I have a very great interest in Stonehenge and in the ancient Druids, so it’s inevitable that I should have heard of both the modern Druids and the current campaign to have the remains of the ancestors returned to Aubrey Hole 7. The attention I devote to modern Druids ranges from negligible, for most of the time, to a more than passing interest on certain days, but my attention’s been concentrated on them over the last few months, primarily on account of the “Bring Back the Ancestors” campaign.
I have not yet written about the reburial issue in general or the reburial issue at Stonehenge in particular, but I have every intention of airing my views in minute detail at some future point. For now, and very briefly, I think that a great many people have a sense of what might be termed “common decency”, although I’m fully aware that this notion is disputed in some quarters and not just by archaeologists.
All this can wait until another day, because for now, I simply wanted to air my perception of the modern Druids. This won’t be an exacting, scholarly analysis, but it will simply be a personal opinion and one based on some of the correspondence I’ve received, as well as on what little I’ve seen and read of modern Druidry over the last few months.
There are so many individual Druids and so many Druid organisations that I long ago lost count of them and I gave up trying to keep track. However, from where I’m standing, it seems as if their most prominent individuals and groups are beginning to fall into two sharply-defined categories that I would describe as the Mods and the Rockers, for reasons I’ll go into.
First of all, the “Mods” – this name occurred to me as a convenient shorthand for what I’d describe as modern-thinking types, while I’d personally add New Age, politically-correct and Establishment Friendly as ways of defining this category. I would say that the best-known of the ‘Mods’ is Professor Ronald Hutton, someone who is regarded as the greatest living authority on Druids on account of his many publications, while Professor Hutton has recently been appointed a Commissioner for English Heritage.
I don’t know what this post entails, but I’m sure that Professor Hutton will perform his duties admirably and to everyone’s complete satisfaction, so I for one would like to extend my warm congratulations to him on his appointment and to the Minister for Culture for what is indubitably a wise and popular choice.
Another prominent figure among my ‘Mods’ is Emma Restall-Orr, a lady I had the pleasure of meeting back in 1998 when we were among the one hundred guests invited to the Open Solstice celebrations at Stonehenge. Among other things, Emma’s Wikipedia entry describes her as a Neo-Druid, a designation I’d say was broadly in keeping with my loose definition of a ‘Mod’, while as you can see from the link above, Emma enjoys arguably the highest profile of any Druid or Druidess alive.
I’ll come to the ‘Rockers’ in a moment, but I should point out that there are many other modern Druids with divided or undecided loyalties. I was astounded to meet a Christian Druid when I spoke at the Isbourne Centre back in March of this year, as I didn’t know such people existed, but I don’t doubt that there are many others who quietly go about their own business in this poorly-defined centre ground.
This category also contains some individuals or groups who yearn for prominence or influence, but as their aspirations seem to be founded primarily on made-up names for their groups and claims that leave me slack-jawed in disbelief, I’ll pass them by until such time as they do or achieve something truly worthy of note.
And so, at the other end of the spectrum to the ‘Mods’ are the group that I’d describe as the ‘Rockers’, for reasons that are surely self-evident. I would describe the ‘Rockers’ as those Druids who identify with rocks, standing stones, stone circles [as opposed to groves], Stonehenge, the ancestors and so forth, people who are ‘traditionalists’ as opposed to ‘Neo-Druids’. As far as I can see, the most prominent ‘Rockers’ are the Stonehenge Druids and King Arthur, pictured at the top of this post on the right, with his partner Caz and with Frank Somers, Head of the Stonehenge Druids.
To my mind, these Rockers are just about as far removed from their Mod counterparts as it is possible to be. Where the Mods go in for lecture tours, establishment appointments, the publication of books and suchlike, the Rockers seem to be an altogether more accessible, down to earth and ‘front line duty’ bunch, while they’ve achieved some prominence for their sustained campaign to get the remains of the ancestors returned to Stonehenge.
I have no idea if these two camps exist outside my imagination, or if they would identify themselves and each other with my descriptions, but I was amused by what the Mods and Rockers entry on Wikipedia had to say on the matter of their predecessors from the 1960s: “The rockers considered mods to be weedy, effeminate snobs, and mods saw rockers as out of touch, oafish and grubby.”
