When Preservation Discriminates: Stonehenge and the Druids
by
Savannah Grandey
HIST 6205 – Seminar: Research in European History
Dr. Emily Baran
March 6, 2014
2
Historic preservation has a nice ring to it. It connotes respect for the past, awareness of
the present, and concern for the future. Certainly these notions underlie most, if not all, historic
preservation efforts, but such similarities among preservation projects can mask underlying
differences. J. Myrick Howard hints at the kaleidoscopic nature of preservation when he writes,
“historic preservation signifies different values for different people.”1 For this article’s purposes,
historic preservation is broadly defined to encompass not only structures, but also archaeological
sites.2 The preservation of archaeological sites is perhaps the most forward-looking of projects,
as it anticipates the potential data future excavation might produce. Yet, despite the good
intentions and civic responsibility that most preservation efforts genuinely embody, preservation
can have adverse effects and exacerbate existing social and political conflict.
If historic preservation’s fundamental goal is to maintain the physical integrity of a site
for future generations, it must mitigate deterioration. The public interpretation of a site’s
significance represents an objective secondary only to the physical protection of the built
environment, or in archaeology’s case earthbound material culture. Restrictions on access and
use for the good of the public’s collective memory offer some protection to publicly-owned
significant sites. In essence, preservation policy infringes upon individuals’ access to public
property to ensure the more abstract rights of a present and future public to benefit intellectually,
socially, spiritually, and economically from heritage assets.
Yet, as Howard’s quote indicates, problems arise when people assign different
significance to the same property, especially when an archaeological site or historic property has
1
J. Myrick Howard, Buying Time for Heritage: How to Save an Endangered Historic Property (Raleigh, NC: Historic
Preservation Foundation of North Carolina, Inc., 2007), 5.
2
Professional preservationists, governments, and the public justify preservation of particular sites in several
different ways. Objects of preservation often have connections to historically significant events or people, or
reflect vestiges of endangered cultures, lifestyles, or trends in material culture, or representatives of significant
trends in vernacular or high-style architecture.
3
some central importance to minority groups’ lifeways. In these cases, ostensibly neutral
preservation policies disproportionately affect groups who require access rights to carry out
integral parts of their lives. They consider the denial of the ability to do so a violation of their
human rights. This conflict between preservation and use is evident in the case of the Druids’
ritual observation of the summer solstice at the archaeological site of Stonehenge, the remains of
a stone structure located in southern England.
Druidism refers to a particular sect of pagan religions. Religion scholar Michael Strmiska
points out the tendency to define paganism by explaining what it is not, namely “non-Christian,”
“non-Jew,” or “non-Muslim,” lacking religion, or the worship of “other gods.”3 The hegemony
of monotheistic religions effectively assigns to paganism “otherness” and demonstrates a lack of
understanding among non-pagans. There are many different articulations of paganism, Druidism
among them. The many different Druid orders share a common belief in the sacred earth and
their “worship [of] the divine through nature.”4 Neopaganism is the more appropriate term under
which Druidism falls, as it suggests the revival of the “polytheistic, nature-worshipping Pagan
religions of pre-Christian Europe” in modern times.5 Because of their belief in animism, the
notion that natural objects such as stones contain spirits, and their perpetuation of (admittedly
modified) ancient traditions in modern times, many neopagans, Druids included, consider ancient
megalithic sites such as Stonehenge significant for their worship rituals. Robert Wallis and Jenny
Blain note that neopagans perceive sites such as Stonehenge as “alive,” places where earth and
3
Michael F. Strmiska, “Modern Paganism in World Cultures: Comparative Perspectives,” in Modern Paganism in
World Cultures: Comparative Perspectives, ed. Michael F. Strmiska (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2005), 4.
4
This explanation of paganism was given by a practicing Druid in England in Arthur Pendragon, “Just what English
Heritage didn’t want: a druid with an ex to grind,” Sunday Times (London, England), December 15, 2013: 27,
Academic OneFile, accessed February 15, 2014.
5
Strmiska, “Modern Paganism,” 1.
4
spirits are most sensitive to mortal ritual.6 As a result, these special places for “celebration,
meditation, and communication with spirits and ancestors” attract neopagans.7 During the eight
pagan holidays, which correlate with lunar and solar events, they make pilgrimages to ancient
megalithic sites to welcome the next phase of the year.8 These treks are imperative to the
maintenance and observation of their particular worldview; in the Druids’ case this worldview
relegates them to the category of religious minority. The Druidic custom of observing the
summer solstice provides just one, albeit notorious, example of neopagan pilgrimages to ancient
megalithic sites in the British Isles.9
Stonehenge is a puzzling arrangement of large sarsen stones. Current scholars generally
consider the structure to be the ruins of a single building on Salisbury Plain in Wiltshire County,
England. No one knows the original purpose of the building, who or how they built it, and this
article does not attempt to offer any conclusions on this long debate. Instead it focuses on
Stonehenge’s use by religious minorities, its categorization as an archaeological site, and its
preservation by English Heritage, the organization responsible for the protection and
interpretation of significant sites in England, as a case study of the relationship between the
historic preservation and human rights.
