourse analysis of official documents, notably heritage management plans and websites, and (with equal importance) pagan, traveller and other 'alternative' documents, internet sites and e-lists.
   The analysis, summarised later in this report, forms the basis for recommendations now in preparation, drafted in part within conference papers and publications produced from this research.
3. Contributing further to understandings of ways in which practices at sensitive sites are changing in respect of (a) community attempts to stabilise practice and prevent trouble, (b) resistance to authority and (c) considerable growth of pagan ritual practice at sites; and (d) changing circumstances and political pressures, and responses to 'official' statements.
   This was addressed both through systematic documentary analysis and small-scale participant observation at sites, interacting with participants 'on-site' and ourselves engaging with landscape, space, movement and ritual, while building contacts for future research.
4. Continuing to present our analysis and discussion of the contested (and changing) meanings inscribed in sites - by 'users' and heritage personnel - in a variety of academic forums.
   Resultant articles and conference presentations were referred to under '1'.
5. Continuing to engage with pagan practitioners and debate practice and theory through conferences as well as our website, other internet and email forums, and alternative publications.
   Several pagan or Earth Mysteries magazines and journals have requested articles - White Dragon, Druid's Voice and the British Druid Order website, Pagan Dawn, and other smaller-scale publications. These are in preparation. We are continuing to present findings through talks and workshops given to pagan audiences.

Methods

Sites and areas of interest

• Stonehenge summer solstice access. Access has been problematic, the centre of an on-going struggle between travellers, pagans, 'Druids', members of the 'alternative' community, English Heritage, landowners and the police. Negotiations here spotlight differences between heritage 'preservation of future generations' and pagan/alternative 'open access' and Stonehenge as 'home' and 'for all people'. Our work has included monitoring official press releases and accounts of Stonehenge Roundtable meetings, and following pagan/alternative discussions via the StonehengePeace e-list and various websites where tensions between involved groups appear greatest, with debates drawing on accounts of past actions. Those accommodations reached for solstices and equinoxes remain contentious: distrust is rife, and our examination of discourses adopted by heritage personnel, 'personal-growth' Druids and pagan federation spokespersons, versus travellers and 'counter-cultural' Druids, indicates the need for awareness within all factions interested in this area.
• Plans for the Stonehenge-area redevelopments. Boundaries are differently drawn here, with considerable alliances formed around questions of a tunnel to take the A303, and the siting of a proposed new visitor centre (see e.g. articles linked from the Stonehenge Alliance website). These debates have developed further through 2003 and an enquiry is scheduled for February 2004.
• Ongoing debates and tensions at Avebury where we have focused participant observation during the period of the award.
• Stanton moor quarrying, protests, and site erosion. Here controversy over a proposal to reactivate dormant quarrying operations has caused some alliance between heritage management, pagans, travellers, and local people; other strands such as site erosion - by pagan protests as well as raves, parties, and ramblers' activities - have periodically featured likewise. Local heritage managers have deliberately engaged with involving protestors, local people, and pagans in consultation, particularly about erosion. The planning decision, postponed until autumn 2002, has been subsequently postponed until 2003 and now 2004: future work will continue to monitor this situation. Meanwhile, engagement with other Peak District sites has grown.
• The Rollright Stones has a specific relation to pagan use, facilitated by the Rollright Trust, the site owners. In contrast to other site management plans, the Rollright plan goes some way to assuming that active engagement with the site is negotiable, indeed desirable. Management discourse blends some components of pagan and heritage narratives, and we have engaged in sporadic observation at Rollright during the period of the award.

Discourse analysis

1. How are spiritual engagements with 'sacred sites' and concepts of landscape configured and displayed - made visible or invisible - in (a) existing heritage literature and policy and (b) specific responses to increasing pressure on sites from the pagan/alternative communities?
2. How does ongoing pagan/alternative discourse and negotiation accommodate or resist 'official' constructions?
3. Where do major conflicts and misunderstandings lie and how therefore are political (as well as spiritual) processes being constituted within this area of 'sacred sites'? What groups are discursively marginalised within negotiation or debate? Whose 'knowledge', and what kind of 'knowledge' about sites and sacredness are validated or obscured? (For instance, in the Stonehenge management plan, while 'research' is identified as a specific goal, no reference is made to constructions of meaning within the site today. What assumptions underlie this discourse on 'research'?)
4. How therefore is power negotiated discursively, in these documents and situations?