On a more serious note, it’s abundantly clear to me that within the modern Druid movement, two polarised camps are engaged in a not-so-covert battle for hearts and minds, so I find myself wondering which side will ultimately prevail in the court of public opinion? Will the people of Britain and elsewhere buy into what I’d describe as the ‘Druid Lite’ brand, or will they go for a more traditionalist ‘Druideology’ approach? There are many relevant aspects I could examine, but this is purely a personal opinion, not a scholarly examination of what might be termed a sociological or anthropological phenomenon, so I’ll confine myself to what I feel are the most pertinent issues.
At the heart of it lies the ‘Ivory Tower’ Syndrome, something I have to regularly remind myself about. For example, Professor Hutton has recently been appointed a Commissioner for English Heritage and while I don’t doubt for a moment it’s an admirable achievement, I must confess that I don’t have the faintest idea what a Commissioner for English Heritage actually does, while I suspect that a great many other people would be hard put to accurately compile a job description for this post. I’m sure it will impress his peers, but whether or not it impresses and influences the general public one way or the other remains to be seen.
I understand from a previous issue of the Watkins Review that Emma Restall-Orr has had ten books published so far, but I don’t know how extensive her readership is or if they are all actively involved in the Druidic movement. I was honoured to share the front cover of the most recent issue of the Watkins Review with Professor Hutton, but I note that his most recent publication, Blood and Mistletoe: The History of the Druids in Britain, costs a fairly hefty 30 pounds, which I suspect will put it beyond the reach of all but the most avid enthusiasts of the subject matter.
Of course, the writing of such learned works is an admirable endeavour in and of itself, but I speak with the Voice of Experience & Authority when I say that being a writer of a book is often deemed to be a leisurely, almost foppish pastime. As I know all too well, people have to be aware of a book’s existence before they’ll consider buying it, so when it comes to the matter of which of the two aforementioned sides will prevail as far as hearts and minds are concerned, I find myself considering the issue of the ongoing picket at Stonehenge [pictured at the top of this post].
I don’t know how regularly King Arthur and others carry out their protest, asking people to sign their petition, but as Stonehenge receives something in the region of 1,000,000 visitors a year, then I’d have thought that these people will receive far more exposure and will garner far more awareness of their cause than most authors are ever likely to do, myself included, especially when you consider that the media take a regular interest in their activities.
Finally, at the risk of being seen as less than impartial, there is what I believe is another aspect to all this. If I were ever asked to name the one characteristic that I would prize and value above all else in other people, then I would say ‘generosity of spirit’ every time, without a moment’s hesitation. However, running a very, very close second would be what’s commonly termed ‘backbone’ or moral courage, so in all fairness, I would say that at least one of the ‘Rockers’ has this quality in bucketloads.
If you follow the next link, you’ll see an interview with a Druidess named Caz, who has been campaigning at Stonehenge for the return of the ancestors. Whether or not I agree with her argument is entirely beside the point, because I cannot help but admire her determination to present her case in a thunderstorm that sent everyone else screaming for cover and from what I understand, she continues this vigil in all weathers. Of course, not everyone is in favour of the campaign to return the ancestors and not every visitor to Stonehenge signs the petition, but those that do are likely to be impressed by someone consistently putting themselves in the front line.
To put it another way, it’s one thing for me to sit here, languidly typing out a few lines per day for my next published epic in between strolling around the woods & fields hereabouts with Blueboy and periodic bouts of feasting and drunkenness, but it’s quite another when I cast my mind back to some of the really hard physical work I’ve done, out in the open in front of occasionally hostile crowds.
In another incarnation, almost twenty years ago, I became the first western knight in Russia – it’s a long story for another time, but apart from teaching me what a truly warm-hearted and hard-partying bunch our Russian brothers and sisters are, it entailed some of the most tiring and trying circumstances I’ve ever endured and believe me when I say that’s up against some pretty stiff opposition.
I would say that this principle of being seen to be in the front line applies equally well to someone like Professor Mike Parker-Pearson, who runs the Stonehenge Riverside Project. Of course, the general public are invariably going to be impressed by an opinion or soundbite from an ‘expert’ or other office-bound academic, but I can only say that I’m far more likely to be influenced, in a case such as this, by someone who has spent years getting the dirt of the Stonehenge landscape under his fingernails in all weathers.