When modern Druids observe the summer solstice at Stonehenge they are continuing a
nearly century-old tradition. In addition, some scholars credit the ancient Druids with building
6
Robert J. Wallis and Jenny Blain, “Sacred Sites, Contested Rites/Rights: Contemporary Pagan Engagements with
the Past,” Discussion Document and Report of Current Research (2001): 13.
7
E.A. Powell, “Solstice at the Stone for a quarter million druids, wiccans, and heathens that live in the United
Kingdom today, sites like Stonehenge are sacred ground,” Archaeology 56, part 5 (2003): 36.
8
In this work Cabot and Cowan note that many Pagans perceive their holiday rituals as necessary for harmonious
transitions between the lunar and solar cycles on which the seasons are based.Laurie Cabot and Tom Cowan, The
Power of the Witch: The Earth, the Moon, and the Magical Path to Enlightenment (New York: Bantham Doubleday
Dell Publishing Group, 1989), 8.
9
Stonehenge is only one of the hundreds of sites in the UK that attract pagan pilgrimages. Other well-known sites
include Avebury in Wiltshire, Stanton Moor in Derbyshire, and the Rollright Stones in Oxfordshire.
5
the structure.10 While this article does not intervene in this debate, certainly the ambiguity of the
site’s origins affects its preservation, as the site cannot be attributed to the cultural heritage of
one group. In particular, the inability to rule out the Druid builder theory creates threads of
continuity at which many modern Druids grasp. Moreover, regardless of the merits of the Druid
builder theory, modern Druid solstice and equinox observance at the site has firm scholarly
evidence and thus should be correctly regarded as tradition. Indeed, much of the academic and
popular literature about Stonehenge and the Druids cites the group’s early twentieth-century use
of the site. Christopher Chippindale points out that one particular Druid order, the Church of the
Universal Bond, or Druidk Uileach Braithreachas, attempted to bury the remains of one of their
own at the site in 1905. The Ancient Order of Druids, a secret fraternal lodge established in
1781, initiated several hundred new members at Stonehenge in 1905.11 Chippindale notes that in
1920, Stonehenge’s steward organization, the Office of Works, began to face the “mass wrath of
Druidism militant” when the office would not extend the days set aside for summer solstice
observation.12 After the debacle of the early 1920s, Chippindale asserts, “Druids have made a
regular midsummer appearance at Stonehenge.”13 Indeed, case reports from Druids filing
religious discrimination complaints date the summer solstice observations at the site to the early
twentieth century. One such report from a Druid notes, “that for eighty years up until 1985,”
Druids held a “religious ceremony” during summer solstice.14
10
The idea that ancient Druids built Stonehenge for religious purposes came about in the seventeenth century and
remains one of the most popular theories. Carole M. Cusack, “Charmed Circle: Stonehenge, Contemporary
Paganism, and Alternative Archaeology,” Numen 59 (2012): 143-6; Christopher Chippendale, Stonehenge Complete
(New York: Thames & Hudson, 2004), 83-7.
11
Chippindale, Stonehenge Complete, 172-4.
12
Ibid., 190.
13
Ibid.
14
Chappell v. United Kingdom, No. 12587/86 (European Court of Human Rights, 1986), HUDOC; Pendragon v.
United Kingdom, No. 31416/96 (European Court of Human Rights, 1996), HUDOC.
6
Throughout the twentieth century, summer solstice at Stonehenge was relatively
uneventful. This changed in the 1980s as a result of the solstice’s relatively new companion
event, the annual Stonehenge People’s Free Festival. What began in 1974 as a neopagan affair
indicative of the rise of alternative archaeology soon drew a more secular crowd of 30,000 in
search of a no holds barred atmosphere.15 During the eleven years before the conflict,
government officials and the National Trust, the organization that owns the land immediately
surrounding the stones, worked out logistics enabling the Druids to perform their solstice rituals
on June 21 (the date of summer solstice) with relatively little interruption from the thousands of
festival goers (some of whom arrived in late May and stayed until July) and onlookers who only
wished to observe the ceremony. Because of the unruly nature of the crowd in 1984, its
conspicuous drug exchange, and impact on the landscape, English Heritage and the National
Trust announced the site’s closure for the 1985 summer solstice. At first, the restriction only
applied to the festival, but the organizations soon made clear the ban applied to the Druids as
well.16 The Druids agreed to the closure in 1985 with the assumption that English Heritage and
the National Trust would restore access the following year.17
Predictably, festival supporters confronted the public injunctions with rabid discontent.
That summer, crowds appeared despite the ban. “The Battle of the Beanfield” ensued, and police
arrested over five hundred people.18 During a crown court case regarding the 1985 conflict over
Stonehenge’s closure, the chief constable of Wiltshire referred to the defiant crowd as “drug
15
Cusack explains alternative archaeology as that which perceives ancient sites such as Stonehenge as more than
just arenas for academic inquiry, but places of contemporary significance because of the roles they play in the lives
of those on the fringes of society. Archaeologists traditionally see the site as a lab, while neopagans experience the
sites as sacred. Cusack, “Charmed Circle,” 149-50.