Collection and rigorous analysis of materials was undertaken by project researcher Dr Andy Letcher. Documents from heritage management, archaeological, media, pagan and other alternative sources, were obtained from internet and library searches, or (for some English Heritage material) directly from organisations. Sampling was purposive: decisions were made to include all readily-available heritage organisation material regarding the 'honeypot' sites of Stonehenge and Avebury (management plans and masterplans); the Peak District National Park Authority plan; the Rollright Stones plan, specifically its section on sacredness in the present day; 'glossy' documents from English Heritage presenting summarised heritage policy for public consumption (e.g. Power of Place, and the 2003 State of the Environment report); material from the All Party Parliamentary Action Group on archaeology; and some dissenting or critical archaeological views (e.g. Baxter and Chippindale, 2002). Pagan/alternative documents included all issues of Pagan Dawn and Druid's Voice, all available issues of Festival Eye, and selected papers from Earth Mysteries journals. Media reports included all references to Stonehenge in The Times 1970-1999, and selected recent articles from The Times and The Guardian. Any follow-up to this work will require examination of press reports.

Documents were analysed to determine the socio-political positioning of the author(s) and the impact of the document upon intended and unintended readerships. Documents were interrogated as to what categories of thought, or social groupings and activities were being privileged, and which excluded or marginalized. Results of each documentary analysis were written up in the form of detailed notes.

Ethnography

Results: discourse and documents

The ethos rests on modernist assumptions of 'progress' (ultimately, upon a Hegelian idealism in which culture and society move ever onwards in a process of continual betterment, leaving behind symptomatic artefacts, as fossils of the zeitgeist, and evidence of the evolutionary trajectory). For a society in which origins and ultimate destinations are of central importance, this discourse displays how the continuing existence of artefacts from the past matters: 'the remains of the past, both moveable and immovable and also including the intangible - the historic environment - should be protected and preserved for their own sake and for the benefit of future generations' (APPAG, 2003: 6). It privileges intellectual and visual engagement with the past and its material objects, and historians/archaeologists as final arbiters of meaning.

Supposing a linear, purposeful, or directed 'progress' requires that the past is in some sense unobtainable. Though 'knowable', or interpretable, to some extent, it is ultimately unreachable because it is closed. Both the delineation of the past as 'closed' and the privileging of visual/intellectual engagement with artefacts have important implications for pagans and other alternative practitioners (see below). First we explore the practical ramifications of the preservation ethos for the heritage and archaeological professions.

The preservation ethos and heritage management

Recent documents (e.g. English Heritage 2000a, 2002) show that heritage managers are keen to democratise the process of evaluation, not only because '[p]eople care about the historic environment' (English Heritage 2002: 2), but also because public involvement, as exemplified by the success of the recent BBC Restoration programme, can lead to conservation implementation. Furthermore, in a climate of accountability, managers have sought to make the evaluation process more rigorous, and quantifiable, according to set objective criteria: '[p]olicy needs to be based on evidence' (English Heritage 2002: 16). In addition to the use of the new methodology of 'character assessment' (English Heritage 2000a), 'research frameworks' (Olivier n.d.), numerical indicators of 'historic capital' (English Heritage 1997: 7) and 'community vibrancy' (PDNPA:16), managers are expressly borrowing terminology from the 'hard' environmental sciences. Documents speak of a historic environment (e.g. English Heritage 1997, 2000a, 2002), 'environmental capacity' ('the capacity of the environment to absorb or accommodate activity or change without reversible or unacceptable damage' [English Heritage 1997: 9]), the 'carrying capacity' of a site such as Stonehenge (English Heritage 2000b: passim.), and 'sustainability' (English Heritage 1997: passim.).

Whilst such terminology gives the impression of objectivity and the ability to quantitatively measure 'value', 'character' and so on, it defers subjective decisions by one remove. As with the environmental sciences, deciding what constitutes 'acceptable damage' remains subjective and discursive, however good the indicators are (e.g. Irwin 2001 on problems inherent in the term 'sustainability'). The language used privileges archaeologists and heritage managers as final arbiters of historic value, rendering the claims of democratisation somewhat hollow. The statement that '[g]ood new design will create a rich historic environment for the future' (English Heritage 2000a: 18), for example, implies an objective set of criteria by which 'good' design may be determined, but actually privileges the authors' values and tastes. Indeed, whilst heritage managers claim to respond to the needs of minorities - ethnic, disabled, and, occasionally, religious - the 'glossy' (and hence produced for a wide audience) summarised reports Power of Place and State of the Historic Environment 2002 (English Heritage 2000a, 2002) photographically portray these minorities as consumers of the historic environment, but white, middle-aged, middle-class men and women as managers. The inclusion of a much wider and more democratic range of industrial and modern buildings into the discourse of 'heritage' has not succeeded in separating conservatism from conservation.