So, who do I think will ultimately prevail in the matter of gaining public support – the Mods or the Rockers?
My money’s squarely on the Rockers.
.png)
{ 26 comments… read them below or add one }
Maybe. Of course, it could end up that the Mods gain public support because of their “respectability”, while the Rockers are seen as… Nutters (Daily Mail term heheh)
I guess I’m somewhere between those two worlds. Heard of “Pagans for Archaeology”? A group of.. Rockers, I guess, who think like mods. Yup, there is a third way, everything doesn’t need to be so polar
Why are they different? Well, they are the realists. Pagans who actually work in archaeology, work in museums dealing with The Ancestors, other pagans who, reasonably, understand that if it wasn’t for archaeology, what we would actually know about paganism would be a few lines from Caesar.
For my part, I think I would quite like to be dug up in 4000 years, studied and displayed. I can’t think of a better way of honoring THIS ancestor
Oh, and I’d like the Rockers to please take DNA tests and prove that they are related to the “ancestors” they want repatriated. Diolch.
Like I said, I’ll certainly go into the reburial issue in depth on another occasion, but now not. However, this “Pagans for Archaeology” group/name has long baffled me, because its existence implies that there are [presumably British] pagans who are against archaeology.
I’ve never met any and I’ve never heard of any pagans who are against archaeology i.e. a study of the past, but that’s not to say that such people don’t exist, of course. On the face of it, however, it seems to me that ‘Pagans for Archaeology’ is a misnomer and a deliberately disingenuous one at that.
Digging up human remains and keeping them in cardboard boxes in warehouses with no intention of reburying them is, I’m sure everyone would agree, only one very small aspect of what’s called ‘archaeology’, so I think that for the sake of mere justice and terminological exactitude, the PFA might like to reconsider its name.
PIFODUBAKTIPROWOT?
[Pagans in favour of digging up bones and keeping them in perpetuity, regardless of what others think?]
And for what it’s worth, I was very struck by Jeremy Bentham and his notion of ‘Auto-icons’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham#Auto-icon
Yuk, Dennis, that is really weird!
I see Jeremy Bentham was very fond of [lovely] Bowood House, which I visited in 2007 in the course of family history research … [only because many N.Wilts 'Cole' persons had worked there!] …. and I was just thinking about that place last night after watching Rupert Everett’s excellent programme about ‘mad, bad and dangerous to know’ Lord Byron. I remember seeing Byron’s original Albanian costume on display there. Excerpt from Bowood’s website:
“A staircase at the west end of this gallery leads to the exhibition rooms and a fascinating array of family treasures.
Examples of 18th-century costume of the time of the 1st Marquess are seen in the Georgian Room, while the early 19th-century Albanian costume, in which Lord Byron was painted by Thomas Phillips in 1813, is displayed in its own showcase.”
[It seems that Bentham already had sympathy with Byron's leanings!]
As regards the Druids – I think I’ll fall into the Rockers camp, too, though Emma has good values and is a very good-looking* advert for veganism! *(Not that Cas, Arthur and Frank aren’t!)
And I do think the bones should be returned to Stonehenge, and to other sites where they’ve been unearthed; I wouldn’t like to think someone was putting mine on display many years from now!
To our culture, in our times, surely it is basic respect for the ancestors.
Though I suppose there were times when the ancient people may have deliberately kept their own ancestors’ bones on display as part of their culture?
The fact that these were discovered buried, means they should remain that way.
From what I can see, the ‘Mods’ have many fine and admirable qualities; as I wrote, I simply think that the ‘Rockers’ have a wider appeal and part of this is down to their accessibility. Still, I could be imagining the whole thing, but that’s how it all seems to me.
No, Pagans For Archaeology is basically a counter to .. another group… that wants a blanket reburial scheme. No mitigation.
I think this reburial thing is the druids trying to make like the Native Americans and Native Australians. Except those groups have direct descendency from the Ancestors they wish to repatriate. I’ve yet to see any of these druids prove direct descendency.