16
Christopher Chippindale, “Stoned Henge: Events and Issues at the Summer Solstice, 1985,” World Archaeology
18, no.1 Perspectives in World Archaeology (June 1986): 44-5.
17
Chappell v. United Kingdom.
18
The conflict between police and travelers en route to the banned festival in 1985 became known in the popular
media as the “Battle of the Beanfield.” “Hippies faced ‘semi-military’ police action.” Guardian (London), October
17, 1990, Infotrac Newsstand, accessed April 21, 2014.
7
takers and anarchists prepared to resort to violence to protect their lifestyle.”19 For the purposes
of this article it is unnecessary to delve into the details of the conflict, but as the constable’s
comment undoubtedly conveys, the supporters and enforcers of the ban perceived festival goers
as the antitheses of society. Neil Goodwin observed that the media portrayed them as “a
marauding army of crazed hippies” and that “fleeing drivers became virtually potential
murderers.”20 Whether or not officials and the media conceptualized travelers and the affected
Druids as a single group ideologically opposed to the Stonehenge ban is uncertain, but the 1985
conflict did not encourage English Heritage and the National Trust to reopen the site. Instead, it
suggested that those who follow alternative lifestyles are disorderly and harbor intentions
incompatible with society at large. This did little for the Druids and other neopagans who wished
only for peaceful observance of the solstice at the stones.
When English Heritage and the National Trust banned travelers and worshipping
neopagans from Stonehenge during the summer solstice, they did so under the authority granted
to them by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act of 1979, the National Heritage
Act of 1983, and the Stonehenge Regulations of 1983. The 1979 Act empowers the Secretary of
State to restrict normal access time to an area if s/he should “consider it necessary …in the
interests of safety or for the maintenance or preservation of the monument, entirely exclude the
public from access.”21 The National Heritage Act enables the Secretary of State to delegate these
powers to English Heritage.22 These Stonehenge Regulations of 1983 reinforce these powers.
These policies enabled English Heritage to justify the ban on the grounds of public order and the
19
Duncan Campbell, “Police chief tells of beanfield battle,” Guardian (London), January 10, 1991, Infotrac
Newsstand, accessed April 10, 2014.
20
Neil Goodwin, “Society: Bean and gone – This week marks the 10th anniversary of the Battle of the Beanfield
when 1,000 police attacked a convoy of travelers near Stonehenge. Neil Goodwin says it sparked an era of
repression / Rural Rights.” Guardian (London), May 31, 1995, Infotrac Newsstand, accessed April 19, 2014.
21
Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act, 1979, c.46.
22
National Heritage Act, 1983, c. 47.
8
preservation of one of Britain’s most prized assets. The National Trust, a conservation
organization created in 1895 by citizens concerned with rapid industrialization and its effects on
“scenic and historic sites,” oversees the land surrounding Stonehenge.23 The trust also supported
English Heritage’s ban, in part due to the fact that during the annual festival people camped in
the vicinity of Stonehenge, i.e. on the National Trust’s property, thus the National Trust also
supported English Heritage’s ban. In 1985, the Druids sought consultation with these two
organizations in order for the summer solstice observation to be peacefully resumed in 1986.
In the summer of 1985, Lord Montagu, then chairman of English Heritage, told the
Druids their ceremonies would be permitted when festival goers agreed to discontinue their
annual event.24 Later in the year, English Heritage and the National Trust, displaying a slight
change of heart, announced their search for an alternative nearby site for the festival, maintaining
their position that Stonehenge and the surrounding National Trust’s property, were not an option.
If no alternative could be found, there would be no festival.25 In December, the Times in London
reported English Heritage’s decision to continue the ban on the festival for lack of an alternative
site, but to allow up to 1,000 solstice celebrants into Stonehenge.26 In light of the difficulty of
determining who to let into Stonehenge “on the basis of whether they are a Druid or not,”
English Heritage decided to “call the whole thing off” the following January.27 No solutions
materialized. The Wiltshire police opposed English Heritage and the National Trust’s proposals
for alternative sites, and such a compromise could not come to fruition anyway without private
23
Diane Barthel, “Historic Preservation: A Comparative Analysis,” Sociological Forum 4, no.1 (March 1989): 89;
Chippindale, “Stoned Henge,” 42.
24
Chippindale, “Stoned Henge,” 44.
25
“Pop festival may be allowed near Stonehenge,” The Times (London), November 12, 1985, Infotrac Newsstand,
accessed April 21, 2014.
26
“Stonehenge show go-ahead,” The Times (London), December 3, 1985, Infotrac Newsstand, accessed April 21,
2014.
27
Spokesperson for English Heritage quoted in Hugh Clayton, “Search for Stonehenge festival site fails,” Times
(London), January 4, 1986, Infotrac Newsstand, accessed April 21, 2014.
9
landowner willing to donate space. The organizations closed Stonehenge again for the summer
solstice of 1986.28 Once again, the conservation and preservation agencies excluded the Druids
and the festival goers together as one group. While this may have been an unintended side effect
of logistics, some Druids understandably took offense.
