The impression I got from some of the archaeologists was that some individuals and groups had spoken to the archaeologists on site over the course of the dig – I wasn’t there, so I don’t know and you shouldn’t take this as gospel, but I just don’t have any good reason to doubt them. I also didn’t get the impression that the people in question had gone through EH, rather that they’d just wandered onto the site, but again, you shouldn’t take this as gospel.

There’s absolutely no avoiding this subject of the ongoing difference of opinion, but I really don’t see any good reason at all why it shouldn’t be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction, or to the satisfaction of every reasonable person of goodwill, put it like that. Stonehenge is a place of fascination, admiration and indeed reverence for many people and I’d squarely include myself in that company, as I’m in awe of the place and of the people who built it. I’ve derived a huge amount of enjoyment from the ruins for longer than I care to remember and this is something that shows no signs whatever of abating, so I wish for nothing more than the same for everyone else, whatever their interest in the place might be or whatever their function.

I am aware of only one meeting so far between the Druids and RP team, although it is possible that some small groups might like to make a name for themselves by being the ones to make a breakthrough and therefore might act independently.

The likelihood is that they would have to go through English Heritage to arrange such meetings and so I’ll make enquiries.

It would certainly be to everyone’s benefit if all the various interested pagan groups were to collaborate and provide a single team as a point of contact and communication between our community and the project. If it is the case that multiple contacts have been made I’ll try to get something more sensible organised.

Frank

The simple truth is that you misunderstood what I wrote, but looking back over it, I can see why you took it the way you did and the fault is mine, for which I apologise. I had meant to write that when two groups of people with opposing views meet up, it’s inevitable that both sides will feel aggrieved and I was simply trying to reflect a reality, as opposed to apportioning blame or taking sides. Whatever I meant to write, it came across the wrong way, so I’m sorry for this.

As for the SRP, I’m not 100% sure of my ground, but this is how I understand the situation to be. I was under the impression that they were funded by the National Geographic Society rather than the government, but I’ve not asked about this in any detail, I must admit. As I think the SRP do a brilliant job, far better, far more open and far more conscientious than a commercial outfit would be, for example, I’ve consistently given credit where it’s due.

Furthermore, Pete Glastonbury and I have held back from publishing some information and photos out of common courtesy for the National Geographic Society because they naturally wish to profit from their backing of the excavations when they publish photos and articles themselves. I’m not aware of any law that stops us, but as I’ve said, it’s simple common courtesy because we have no wish to impede these excavations in any way – on the contrary.

I should also point out that it’s not ‘my’ SRP in any way, either, because I’m not employed by them, nor do I have any say in what they do, but I’ve always had very good reason to be impressed by the way they all conduct themselves.

Otherwise, I might be guilty of reporting hearsay, something I wish to avoid, but I’d heard from some archaeologists that a lot of time was being taken up with meeting different groups and individuals opposed to the exhumations in formal and informal meetings, so it’s possible that you were unaware of all these meetings, if indeed they took place. I can’t help thinking that it would make life a very great deal easier for everyone concerned if there was a single unquestioned spokesperson for all those with reservations about the excavations and a single spokesperson for the archaeologists, English Heritage and so forth, who could meet up long beforehand.

This is yet another matter I intend to look into fully one day, but it makes a mess of the whole process of negotiation if someone/anyone proclaims themselves to be unamenable to reason and independent of the agreements, whichever side they may be on. What with the weather and a schedule to meet, I still think it’s understandable if archaeologists, who weren’t planning to be a part of any discussions, become irritable when the process becomes random. Again, this isn’t intended to take sides in any way, because it’s just meant as an observation of fact, whether we might like it or not.

As for some of the other points you made, you’re pretty much preaching to the converted, although I’d be a fool not to admit that there are some issues here that aren’t black and white, so I’ll try to write about this in a long, considered piece on another occasion.

Finally, there’s no question in my mind that you value Stonehenge and that you have a real interest in learning more about it, so you are always welcome to submit your thoughts to Eternal Idol and to make them public for all to see.

Best wishes from

Dennis

I wish that I had spotted this earlier in order to make a reply.

The Druids that gathered to spiritually prepare the ground at several of your dig sites were well received, well behaved, and stopped work for all of a few minutes only in a very cordial manner.

When assembled for the same with regard to the Aubrey hole 7 excavation, we had only just learned of the scale of remains involved and that MP at least, has no intention of returning any.

Given the circumstances that most of those gathered regard Stonehenge as the most holy of holy places and the ancestors concerned as like to saints, the shock and horror was felt deeply.

We also felt angry and betrayed, for we had placed great trust in English Heritage with whom we meet regularly. They failed to advise the RP that this excavation would need special consideration in light of the present day beliefs surrounding the ancestors, they failed to consult ourselves or adequately forewarn as to the intentions regarding these same and they should have known better.

We were only gathered for about one hour, made a circle away from your dig and although beating drums and giving voice to a variety of opinions, we did not stop your work or deliberately harrass anyone. Considering that we support your science and all genuine search for truth, and felt that our good will and trust had been greatly betrayed, we behaved on the whole very well.

If you were to march into the Vatican and remove St Paul, never to be returned, I very much doubt that the churchmen their would be any where near as pleasant or as passive as were we.