It isn’t about keeping them in cardboard boxes for the sake of it. It’s about keeping them… on hand… for when science advances. If we had buried all the ancestors in the 1920s, we wouldn’t be able to test them for DNA. Or trace country of birth by teeth. Or any such advancements. Reburying someone who has been dug up previously is practically the equivalent of book-burning, imo. That may sound cold, but it is.
Fair enough, but who are or what is this other group that want a blanket reburial scheme with no mitigation? It’s just that I’ve never heard of them and I don’t know where to start looking. I’ve read odds and sods, but I’ve just not heard of any ‘Pagans against Archaeology’ or ‘Pagans/Druids or whatever for blanket reburial’. I don’t disbelieve you, but I’d certainly like to have a look at their site, if they have one, and their mission statement [or whatever it's called these days.]
Al, I can only speak for my own position on reburial which in response to the points you raise is as follows:
Each discovery of ancient remains should be made available for scientific study for a period of up to two years, after which reburial should be the default proposition, but small samples could be taken for further analysis and 3D laser scans and photographs kept as a record of physical condition. In rare cases of exceptional scientific interest, then a longer term plan can be considered, but human remains should never be placed on open display. Reburial in sealed containers would ensure that if at some future date a commanding case can be made for disinterment, then the remains will not have deteriorated.
In general though, it should be remembered that these are the remains of human beings and that to disturb them at all is an ugly business, although sometimes on balance it is necessary, but to retain them longer than necessary is indecent. Stripping our sacred lands of our ancestral remains and especially our holy places is desecration.
You mention that you believe the Druids are trying to be like the native Americans and native Australians. Actually we are seeking a position where cultural and religious concerns have equal weighting to the scientific interest such that the science may continue AND the dead are not ultimately dishonoured or exploited.
Very many of the British people have ancestral links to the period of these ancestors; figures of between 40% and 70% have been quoted, but I suspect that you would not be happy with this and would only credit someone’s view as valid if they were a direct family descendant. In that case, I might suggest that if no archaeologist is a direct family descendant of the remains, then they cannot keep them. An interesting idea when you apply your same logic that way around, don’t you think?
In fact, the whole genetic argument is bankrupt in this instance, as we are the current priests of Stonehenge, with cultural links to that period of the past and a spiritual duty of care, so it is appropriate that we should speak on behalf of the dead and their dignity. If you started digging bodies up from a churchyard, you wouldn’t ask the priest if he was genetically related to the particular dead there of the first vicar; you would accept his view because he is the descendant by responsibility and role.
When we look at the knowledge gained by digging up our ancestors, it is interesting for sure, but has not provided a cure for cancer or solved the energy crisis; it hasn’t even solved the mystery of our origins and is never likely to. Each answer just raises further questions, and the theorists simply keep dreaming up new stories to challenge the traditions we hold dear, traditions which actually have been affirmed for the most part by the science.
Many of those theories, which rarely stand for more than a decade, can be highly offensive and even damaging to a living culture. The American natives were fed up with being described as primitive and as barbarians and having their tribal history and beliefs labeled as ‘Myth’ by outsiders applying western values where frankly they do not belong. They won their case for protective legislation on this basis alone. Archaeologists here are terrified that we might do likewise, which is why so many of their academic cronies are trying to promote the idea that there is no Druid cultural legitimacy. In fact though, such legitimacy cannot be disproved on any number of levels, and we are being more than reasonable in the circumstances.
If a process can be agreed that evaluates each discovery of ancient human remains that is fair and gives equal weighting to the decency aspect, then this will help protect the future scientific freedoms rather than bringing them to a virtual standstill, as has happened in the USA. If they remain completely intransigent, the scientific community will force us to take a much stronger stance and challenge them outright, which puts the continuance of such studies at risk.
Some apologists for the archaeologists suggest that by digging up the dead we can tell their story. This is not truly the case. You can tell at most what sex and age the person was, where they were born, what illnesses they had, maybe what they wore and the content of their last meal. You cannot tell who they loved, what made them laugh, how courageous they were, their favorite colour, what music they liked or what they aspired to in life, and these are the things that constitute a person’s story.
In many cultures, not only ours, to disturb the ancestors and to treat them with disrespect is to invite trouble. Whatever you might think about the spirit realms, in terms of whether they are real or not, if you assume not then you are applying modern values to an ancient situation which may be a severe mistake. Our forebears believed that the intercession of the ancestors for our benefit was vital to the well-being of the land and those still living.