In May of 1986, A.R.M. Chappell, a Druid and representative of the Secular Order of
Druids (SOD), moved for judicial review of English Heritage’s decisions in the High Court,
citing the lack of consultation to find a remedy. The decision stood. Chappell then argued that
because of Stonehenge’s particular significance to the Druids, banning them from performing
rituals at the site infringed upon their right to freedom of religion as articulated in Article 9 of the
European Convention on Human Rights. The judge dismissed the matter in light of the steps
taken by English Heritage to accommodate Druid access, as well as the disorderly events that led
to the closing of Stonehenge during summer solstice. Chappell appealed, but the Court of Appeal
rejected his application and prevented him from appealing to the House of Lords.29 The English
courts’ reasoning failed to satisfy the SOD. 30 Two days after the 1986 summer solstice Chappell
filed a complaint against the United Kingdom with the European Court of Human Rights
(ECHR).31
The ECHR is a judicial branch of the Council of Europe, a supranational organization of
47 countries home to 800 million people. The Court interprets the human rights guaranteed by
the European Convention on Human Rights. Citizens of Council of Europe member states that
have ratified the right to individual petition may file complaints of human rights violations
against their own states. If the court upholds their petition, it may request the offending state pay
28
Ibid.
Chappell v. United Kingdom.
30
Francis X. Clines, “No Ancients in Stonehenge at the Solstice,” New York Times, June 22, 1986, Infotrac
Newsstand, accessed April 21, 2014.
31
Chappell v. United Kingdom.
29
10
the individual(s) and offer a resolution, ideally a policy change that addresses the issue. In short,
the convention equips individuals with the vocabulary to articulate their rights and the court
provides them a means to assert their rights, rectify offenses, and hopefully defend against
further infringement. While the Court lacks the power to enforce compensation and remedies, it
creates an international audience for countries’ human rights violations. Because of its visibility,
the Court’s cases are indicative of current trends in the abuse, realization, and assertion of human
rights, and set European-wide standards on what will be tolerated and what will not.32
When Chappell filed suit against the UK in 1986, he complained that the state violated
Articles 9, 11, and 13, which guarantee freedom of religion, freedom of peaceful assembly and
association, and the right to an effective remedy, respectively. In its report, the ECHR
commission recognized Druidism as a religion, and agreed that closing Stonehenge infringed
upon the rights embodied in Article 9 of the Convention. However, the court found that English
Heritage’s duty to protect and maintain order at the site justified the violation, citing Article 9’s
second clause that freedom of religion may be limited in the name of safety, order, and the rights
of others.33
The court answered Chappell’s claim that the UK’s violated Article 10 (freedom to
peaceful assembly and association with others) similarly. The unruliness of past summer
solstices at Stonehenge and the potential of disorder at future ones necessitated that the right to
assemble be subordinated to public safety. The actions of English Heritage and UK courts to find
a remedy, the Court noted, undermined the validity of Chappell’s complaint about the violation
of an effective remedy (Article 13). The ECHR ruled the case inadmissible in July of 1986.34
32
Michael D. Goldhaber, A People’s History of the European Court of Human Rights (New Brunswick, NJ:Rutgers
University Press, 2007), 1-2,5.
33
Chappell v. United Kingdom.
34
Chappell v. United Kingdom.
11
In 1987, policemen and English Heritage began to allow the Druids into the stone circle
to perform summer solstice rituals, while others peered from behind barbed wire.35 Despite the
inadmissibility of the case (per the ECHR), one wonders whether Chappell’s complaint to an
international human rights tribunal persuaded English Heritage to open the inner circle to the
Druids during summer solstice. Either way, it may be significant that in 1987, the first summer
solstice the Druids observed inside the circle since the 1985 ban, a helicopter sent by English
Heritage and the National Trust appeared over the site at dawn on what one reporter referred to
as “a deafening aerial reconnaissance mission.”36 Such a noise would obviously interrupt any
religious observation and the timing was impeccable, as dawn is a critical moment in the
observation of the summer solstice. A member of the National Trust referred to the timing as
“unfortunate.”37
It is important to remember that the 1985 ban prevented all members of the public from
gaining access to Stonehenge. This demonstrates the ban’s indiscriminate intent (in the name of
public order and preservation), but disproportionate effect on a minority group. And while the
fact that English Heritage after 1986 organized ticketed summer solstices to enable the Druids to
enter the stone circle and only selectively permitted others to enter after it was over seems to
suggest that perhaps the ECHR complaint may have caused a slight change of heart, the
helicopter incident suggests the change was slight and the intent hollow. Perhaps the preservation
organizations and the government did not take the religious rights of the Druids seriously
enough. In 1995 a Druid brought another ECHR case against the United Kingdom.
35
Some scholars and reporters note considerable disdain among nonpagans about the selection of people who got
to enter the circle in David Stapsted, “The curious come closer to the inner circle; Stonehenge reopens,” The Times
(London), November 5, 1986, Infotrac Newsstand, accessed April 21, 2014. Wallis and Blain, “Sacred Sites,
Contested Rites/Rights,” 8.
