Who does PfA represent?

There is a spectrum of views about archaeology and human remains among Pagans. Paganisms are not dogmatic, so individual Pagans are free to make up their own minds about issues. It is possible to generalise about some Pagan beliefs, but even then one can only safely say, "Most Pagans believe..." (and Pagans are uncomfortable with the word "belief" as it implies dogmatism and an unwillingness to change one's mind in the face of new evidence).

Pagans for Archaeology is a group of people who have signed up to this statement. Whatever I write that is additional to that statement can only be taken as my personal view; it does not represent the views of all members, and certainly not all Pagans. In practice, I find that most members of PfA, and many other Pagans, do agree with the stuff I write; but that cannot be taken for granted unless they have explicitly assented to it.

That is why, when I am asked for the views of Pagans for Archaeology on a particular topic, I write to the members to ask them for their views on it; and when there is a consultation on an archaeological matter, I inform members so that they can respond to it personally.

The other parts of the spectrum are represented by HAD and CoBDO.

CoBDO want all remains reburied after they have been studied.

HAD is an attempt to build a consensus around the issue of human remains. Many of its members want reburial, but they are about compromise and negotiation, and want to be able to perform ritual around the disinterment and re-interment of remains, and to be consulted about museum displays of remains.

Pagans for Archaeology is opposed to reburial (this opposition was part of the statement signed up to by members) but many of its members want to see better displays in museums.

The other aim in setting up PfA was to make links with archaeologists and heritage and help them understand that not all Pagans want reburial and there is a spectrum of opinion, of which CoBDO is definitely not representative.

Stonehenge consultation

English heritage has produced a spiffy new website with details of the Stonehenge consultation.

The government has ruled out spending lots of money on diverting the road or building a tunnel, so the only options on the table are the ones outlined in the consultation website. This is not English Heritage's fault.

Links to the forms are here, but it's worth going to the website and reading the various options and background material before plunging in.

• World Heritage Site Management Plan Feedback form
• Environmental Improvements Feedback form

email from Bobcat

I wondered if you could make it clear on your site that HAD does not call for reburial of ancient human remains, but calls for consultation?

In terms of Lindow Man, HAD were consulted because HAD got involved at the very beginning. We then invited local Pagans, i.e. those in Cheshire, Derbyshire, Lancashire and Greater Manchester, to attend the consultation, and a broad mixture of Pagans did get involved. There was no limit or definition of which Pagans could attend or be part of the consultation, other than that they were local.

In terms of the exhibition itself, and how successfully it expressed the consultation process, you can read my report on the HAD website. What was good to experience was that there was a real consensus between all at the consultation meetings : Pagans, archaeologists, curators, nonPagan local community. Many feel the transposition was too much an expression of the designer's vision and much of the consultation was lost. But that is a big debate. It has nothing whatsoever to do with reburial and HAD.

Blessings, Bobcat /|\

Emma Restall Orr
Honouring the Ancient Dead (HAD)

office@honour.org.uk
http://www.honour.org.uk

Stonehenge

The seemingly endless round of consultations about what to do about Stonehenge is apparently being given new impetus by, of all things, the 2012 Olympic Games. A rich irony considering that heritage funding is being taken away to fund the sporty nonsense.

King Arthur is camping near Stonehenge in an attempt to embarrass the government into doing something about the ghastly visitor centre (which, if you haven't seen it, looks like some kind of Stalinist monstrosity).

The problem is, whatever they decide to do about visitor access to Stonehenge, someone is going to be unhappy about it. If they dig a tunnel for the A303 it will disturb other archaeology. Personally I liked the idea of taking away all the roads and fences and making people walk from a couple of miles away. That way the experience would be more like a pilgrimage and less like a gawp-fest. The merely idly curious would be satisfied with a visit to the visitor centre, and only those who really cared would bother to walk the two miles to the actual site.

Manchester Museum Lindow Man exhibition

Manchester Museum are currently displaying Lindow Man.

Lindow Man triggers feelings of nostalgia and spirituality and fascinates people interested in science and heritage. Seven people who have a particular connection with Lindow Man were interviewed for the exhibition. Their personal experiences provide a unique insight into the impact that he has had on their lives and many others. Each of them has a different story to tell, but you will find that they agree in some surprising ways. Some of the objects in the exhibition have an obvious link to Lindow Man, others may seem unexpected, but all of them are chosen to show the many sides of Lindow Man and what he means to us today.

You can post your comments on this exhibition on their Lindow Man blog.

Manchester Museum Egyptian remains consultation

Manchester Museum are consulting the public about the display of Egyptian mummies.

You can contribute your views on their blog.