What if they are correct and you are not?
If you would like to be preserved and gawped at by bored tourists for eternity, then by all means sign some sort of document to that effect and I hope that you wishes will be granted. Where no such permission is granted, then let’s do the decent thing, please, and lay the ancients back into the earth with honour.
Speaking as a Pagan myself (and a lifelong one), I’m all for treating these remains with the utmost respect, the same respect afforded to someone who died 10 minutes ago. Yes, two years seems reasonable, as long as part of the person is kept – maybe a tooth, fragment of bone, something tangable to work on.
The problem I have with reburial by default though, aside from the scientific, is the whys and wherefore:
Say a bronze-age gravesite is found during the building of a Tesco. Or a motorway. Do you just rebury them and plonk Tesco on it? Where is the dignity and respect in that? Or does this only apply to Stonehenge burials?
And how is it to be done? An early Christian burial can have a latin mass said over it, something the original Christian would probably be familiar with. What of the Pagan?
Dennis,
PAF was formed as a counter-arguement to CoBDO’s stance on reburial. HAD are somewhere in the middle (actually they’re trying to please everyone, and in doing so are in danger of pleasing no-one).
We have nothing to do with Cobdo. Have you researched who we are?
Al’s got a good point there. My own thoughts [28 July] were along the lines of ‘burials which were unearthed at stone circles and chambered tombs’, etc. – I’d not thought of the random finds. There must be thousands who’ve had Tesco, motorways, and towns built over them.
I suppose the Law dictates that tests are carried out to make sure they weren’t more recent murder victims, and once that’s been asserted and they’ve been carbon-dated, then the bones can be reburied with either pagan or Christian blessings, according to their antiquity. Perhaps ground in cemeteries could be provided for this – but even cemeteries can eventually be built over… so what is the solution?
Ah – just remembered (not a solution!) I read this last night and thought EI readers might be interested [Era = 1959-60 AD]:
“It was remarkable to see how the Chinese buried their dead. They were put in the ground in a coffin, as might happen to us. But then, some while later, when the corpse had rotted, the relatives came along, dug up the bones and counted them to make sure they had the right number. Then they polished them. I mean, really polished them, again and again, while saying prayers. It was an odd thing to see. Then the bones were put in a big ceramic urn and the top was sealed with cement. The urns were left above ground, positioned in straight lines. So, a family might have an area of ground with these lines of urns and they’d go up there on a Sunday and say prayers. It was strange, and it touched you. That was real devotion.”
This excerpt* was written by a former grave-digger, [and quarry-man, poacher, and 'jack-the-lad'] Johnny Kingdom, the wild-life enthusiast whose films of Exmoor on BBC2 gained quite a cult following in the past few years for his down-to-earth passion for his subject. He did his National Service in Hong Kong, where he witnessed those scenes.
*(‘A Wild Life on Exmoor’)
Also a good example of someone from the Times’ (or EH’s) “lower socio-economic class”, ‘made good’!
I’m enjoying his life story as I also come from North Devon originally, and that was why I loved listening to his lovely country accent, both on TV, and in person, when he visited S.Devon last summer. It is quite a contrast to the last book I read.. ‘In Patagonia’, and ‘On the Black Hill’ by Bruce Chatwin. Variety….!
As I said earlier, I’m abstaining from a discussion of the reburial issue for the time being, but I’ll certainly write about it another time. I think that everyone involved has overlooked one HUGE and entirely relevant aspect, but it can wait.
Otherwise Al, you & I were at cross-purposes earlier as far as PAF and others were concerned. I’m just about to lose 5 precious minutes of my life that I’ll never get back again, but I am completely at a loss to understand all this COBDO/COBDO West business. As mentioned earlier, my interest in the modern Druids ranges from negligible for most of the time to a more than passing interest every now and again, for one reason or another, so perhaps that’s why I don’t understand the set-ups.
It’s a long time since I looked at the PFA sites or groups on Facebook, but visiting them again, it confirms what I originally thought. One group has 262 members and another fan site has something like 799 fans, so those are decent figures by pretty much any standards. Glancing quickly at the sites, they also possess the virtue of not having any infighting or squabbling taking place – I had been casting around for a “Pagans Completely Against Reburial” site of equal size/membership after what you originally wrote, but I now realise I was mistaken.