36
Paul Koring, “Summer solstice stand-off a low farce at Stonehenge,” Globe & Mail (Toronto), June 22, 1987,
Infotrac Newsstand, accessed April 22, 2014.
37
Ibid.
12
Arthur Pendragon, a member of the Glastonbury Order of Druids, challenged an order
prohibiting “all trespassory assemblies” from coming within a four mile radius of Stonehenge.
Instigated by the Chief Constable of Wiltshire, it prevented Pendragon from observing summer
solstice at the Heel Stone, a large upright sarsen stone near Stonehenge. In his request to the
Secretary of State for approval, the constable cited his concern about the “strong desire” of
“many New Age Travelers, and others, to establish festival sites on vulnerable pieces of
land…on the symbolic Stonehenge Monument site at the time of summer solstice.”38 The High
Court upheld the Secretary’s decision. Pendragon attempted to gain access anyway on the
summer solstice and police arrested him. He was acquitted of trespassing charges in September.
In October he filed a complaint with the ECHR citing violations of Articles 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14.
Chappell cited three of these, 9, 11, and 13, in Chappell v. United Kingdom. In addition,
Pendragon cited violations of Articles 10 and 12 which guarantee the right to expression and
prohibit discrimination regarding who gets to enjoy the Convention rights.39
The ECHR focused on Article 11 (peaceful assembly) in its decision in the case. The
court found that the order was “prescribed by law and [was] necessary in a democratic society”
to “ensure protection…of a prehistoric site of incalculable importance and…the rights and
freedoms of members of the public.”40 The court acknowledged the religious nature of
Pendragon’s intentions, but stated that “the Commission has held on a number of occasions,
public order concerns may justify a prohibition in a given case” and cited previous disorder at
Stonehenge during summer solstice. As for violation of Article 14 prohibiting discrimination, the
court found that the order “cannot be said to have had a disproportionate effect on Druids as
opposed to other groups who wanted to observe the summer solstice due to different beliefs or
38
Pendragon v. United Kingdom.
Ibid.
40
Ibid.
39
13
purely secular reasons.”41 It is assumed that “other groups” refers to other neopagans prohibited
from worshipping and secular travelers that trekked to the site. The court ruled the Pendragon
case inadmissible.
The twin ECHR decisions regarding the Druids and Stonehenge offer a compelling point
of departure to examine the dynamic of discrimination within preservation. English Heritage’s
conceptualization of Stonehenge, including its categorization as an archaeological site, determine
its particular preservation and shed light on the conflict between preservation and use in the
ECHR cases. Moreover, the state treated limiting access as a necessary measure for the
preservation of the site and public order. The Druids felt that the restrictions affected their ability
to participate in an important religious observation and ceremony, constituting a violation of
their freedom of religion. In general, conflicting views of Stonehenge, as exhibited by the ECHR
cases, are the primary causes of the described incidents. Until archaeologists, English Heritage,
and the English government develop more holistic preservation plans for ancient monolithic
sites, the likelihood of conflict makes the sites ripe for possible human rights violations in the
future. Neopagans’ place on the fringes of mainstream society exacerbates this susceptible
predicament. Stonehenge’s new visitors’ center (opened in 2013) which displays human remains
excavated onsite, is an example of the way ambiguity of the site’s origins enables English
Heritage to ignore minority groups’ concerns. Some archaeological sites across the globe are
significant to indigenous populations. These people are often able to prove ancestral or cultural
affiliation to the site, which has increasingly allowed them to intervene in archaeological
excavation, data collection, and interpretation. This is not the case with Stonehenge and the
Druids. Stonehenge’s ambiguous origins allow English Heritage and archaeologists to skip the
41
Ibid.
14
step of community involvement because its builders and original use cannot be tied to a
particular contemporary group.
Barbara Hoffman notes that within the last several decades, sovereign nations and
individuals have become increasingly preoccupied with the preservation of historic and cultural
relics and sites, thus are continuously negotiating the concept of “common interests” in regard to
state sovereignty and the rights of individuals.42 Such negotiation includes the reconciliation of
the difference between what Kevin Walsh has dubbed the “establishment” and “alternative”
views about the significance, use, and preservation of ancient monuments such as Stonehenge.
The establishment view presents cultural heritage commercially, denies continuity between the
past and present, and creates a false narrative of civilized progress toward an idealized future.
The alternative view allows room for ancient belief systems to coincide with dominant
contemporary values and to challenge their hegemony.43 This conflict has implications for
human rights violations, especially when the establishment view prevails. Roger Thomas points
out that the UK’s legal framework regarding preservation leaves little room for those at odds
with the state to express their opinions regarding the preservation or presentation of
archaeological sites.44
That Stonehenge is an archaeological site adds a layer of complexity to its contemporary
significance and treatment by the state. Robert Layton and Julian Thomas find that
archaeological sites such as Stonehenge are intersections of “incommensurate visions of Britain”
that affect its history, its identity as a nation, and the identity of “subordinate groups,” such as the
42
Barbara T. Hoffman, “Introduction: Exploring and Establishing Links for a Balanced Art and Cultural Heritage
Policy,” in Art and Cultural Heritage: Law, Policy, and Practice, ed. Barbara T. Hoffman (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2006), 1.