The problem remains that the preservation ethos provides no objective criteria by which material objects may be evaluated. That heritage managers are aware of this is evidenced by the space devoted to the problem within the documentation, but there is only an implicit acknowledgement of the discursive nature of such decision-making. The indicator of value most often used is a default mechanism of the modernist paradigm - an artefact's economic potential for generating income (e.g. 'The historic environment enriches the quality of our lives. As a result, it is a major economic asset' English Heritage 2002: 5; 'An empty building is an underused asset' English Heritage 2002: 5).

Implications of the preservation ethos for the non-specialist

First, the assumption that the past is closed marginalises the activities of contemporary practitioners at sites, as these activities are seen as lying outside the arbitrary boundary of closure. Archaeologists interested in the religious significance of, say, Stonehenge, tend to limit themselves to activities detectable within the archaeological record, even the historical record, but rarely to those of the present day (but see Chippindale 1994; Bender 1998; Wallis 2003). Contemporary ritual activity is invalid as a form of archaeological knowledge, cannot be considered 'real', because it lies outside this arbitrarily defined boundary of closure. What counts as being of interest are the ritual activities of the 'original' culture(s). This dismissal of contemporary religious activity as academically irrelevant is made more tenuous by the discovery of recent evidence for reuse of Stonehenge, such as bronze age axe carvings (Wessex Archaeology 2003) and an Anglo-Saxon ritual burial (Pitts, 2000): for if ancient re-usage merits interest, then why not contemporary?

The ethos also reifies the activities of people in the past, and the impact that these activities may have had upon a site, to the detriment of contemporary activities and any resulting amelioration. Since a site must be preserved in its current state and change constitutes 'degradation', contemporary activities must necessarily be regarded as potentially threatening sites' stability and continuity. The ethos creates the situation in which sites are regarded as being continually and permanently under threat.

The discursive nature of this position becomes apparent when, for example, the history of Stonehenge is examined: Rather than being a singular 'thing', Stonehenge is a palimpsest, resulting from many phases of intervention. Throughout its long history the monument has been altered, changed, developed, abandoned, and reused (Chippindale, 1994; Bender 1998; Wessex Archaeology 2003). The name, Stonehenge, dates to the Anglo-Saxon period, some 2000 years after its construction. The familiar layout of the monument dates only to the 1950s, when stones fallen since the 18th century were re-erected, the rest left as examples of 'damage' from ancient times. Whilst any contemporary 'damage', such as alleged carvings, is denigrated in the press as 'desecration', bronze age carvings count as archaeological evidence (as above) - and Victorian ones are conveniently ignored. The felt need to 'preserve' Stonehenge as it currently exists is a comparatively recent development.

Nonetheless, the ethos privileges a visual, rather than physical, embodied, or emotional engagement with sites: to appreciate sites fully they should be looked at, like museum exhibits, and preferably from a distance so that they can be appreciated in the full context of their archaeological landscape (but for archaeologists challenging this see e.g. Wallis 2003). Management plans repeatedly stress the importance of landscape and distance views (e.g. again regarding Stonehenge: 'From the highest points on the downlandäviews are extensive and landscape features can be visible from a considerable distance' [English Heritage 2000b: 3.13]). The visual bias inherent within the preservation ethos is consequently influential upon current archaeological interpretations which foreground spatiality, distance and perspective, and vice versa. It has also contoured thinking regarding the planned improvements to visitor facilities at Stonehenge and the proposed 'visitor experience', in which one road will be removed, another replaced by a tunnel, and visitors bussed to vantage points from which to view and wander through the panorama (for critical discussion of this approach by archaeologists, see Baxter and Chippindale 2002). Finally it determines the repeated representation of Stonehenge and other sites, through photographic, video, and postcard images, as a dramatic ruin (Hetherington 2000; Letcher et al. 2003) devoid of people (e.g. English Heritage 2000b passim.).

Pagan discourses

For pagans in the former group, a range of prehistoric sites including stone circles, barrows, standing stones, examples of rock art, fogous, iron age forts and later features such as holy wells, are interpreted as commensurate artefacts of pre-Christian paganism, and as such, sacred. Access to sites is therefore of central importance to practitioners, but not at the expense of preservation for future generations - the preservation ethos is reified and upheld. Thus, many articles in Pagan Dawn and The Druid's Voice complain about ritual detritus and damage caused by unscrupulous pagan ritualists, and many pagans regard themselves as elective 'guardians' of their chosen sacred sites.