As for the PFA being formed to counter the blanket group you mentioned earlier, I see what you mean, but it strikes me as using a sledgehammer to crack a nut by naming the group the PFA, for reasons I went into earlier. Still, if some people are giving the impression that all Druids and all pagans are dead-set on reburial come hell or high water, then PFA seems reasonable enough to me.
From a purely personal point of view, at least the COBDO/COBDO West group you refer to have the virtue of being crystal clear about what they want, if not who they actually are.
Likewise, whether you agree with him or not, I thought that Frank Somers of the Stonehenge Druids made an admirably clear case when describing his position, while from what I can see, the Stonehenge Druids are a clear-cut and well-defined group. In the same vein, the PFA make their position and membership clear as well, but I stress this is all from a cursory inspection.
As for HAD, I just don’t get it and I’m not going to try, either. Compared with the above, they remind me of the lines written by T.S Eliot:
“Shape without form, shade without colour
Paralysed force, gesture without motion.”
To the disinterested observer, the whole Druid scene is depressingly similar to other big themes that have spintered into factional groups. Like the Protestant Church for instance which is tearing itself to pieces over gay clergy, or old Communism with its interminable Marxist/Leninist/Trotskyist arguments. The perception of onlookers is that increasing irrelevance of the big theme means increasing desperation from believers to maintain some sort of Truth.
Dennis’s object in his essay was to try and make sense of the factions, and he proposes an interesting division. I like his characterization, but I respectfully suggest that he’s been seduced by the happy coincidence of “Rock” in the Mods/Rockers analogy.
To me, it seems that (based on the examples he lists) the two factions exist separately in the worlds of Ideas and Nature. (Capitals used to invest some importance in quasi-religious concepts.) Here, the world of Nature is occupied by Dennis’s Rockers, while Hutton, Restall-Orr, etc occupy the Mod and modern world of Ideas.
Surely the pagan world of Druids only has any significance if it totally acknowledges – and is in tune with – the world of Nature. There’s a useful concept here, called biophilia. It was psychologist Erich Fromm who asserted that humans are endowed with biophilia, an innate attraction to living things. This is a hard-wired, genetic affinity for life and life processes that ensured our survival in the past by fostering our identity with nature. It drove us to learn the secrets of the wild. The time our ancestors spent searching for important herbs in the woods or understanding the behaviour of animals were essential to survival, but were also spiritually nurturing. This philia still pervades our cells: it’s why we keep pets, and potted plants in the city, why we garden when supermarket food is cheaper, and why we are drawn to sit in silence under towering trees.
It’s our inheritance from the past, from our remote ancestors … though some people that I know today seem to have lost their inheritance along the way somewhere. And my bet is that Dennis’s Rockers are more in tune with that inheritance, and honour it, while the Mods accept well-paid sinecures in quangos, or write about nature instead of experiencing it. And if that’s an unfair generalization, then I apologize.
So, in answer to Dennis’s final question, I believe – and I’d much prefer – that the Rockers will prevail over the Mods, because they seem to be the ones who’ve made the most of their inheritance of biophilia from our ancestors. They appear to have their god on their side.
Al,
If the location of an ancient burial is being destroyed, say by a new Tesco’s, then reburial is usually possible nearby, or in more extreme cases in a modern pagan burial ground.
You mention that reburial of already excavated remains is equivalent to the burning of books, yet archaeology is itself destructive, and it attempts to compensate for this destruction of all that it investigates by keeping detailed records.
If you have access to bones for two years, freedom to subject them to all manner of tests, the ability to photograph, test DNA, retain samples and record them, then how is their return to the ground like burning of books? If in two years you cannot learn enough from them, then should you be digging them up at all?
The ground that has preserved these remains for sometimes thousands of years is capable of doing so at no cost for years to come. Precious things stored in museums do not always fare so well and I cite the museum in Iraq as an example.
There will always be finds of such unique value that we may wish to retain them longer than two years, just as there will be times where the case for reburial is indisputable, to which category I believe that the Aubrey hole 7 ancestors belong.