43
Kevin Walsh, The Representations of the Past: Museums and Heritage in the Post-Modern World (London:
Routledge, 1992), 67-9.
44
Roger M. Thomas, “Archaeology and Authority in the Twenty-First Century,” in the Heritage Reader, ed. Graham
Fairclough, Rodney Harrison, John H. Jameson, Jr., and John Schofield (New York: Routledge, 2008), 139-42.
15
Druids.45 Because the origin of Stonehenge is ambiguous and the site plays and has played an
integral role in the lives of many different groups, the site represents the heterogeneity of
Britain’s people, thus complicating any pubic memory or national narrative that suggests
consensus. Bjørnar Olsen considers archaeology a “socio-political enterprise [that] is
inextricably linked to the modernist project,” which encouraged progress toward a goal that
could only be obtained by order. In Europe, nation-states were the vehicles by which humanity
could continue its ascension.46 This implies that nationalism positively correlates with progress
and often results in sanitized versions of history. The supposed scientific objectivity of
archaeology helped to provide states with credible “purified spatial identities” and the “will to
marginalize elements that compromised” unity.47
Considering current trends in tourism and the interpretation of cultural and historical
material culture is also helpful in understanding English Heritage’s stewardship of Stonehenge
and ongoing conflict with the Druids. George Okello Abungu notes the push for museums,
especially in Europe and the United States, to revamp their missions and interpretations to meet
the needs of the twenty-first century, while also remaining mindful of ethics. He cites a desire for
interpretation to be “forum[s] of dialogue and a neutral ground where many voices of various
opinions” can be heard.48 Yani Herreman notes the advent of cultural tourism in recent years, a
type of tourism that includes “sites or places where intangible cultural heritage might be
witnessed” and encourages locals to make sense of their social surroundings.49 In the case of
Stonehenge, “various opinions” mean those of the Druids and other neopagans who charge the
45
R. Layton and J. Thomas, “Introduction,” Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property, ed. Robert Layton,
Peter G. Stone, and Julian Thomas (New York: Routledge, 2001), 16.
46
B.J. Olsen, “The End of History? Archaeology and the Politics of Identity in a Globalized World,” in Destruction
and Conservation, 44.
47
Ibid.
48
George H. Okello Abungu, “Africa and Its Museums: Changing of Pathways?” in Art and Cultural Heritage, 387.
49
Yani Herreman, “The Role of Museums Today: Tourism and Cultural Heritage,” in Art and Cultural Heritage, 420.
16
site with contemporary religious significance and do so as a religious minority. Pagan
observation of summer solstice at Stonehenge, as well as the accompanying secular festival,
enables tourists (who now include locals) to observe local contemporary phenomenon, “cultural
activities that people enjoy and benefit from.”50 It is within this context, a conspicuous lack of
interpretive inclusivity, a push to correct it, and a new interest in local culture and lifeways, that
English Heritage reopened Stonehenge to the public for summer solstice. Borrowing from
Abungu’s twenty-first century theory, perhaps it is also because of the current scramble to
remain relevant and attractive that English Heritage’s new visitors’ center now displays the
remains of those buried at Stonehenge, a tourism strategy with which the Druids took immediate
issue.51 It is within these contexts that human rights are volleyed. Hereafter this article will look
into the ways in the Druid-Stonehenge conflict is embedded within these contexts.
The conflict between the stewards of Stonehenge and the Druids is a result of different
perceptions regarding the site’s significance. The state, represented by English Heritage,
administers Stonehenge as an archaeologically significant site, while the Druids regard it as a
place that is as important to lifeways now as it was when it was built. The 1882 Ancient
Monuments Bill provided the legal framework through which landowners (on whose land
ancient monuments stood) could obtain technical assistance from the Commissioner of Works to
maintain the structure, or could altogether give the structure to the state.52 Landowner resistance
diluted the bill and the resulting document only authorized these actions; landowner participation
was voluntary. Nonetheless, it was indicative of the growing notion that “the national claim to
ancient remains cut across the absolute rights of landownership.”53 If Parliament had its way, the
50
Ibid.
. Abungu, “African and Its Museums,” 387.
52
Ancient Monuments Act, 1882, c. 73.
53
Chippindale, Stonehenge Complete, 160.
