Any common ground?

There's an excellent article by Dr Corinne Duhig, an osteoarchaeologist and a Pagan, in the latest issue (Summer 2009, number 72) of The Archaeologist, the official organ of the Institute for Archaeologists, in which she cogently makes the case for the diversity of burial practice and afterlife beliefs among both ancient pagans and contemporary Pagans. She too wants to honour the ancestors by telling their stories, which is what osteoarchaeology can do so well.

Oddly, however, whilst the article cites Pagans for Archaeology's interview with Emma Restall Orr, it makes no mention of the fact that Pagans for Archaeology is opposed to reburial (though hopefully our name would give readers of The Archaeologist a big clue).

But it is still an excellent article, and I hope it will contribute to making archaeologists aware that not all Pagans want reburial.

Arthur's protest

My response to Arthur's protest at Stonehenge

Context: Arthur's 7-month protest at Stonehenge is mainly in response to the excavations of human remains by the Riverside Project, but also about the re-siting of the visitor centre.

English Heritage held a consultation about where to put the new visitor centre and it is a difficult decision because just about everywhere around Stonehenge is archaeologically sensitive. I responded to that consultation, and Arthur could also have done so if he wished (maybe he did, I don't know). The new location was announced in May 2009, and it takes time to build things, so I am not quite sure of the need for that part of Arthur's protest.

Also, as English Heritage is a quango, it is not "the government".

As far as the remains in the Aubrey Holes are concerned, they were removed from their context and jumbled up in the 1930s (according to what Arthur said), so I am not too sure of the need either to retain them for study, or to rebury them. Presumably if they are being retained for study, there must be something that can be learned from them. Apparently they were in excellent condition and are being studied.

I disagree with the automatic assumption that respect means reburial. Osteoarchaeologists do treat remains with respect, and respect can also mean perpetuating the memory of the ancestors.

Also I think people should refrain from saying, "As Pagans we believe..." because Pagans do not all believe the same things.

See also: A member's response and the comments on this post

PFA conference success

The Pagans and Archaeology conference at the University of Bristol was a roaring success.

• The first paper was delivered by Ronald Hutton, and explored the way in which one generation's archaeological orthodoxy was the next generation's fringe archaeology. Ley-lines were once all the rage with the up-and-coming generation of archaeologists.
• Next, Josh Pollard explored the common origins of Paganism and archaeology in the Enlightenment and their shared interest in the past, and asked how better dialogue could be had.
• Andy Letcher explored where the concept of Paganism as a fertility religion had come from (a trope that is rapidly losing ground amongst scholars of Pagan Studies, but is still current with some archaeologists).
• Will Rathouse surveyed the field of relations between archaeologists and Pagans, from collaboration to conflict.
• Graham Harvey explained the animist view of ancestors (which can include other-than-human people as well as human people).
• Yvonne Aburrow gave a paper on the different discourses employed by those who want to retain human remains in museums, and those who want to rebury them. There are many discourses involved, but the most striking difference between the two groups was that those who are opposed to reburial are interested in the individual stories of the past and want them to be remembered, whereas those who want reburial are more concerned with a holistic view of the landscape and a timeless past.
• Tiffany Jenkins explored how a crisis in the Enlightenment project that underpins the role of museums had opened the door to claims for repatriation and reburial.
• Martin Smith explored the ethical issues around human remains, explained some of the fascinating things that can be discovered by scientific analysis of them, and pointed out the highly ethical treatment of bones by osteoarchaeologists.
• Jenny Blain and Robert Wallis gave an overview of their Sacred Sites, Contested Rights / Rites project, and explained their response to the Avebury Consultation on human remains.

Afterwards lots of us went to the pub, and then some of us went for a curry.

Heritage protection reform dropped

The Heritage Protection Bill for England failed to be included in the Government's Draft Legislative Programme for 2009/10 announced in June 2009. This indicates that it is very unlikely to be included in the legislative business of the next Parliamentary session. The Council for British Archaeology are understandably disappointed, though English Heritage has indicated that many of the reforms can go ahead without it.

This legislation would have unified the two separate systems that currently exist and made the process of protecting heritage much simpler and more effective.

Apparently it's been pushed off the agenda by financial reforms.

New toolkit for heritage

Community Heritage Toolkit Now Live on CAF

A new resource for community archaeology and heritage groups has just
been made available via the CBA's award-winning Community Archaeology
Forum (CAF).

The Community Heritage Toolkit was created by Rosie Crook of Working
Heritage and derives from a workshop titled 'Whose Heritage is it
Anyway?' which was co-organised by the CBA and English Heritage in
Castleford in 2005. The Heritage Toolkit contains numerous step-by-step
suggestions of fun, interesting and affordable ways of engaging groups
and communities with their local heritage, including using oral history
and film, exploring old photographs and even excavating molehills!

The Toolkit, which forms part of the suite of Advice and Guidance pages
available through CAF is just the latest addition to the growing
website. As well as providing advice and signposting visitors to
potential sources of funding, CAF is also a place where groups can
publicise their own projects and activities by creating their own pages.

With 49 projects already listed, ranging in geographical location from
the North of Scotland Archaeological Society and the Unst Archaeological
Group to the St Newlyn East Excavations in Cornwall, this section of the
website is also constantly growing, with recent additions including
pages from the South Somerset Archaeological Research Group, and the Ram
Hill archaeology project in South Gloucestershire. Users can add their
own material to the site after a simple registration process that can be
accessed via CAF's homepage. In addition, there is an email discussion
list for those with an interest in community archaeology, which can also
be joined via the homepage.

The layout of CAF will be modified and improved later in the year, as
part of the intended outcomes of research currently being carried out
into how the CBA can support community archaeology across the UK.
Details of this research can be found at the Community Archaeology
Research page and via the Community Archaeology Support Officer's blog.

Existing projects and resources will be migrated to the new website, so
please don't be put off adding information now if you have something you
wish to tell us.

new ceremonial complex discovered

Given away by strange, crop-circle-like formations seen from the air, a huge prehistoric ceremonial complex discovered in southern England has taken archaeologists by surprise.

A thousand years older than nearby Stonehenge, the site includes the remains of wooden temples and two massive, 6,000-year-old tombs that are among "Britain's first architecture," according to archaeologist Helen Wickstead, leader of the Damerham Archaeology Project. For such a site to have lain hidden for so long is "completely amazing," said Wickstead, of Kingston University in London.

Archaeologist Joshua Pollard, who was not involved in the find, agreed. The discovery is "remarkable," he said, given the decades of intense archaeological attention to the greater Stonehenge region.

"I think everybody assumed such monument complexes were known about or had already been discovered," added Pollard, a co-leader of the Stonehenge Riverside Project, which is funded in part by the National Geographic Society.

Finding a Compromise - Keeping Places

Respect For the Dead

In any discussion of what to do with human remains, I think we should start from the assumption that almost everyone respects the dead. But it is how that respect is expressed that is currently a source of conflict.

Some have argued that respect can only be expressed by not disturbing the dead; or if they are disturbed by accident or because of development work, then they must be reburied as soon as possible. This is, however, a view that was not necessarily held by our ancestors. It may also be a result of squeamishness about death, not wanting to see human remains on display. It is certainly true that many cultures prefer their remains not to be disturbed, and indeed the integrity of the burial is one of the duties we owe to the dead (de Baets, 2004), along with memory and justice. But if the resting place is long-forgotten, then the person has long since passed out of memory, and so archaeologists are at least benefiting the ancestors by perpetuating their memory.