I see your point Frank, and it’s valid. But take, for example, Egyptian Mummies. It’s only in the last 5 years that we’ve really had deep-scanning tech etc, to really tell the stories of these people. If they had been reburied two years after being dug up, we would know nothing. And the Egyptian Authorities are far from obstructive, they are all for it. Every piece of the puzzle enhances their culture, their history. Why are druids so afraid of history?
(And I wouldn’t equate a British burial being stored in Britain with the destruction in Iraq. They aren’t just bundled into dusty boxes and stored on shelves. They are cared for, even given names and talked to: you’ll be surprised the number of Museum staff and research archaeologists that are Pagan
– which is kind of the point of P.F.A – to give them a voice )
I think the point Frank was making is that even museums are not safe. About 60 years ago Britain was a very different place; it was being bombed flat. Sixty years from now – who knows? What if there was a chemical attack in London? What if the Thames Barrier failed?
The nature of British burials is very different to Egyptian burials. The scanning of the Egyptians remains bears no direct comparison to the burials in Britain, as our remains are merely bones. In the event that some fantastic scanning technique is invented, simply disinter the British remains which we have already stated are welcome to be buried again in plastic or glass boxes.
You are making the assumption that the information is of such value to the nation that all remains should retained indefinitely, just upon the chance that some further information might be gleamed at a future date. However, we take the view that whilst it is acceptable to spend up to 2 years learning what you can from human remains after their discovery, that they should then be reburied, as the potential benefits do not outweigh the certain disadvantages of not doing so. Which is to show disrespect, inhumanity and to desecrate a human state of burial.
As a concession, we would be comfortable reburying in sealed containers, thus ensuring the current state of preservation.
I agree with your point Jim that the human remains may well be safer in the future if left in the ground.
It may be also that the stones themselves will need to be buried in order to preserve them. Witness the example of Avebury:
Many of the stones that had not been buried were subsequently destroyed. Rev Dr William Stukeley was distraught to see the destruction, but was powerless to prevent it.
I doubt that that would be necessary in the case of Stonehenge and all the other sites under the control of the National Trust and EH. We do, I hope, live in more enlightened times than Stukeley’s day and I would hope that we can do away with the Victorian Freak show that is staring at corpses through glass in Museums.
Frank:
“When we look at the knowledge gained by digging up our ancestors, it is interesting for sure, but has not provided a cure for cancer or solved the energy crisis; it hasn’t even solved the mystery of our origins and is never likely to”
that is the most appalling use if horsehit i have ever seen in an argument on this matter! cancer and energy crisis? get a grip man for gods sake.
The long and short of the matter is that if i asked you to tell me everything you know about these people, the ancestors, 95% of it would be as a result of archaeological study of them, thier bones and thier lives. by not having these remains – and they are just that; bits of calcium phosphate and collagen – available to study when they needs to be you are directly blocking scientific and cultural enhancement. MANY pagans today see these remains as part of the continuum that links us to the ancestors and to lose them is to begin chipping away at that continuum.
Totally agree, Lee and Al. I’m starting to find the emergence of a kind of druidic fundamentalism on this issue very disturbing. Of course one can raise ethical questions about the apparent sentimental fetishisation of ancient skeletal remains—is ‘respecting’ the very, very long dead now more important than helping the currently-suffering living, or doing environmental work?—but the main problem is the way ‘honour’ has become a buzzword among the partisans of reburial, so that anyone, even if they are also a lifelong druid or pagan, who disagrees with the reburial concept becomes tarred, explicitly or implicitly, as lacking ‘honour’.
I personally feel that learning as much as we can about the ancestors by scientific means is perfectly honourable and indeed an excellent and logical way to reverence them, and can’t really see the problem with keeping hold of remains for future testing. Of course, dividing people into black and white ‘pro-’ and ‘anti-’ groups is not necessarily wise—I can imagine situations in which bones could reasonably be reburied, just as advocates of reburial have graciously conceded that they could imagine situations in which bones of exceptional importance should be retained for longterm analysis.