51
17
history of England’s ancient monuments would be regulated by the state, becoming part of a
national identity solicited by authorities. Ancient sites had become the state’s business. An
archaeologist served as the first Inspector of Ancient Monuments, thus making archaeologists the
gatekeepers regarding the sites’ histories and how they would be interpreted.54 Roger Thomas
notes that the phrase “national importance,”55 found in the Ancient Monuments and
Archaeological Areas Act of 1979, implies that “the modern nation state provides the framework
for valuing the archaeological past.”56 English Heritage, of course, now controls Stonehenge
along with 409 other historically significant sites in England and continues to administer
Stonehenge as an archaeological site.57
Christopher Chippindale, an archaeologist and meticulous chronicler of all things
Stonehenge notes that archaeologists have historically approached the site objectively, in a
“spirit of skeptical and questioning rationality.”58 A hallmark of their training, the search for
cold, hard evidence often precludes any conceptualization of the site that rests upon possibility,
speculation, and spiritualism. In a report of a discussion amongst archaeologists and curators
about the conservation of artifacts in the United Kingdom, one curator accused archaeologists of
being “interested in objects only up to the moment of publication.”59 While this is one person’s
opinion elicited by a forum about artifacts, not entire sites, such as Stonehenge, this assertion
suggests the rigid framework within which archaeologists traditionally operate. Extracting as
54
This AMA of 1882 criminalized damage to ancient monuments and appointed an Inspector to ensure compliance
and report on the state of sites. Lieutenant-General Augusts Henry Lane Fox Pitt Rivers, “one of the UK’s
preeminent ate 19th century archaeologists” served as the first Inspector. Ian George, “Reflections on Historic
Preservation Practices in the United Kingdom and the United States,” Old Pueblo Archaeology no. 63 (September
2010):2.
55
Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act, 1979, c.46.
56
Thomas, “Archaeology and Authority,” 139.
57
Richard Harwood, Historic Environment Law: Planning, Listed Buildings, Monuments, and Conservation Areas and
Objects (Builth Wells, UK: Institute of Art and Law, Ltd), 10.
58
Chippindale, Stonehenge Complete, 239.
59
Christopher Gowing, “The Curator and Conservation,” in Conservation Archaeology and Museums, Occasional
Papers, no. 1 (The United Kingdom Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works of Art, 1980):7.
18
much evidence as possible from initial investigation, they are inclined to remain captivated by
fixed observations of a site or artifact unless other archaeological evidence disproves it. This
leaves little room for recent events or alternative observations to affect interpretations of the past
and instead places bygone times upon a pedestal accessible only to academicians who are
supposedly devoid of proclivities similar to those by which the public masses seem so easily
swayed.
As mentioned previously, the Druids and other neopagan groups experience ancient
megalithic sites as places that are alive. The archaeological view of these sites that rests upon
their potential to produce concrete evidence about the past “appears in binary opposition to the
‘visits’ of Pagans…and others who seek to use sacred sites for spiritual/community purposes.”60
As Robert Wallis and Jenny Blain note in a discussion report of their project, “Sacred Sites,
Contested Rites/Rights: Contemporary Engagements with the Past,” both English Heritage
preservation and interpretation initiatives and neopagan religious events result in people coming
to the site, but for very different reasons.61 English Heritage’s “visitors” are tourists. Neopagans
consider trekking to sites such as Stonehenge as a type of “coming home.” One of Wallis and
Blain’s informants remarked, “visiting is what you do in someone else’s house.”62
This dichotomy of perceptions is evident in the lastingness of the Stonehenge conflict
between the Druids and English Heritage. The access issues regarding summer solstice lay
dormant from the 1920s until the 1980s, when they resulted in complaints of human rights
60
Wallis and Blain, “Sacred Sites,” 5.
This article has benefitted immensely from the Sacred Sites, Contested Rites/Rights project conducted by Wallis
and Blain which seeks to open discussion between scholars and the public, particularly neopagans, about the
contested nature and different perceptions of “sacred sites.” The project’s website has press releases, news
articles, reports, and updates regarding this seemingly perpetual conflict. With this project, Wallis and Blain hope
to increase awareness and understanding that will, hopefully, eventually lead to resolutions that incorporate all
opinions and belief systems. Project website: http://www.sacredsites.org.uk/index.html.
62
Ibid.
61
19
violations against the United Kingdom in the ECHR. As mentioned before, whether or not the
inadmissible case resulted in the subsequent arrangement for ticketed summer solstices that
enabled neopagans to enter the stone circle to worship is of interest, but not paramount
importance to this article. What is significant is that despite having accommodated the Druids
after the 1986 case, a Druid felt it necessary to file a second ECHR complaint nine years later.
English Heritage has since opened the stone circle to the entire public during the summer
solstice, laying those particular issues to rest, for now.63 But, the conflict continues. In December
of 2013, English Heritage opened a new visitors’ center displaying what one Druid referred to as
“the bodies of our ancestors lain to rest at this sacred temple.”64 At the 2013 winter solstice,
several Druids who, in the past, helped English Heritage maintain order during solstices,
protested the new visitors’ center, namely its new display, which one Druid claims is “not just a
pagan issue, it’s one of common decency.”65 While this certainly is not the view of all neopagans
regarding the new center and its display of human bones, one having expressed, “My view is that
is you don’t like seeing bones on display, don’t go see them,”66 this is indicative of the fact that
despite the advent of the theories of alternative archaeology, which includes “diversity of
thinking” and inhibits “single account[s]” or interpretations, those with the option to put this into
practice have not yet done so.67
This is an outdated and unfortunate perspective, especially in light of the current postprocessual trend in archaeology. Post-processual archaeology is more easily defined by what it is
not, rather than by what it is. The term rejects fixed, authoritative interpretations and
63
Powell, “Solstice at the Stones,” 41. In 2000, English Heritage opened the stone circle to the entire public for
summer solstice.