Take a less extreme example: Imagine that you were granted consent by DCMS to go into Salisbury cathedral and dig a tomb within the confines of the church itself, that the Bishop and priest only had a day or so’s notice from DCMS, and scarce details, but who then decided to support the science and do the spiritual necessaries over the remains. They then learn, just half an hour before the ceremony that the archaeologists intend to keep all the remains and maybe put them on display. How accommodating do you think they would feel then?

I apologise to any Christians who might find any parallels between us uncomfortable but given a largely Christian context to our society today I do not know of any other way to explain how we were feeling that morning when all this came to light.

The science, as confirmed to us by one of the worlds top forensic scientists, requires only a few grammes of human material to be retained, and that would allow for retention against future as yet unforeseen tests as well. These ancestors mean a great deal to many, especially those for whom the actual presence of the ancestors in the landscape actually is part of their spiritual reason to be there.

The issue will doubtless need resolution in the near future, and it would be far better that we spend a little time talking, understanding each others needs and trying to reach an amicable middle ground than have to fight this through the courts.

We share a great deal in common in our reverence for Stonehenge, and in our human quest to understand our origins.

It is a poor excuse to wave in the air that archaeologists are too busy to spend the odd half hour here and there talking with people about a matter of such importance (At a minimum, that would be good manners all considering).

It is also unclear t me how spending half an hour here or there talking with other stakeholders should in any way reflect on their desire to publish material here when the two are entirely disconnected, unless that is, that now the sharing of information is being made a hostage to their not being accountable?

With great respect for your friends on the RP, the RP is funded by the government of our people, and thereby the taxpayer, and so it really should not be too much trouble to share the discoveries that belong to us all, or to talk with those your dig will effect on a deeply spiritual level to seek reasonable solution regarding remains.

Research into Stonehenge does not happen only below ground, it happens with a study of anthropology, ancient folklore, astronomy and there are philosophical spiritual and magical avenues of exploration also. All are valid, and I suspect that with regard to the enigma of Stonehenge, none in isolation has the power to solve the mystery.

This dig is exciting, and may add much value to our knowledge, it may even give the great missing clue that we all yearn to find but it exists in an ocean of ideas and beliefs. There is nothing to suggest that it alone is so important as to merit a complete disregard for other people or for the very special people who’s remains are at issue.

It would be very easy to dismiss the modern Druids as a bunch of long haired trouble makers, or fantasists trying to live a Victorian fantasy about an ancient priesthood of which there is but scarce evidence, or as a bunch of ignorant new agers with no idea about the ‘reality’ of Stonehenge or the comparative intelligence of those involved in the dig.

I would not be truthful if I did not confess that on occasion such generalized dismissals have some merit, but there are very many exceptions. Among the many exceptions there are people who are educated, well read, intelligent, hard working and sincere in deeply rooted faith. There are also those guided from sources that you will not find in any library and practicing arts still way beyond the grasp of science.

With the right mindset on both sides, we may actually be of benefit to one another and have insights to share both ways.

We all do what we do because Stonehenge really matters. None of us are totally clear as to why, but we feel it and know it deep down. That is why the archaeologists are so excited about excavating there, and it is the same feeling that draws me there to watch sunset and sunrise on a freezing cold winter solstice.

Stonehenge is not just a relic of the past, it is a temple for the living.

As a priest to the gods and peoples of Albion I have no wish to obstruct or harrass scientists. I do care that in the way that they pursue their study it does not undo the magic of the place or the resting peace and dignity of the ancestors.

Frank

Tony

I’ve just had a wander around my estate and I’ve found a few oaks and a yew with girths of about 15 feet and they’re massive trees, to me at least. I’ll try to get some photos later with me hugging them (!) to show the girth, then a longer shot to show the height, but if anyone else can supply something like this, then please feel free. As for Alex’s comments, I thought they were absolutely fascinating and I’ll try to do them justice in a post at some point, although it might take a week or so as I’m a bit tied up right now.

Try it with a tape measure

Tony

I know all the risks of selective quoting, but it did seem interesting that either a single tree – or avenue – on the route between the lands of the living and dead could be a portal between the two. Although the belief is attributed to the Celts, the general point must surely have had some continuity from an earlier time, whether the tree was an oak or a lime. Trees must have had enormous significance for Neolithic people, with particular qualities attributed to each.

Perhaps this knowledge formed part of the learning that was transmitted through the generations until it was associated with the Druid cult at the time of the Roman invasions. As Dennis has pointed out in his post titled “Specu-lation concerning the Druids”, the Roman geographer Pomponius Mela wrote that it took the Druids 20 years to learn the lore, so it must have had a long history. And that “they [the Druids] never perform any of their rites except in the presence of a branch of it (an oak).”

The significance of the oak (reinforced by the oak-bark tooling on one of the stones) could point to the need for presence of an oak (or oaks) in close proximity to the Stonehenge monument.

Further, an avenue of mature oaks forming a tunnel could closely simulate a cave (specu) or even a “secluded dale”. I don’t want to draw too close a parallel with Pomponius’s Druids, for we’re talking 2000 years earlier, but the ideas of caves, glades and secluded dales would have had great resonance for Neolithic people, still close to the primary wildwood, who’d been building “caves” from stone and wood in their communal death houses, the long barrows.

Of the two current theories about Stonehenge, I’ve preferred MPP’s Life/Death ideas. And I think that an Avenue tree (or trees) could lend just a little more weight to that theory.