I also don’t personally see the problem with keeping bodies on display: after all, neolithic people seem to have taken the bones of their ancestors out of their tombs and played with them, and we are the descendants of these people too: you, me, Emma Restall Orr, Cheryl Cole and the Archbishop of Carlisle, all alike. And if, as most druids do, you believe in reincarnation, we are these ancestors and they are us; and these ancestors are as much the distant relatives of people who *oppose* reburial as of those who think it is a good idea, and do not such people have just as much right as the reburiers to set the terms of the debate?
You may possibly be right when you speak of druidic fundamentalism, Bo, but it’s only fair to bear in mind that if such a thing exists, then it has come into being at the tail end of something like two centuries of antiquarians, then archaeologists, having a free hand to do whatever they please with these remains, without anyone else having any say in the matter.
I’m a bit doubtful about describing others with a different point of view [to yours] as being ‘fundamentalists’, not least because you also complain of those opposing reburial as being ‘tarred’ and being described as ‘lacking honour’. Still, I’m not one for willful misinterpretation, because you made it clear that the partisans of reburial were the people indulging in this kind of talk, while you’ve also made your personal views clear about reburial.
It strikes me that the reburial issue is similar to the fox-hunting issue, inasmuch as both sides separately lay claim to the bones and to the fox. However, those opposing either hunting or exhumation are always going to be on the back foot, because their opponents always get there first and The Others are forced to react, either to the killing of an animal or else to the bodies of our ancestors being exhumed and put on display.
I personally find it hard to keep a civil tongue in my head when it comes to fox-hunting [I'm completely against it, by the way], so I have some sympathy with those in favour of reburial as they’re always going to be the aggrieved party. If we had a situation where Druids and pagans were successfully locating ancient remains, exhuming them before the archaeologists got their hands on them, then refusing to part with them, I imagine that the archaeologists would be similarly exasperated.
Having said all that, it seems fairly obvious to me that some pagans or Druids have adopted this ‘fundamentalist’ stance, as you describe, out of sheer bloody mindedness and a desire for publicity. One may not like it, but if any of these people chose to pursue their case through the various courts, then I wouldn’t be remotely surprised if they were to win, thereby setting a precedent and throwing an almighty spanner in the works of British archaeology for a very long time to come.
I’ve long been tempted to write a post outlining my own views on the reburial issue, but I don’t really see the point. From what I can see, the Reburial Issue is pretty much dead and buried anyway, regardless of what its proponents say, so I’ll spell out precisely why I think along these lines just as soon as I can.
As a child, many thoughts were about reburial by many interested parties. It is my understanding my Grandfather’s brother, a professor/doctor, was asked to leave Scotland because of having cadavers for teaching and then reburial. HE HAD PERMISSION FROM THE RELATIVE /RELATIVES TO USE AND REBURY THE INDIVIDUAL.
I can understand how people feel about their deceased relatives. My Great Grandfather Chief Joseph NezPerce; it is my understanding his body was exhumed at one time and his head was missing. My belief is if anyone exhumes a cadaver, they should put it back the way they found it.
Renee, are you seriously telling me that Chief Joseph was your great-grandfather? I remember very well reading about this great man as far back as the 1970s, when I was much younger, and I was very impressed by him. If you are interested in the Reburial Issue, if you’re related to Chief Joseph and if you sincerely hold the views you express in your last sentence, then I think you will be very interested by what appears on this site in the New Year.
There are some new facts coming to light about our ancestors. This thread starts with a photo of a banner that you may think does not apply, but the news now – for anyone with roots in Britain – is that so long as the Stonehenger is at least 3,000 years old, they are your ancestor as well.
If you go in the other direction – assuming continuing offspring, in 3,000 years you yourself will be an ancestor of all humanity.
Now these numbers are based on research of a Middle-East civilization of around 1 million at the birth of Christ. The ancient population in Britain was less, meaning 3,000 years is rather too long a time than too short.
The explanation is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19331938
Our quest on the “why” of Stonehenge is assisted the more we understand on the origins and cultures of the ancient inhabitants of the “Isles of Wonder”. Genetic research is making progress on explaining the wider migration patterns, and gives another slant on who were the builders of Stonehenge.
The readable overview is here.
http://jowsey.com/genealogy/GeneticGenealogy.html
Rather a surprise to find this on a genealogy website.
Interesting the high Phoenician DNA content of the British Isles as recorded in the link Gilbert kindly gave above! More than Roman stock.