Somewhat contrarily, the readership of these pagan journals seek both an identity of alterity and acceptance by mainstream society: 'Druids were once more allowed back into the temple only because [management appreciates that] Druids exist who want nothing to do with the free festival, who live with or within mainstream society instead of spitting at it' (Restall-Orr 1998: 23). Thus, various groups seeking to preserve sacred sites (e.g. SOS and ASLaN) are delineating a distinctly 'Pagan' campaigning area, which presents pagans as respectable society members concerned with the conservation of heritage. Archaeology as a discipline is viewed positively amongst these groups and the presence of archaeologists at pagan events and conferences is remarked upon favourably because it is interpreted as conferring legitimacy/authenticity upon pagan practices (appropriated/reconstructed from the past) (e.g. Bannister 2000: 8). This view is not precisely reciprocated, although archaeologists and heritage managers are beginning to realise the benefits of having a pagan community wedded to the preservation ethos and willing to patrol sacred sites as guardians, and, indeed, the needs of pagan practitioners are beginning to be accommodated in management plans (e.g. Lambrick, 2001).

Counter-Cultural Druids and Festival Celebrants

The origins of this discourse may be traced back at least as far as the late sixties in which Stonehenge was becoming an icon of the 'hippy' counterculture (and used in adverts for the latest albums by psychedelic and 'prog-rock' bands e.g. Gandalf's Garden 1969, 5: 30). This counterculture began to regard its activities in mythological terms as a utopian struggle against a corrupt mainstream society: celebrating the solstice at the Stonehenge free festival (started in 1974 by Phil Russell, a.k.a. Wally Hope), whether in Druidic or less structured rituals, became a means in itself of magically transforming society and restoring 'harmony' to the land. The banning of the festival and clash between the police and travellers at the 'battle of the beanfield' (1985) reinforced the notion that the festival had threatened to transform 'society', and that festival goers were freedom fighters against state oppression (Festival Eye passim.). In this counter-cultural discourse it is the denial of access, and not preservation, which provides the central narrative: until the free festival is restored, adherents feel their rights are violated. Stonehenge is not a ruin but a living temple and mass gatherings restore it to its 'original' purpose.

So, pagans seeking mainstream respectability and supporting the preservation ethos attempt to distance themselves from such 'less spiritual New Age Travellers' who apparently 'knock down the perimeter fence, stop a Druid ritual and clash with the policeäNo true pagan would show such disrespect' (Coughlan 1999: 46). It is incumbent on researchers of pagans, and alternative and heritage discourses, to demonstrate the diversity of perceptions within the interest groups and point out to these groups themselves the way in which their speak is discursively constructed so as to develop constructive dialogues and relationships between them. Preservation and access, discursively constituted, are dearly held, and discussions where one or other is undervalued become not merely frustrating but actively counterproductive.

Results: Ethnographic research

Activities

Outputs

Impacts

Future research priorities

1. Issues concerning use of Castlerigg, in particular tourist and 'stones enthusiast' responses to appropriative pagan use involving a Wiccan-style ritual and a fire-tub which left a large scorch-mark in the centre of the circle, to the dismay of other users.
2. Issues around creative uses of sacred/prehistoric space and ways in which sites can be managed as 'living' and changing environments. The temporary installation of the Anish Kapoor sculpture 'Turning the World Inside out' at the King's Men circle (Rollright Stones), facilitated types of interpretations and engagements that would not otherwise have been experienced. Comments from 'visitors' indicate a wide range of responses to the installation, both positive (contributing to the ambience of the circle) and negative (disrupting this) - even issues of racism: a task for pagans and heritage personnel alike is to distinguish how and why - and what - 'heritage' is to be 'protected' - and protected from what? Right-wing parties may attract pagan (and other) members by emphasising that heritage - including pre-christian religion - is important. People who feel themselves and their beliefs under threat may regard statements of 'protection' as relating specifically to themselves and the places they hold dear. Members of right-wing organisations, equally, may make statements about 'protecting all British heritage'.
3. A focus on narrativised 'mythscape' - living landscape - where experiences of narrator and site become intertwined in an emergent folklore which, forming part of (specific) pagan identities, becomes part of pagan or new-indigenous experience and appropriation of place. We have focused on narratives of Avebury.

These areas, linked with previous work on narrative, landscape and identity, are now forming a framework for future research in which emergent pagan narrativised identities are juxtaposed with the discursive constructions of both heritage and pagan appropriations of landscape, turning us towards a greater focus on identity, meaning and agency within geographic space and time.

References