64
Pendragon, “Just what English Heritage didn’t want,” 27.
65
Ibid.
66
“Stonehenge’s bones of contention,” Western Daily Press (Bristol, England), November 21, 2013, Infotrac
Newsstand, accessed April 29, 2014.
67
Chippindale, Stonehenge Complete, 239.
20
encompasses various approaches that are “produced and refined in an ongoing dialogue, or
discourse, over a contested terrain.”68 Historical archaeologists in the United States, for example,
have begun working with “descendant communities” during their research preparation phases,
interpretation of data, and some even enlist their help during excavations. Archaeologists and the
public define descendent communities both narrowly and broadly. During his excavation of
racially mixed New Philadelphia, Illinois, Paul Shackel consulted familial descendants of the
former communities, demonstrating the narrow interpretation.69 The New York African Burial
Ground debacle of the 1990s instigated protests from not only the African American community,
but also from other minorities who empathized with wholesale marginalization by the federal
government.70 It is this broader definition of “descendant,” defined by the Society for American
Archaeology in their ethical mandates, of “affected groups” that is ideal because it encompasses
everyone that is affected by archaeologists’ interpretations.71
Application of this broader meaning at Stonehenge would include neopagans who use the
site for religious purposes and thus are affected by not only interpretations of the site, but also by
the preservation policies that facilitate the production of such narratives. This is another instance
when the ambiguity of Stonehenge’s origins directly affects its preservation and interpretation.
The lack of a Stonehenge origin story allows English Heritage and archaeologists to skip this
measure of good practice and maintain sole authority over meaning and interpretation, while
68
Thomas C. Patterson, “History and the Post-Processual Archaeologies,” Man 24, no. 4 (December 1989): 555-6.
Paul A. Shackel, New Philadelphia: An Archaeology of Race in the Heartland (Los Angeles: University of California
Press, 2011).
70
Mark E. Mack and Michael L. Blakey, “The Study of New York’s African Burial Ground,” Historical Archaeology 38,
no.1, Transcending Boundaries, Transforming the Discipline: African Diaspora Archaeologies in the New
Millennium (2004); Cheryl J. LaRoche and Michael L. Blakey, “Seizing Intellectual Power: The Dialogue at the New
York Burial Ground,” Historical Archaeology 31, no.3 (1997):84-106.
71
Stephen W. Silliman and T.J. Ferguson, “Consultation and Collaboration with Descendant Communities,” in
Voices of American Archaeology eds. Wendy Ashmore, Dorothy Thompson Lippert, and Barbara J. Mills
(Washington, D.C.: Society for American Archaeology, 2010), 67.
69
21
Druids seek to “establish Druidry as an ‘indigenous’ British religious tradition” in order to
intervene in the process more formally.72
Despite the trend evident in other parts of the world of professionals distancing
themselves from “Western perspectives’ and moving closer to models that necessitate working
relationships with “Indigenous cultures and excluded minorities” in research and interpretation,
the UK is far behind the curve.73 In her article, “Charmed Circle: Stonehenge, Contemporary
Paganism, and Alternative Archaeology,” Carole Cusack notes the general rejection by scholars
of “vernacular and theological interpretations of sites” despite the convincing arguments made
by Cornelius Holtorf that “popular” interpretations regarding ancient sites, such as those
including aliens and astronomical functions, are the “folklore of our age” and Wallis and Blain’s
assertion that neopagan worship at ancient sites add to this contemporary repertoire.74 Some
scholars even refer to such inclusion and community input as “pseudoarchaeology,” which not
only dismisses entire belief systems and lifeways, but degrades them.75 One reporter noted that
“while pagans keep up with the latest archaeological research, most archaeologists don’t bother
to take the time to learn about current pagan practices.”76
The conflict of significance regarding Stonehenge and other ancient megalithic sites is
exacerbated by the notion of “otherness” within which neopaganism thrives. Despite the plethora
of different belief systems and sects that fall under the term neopagan or pagan, nonpagans tend
to group them together in public discourse and apply perceived peculiarities of particular factions
72
Cusack, “Charmed Circle,” 150; Caitlin Matthews, “Face to Faith; Pagan dream for midsummer night,” The
Guardian (London), June 17, 1991, Infotrac Newsstand, accessed April 27, 2014.
73
Jeanette Atkinson, Learning to Respect: Education, Values, and Ethics in International Heritage: Learning to
Respect (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2014), 1.
74
Cusack, “Charmed Circle,” 150-1; Cornelius Holtorf, From Stonehenge to Las Vegas: Archaeology as Popular
Culture (Lanham: Altamira Press, 2005), 11; Robert J. Wallis and Jenny Blain, “Site, Sacredness, and Stories:
Interactions of Archaeology and Contemporary Paganism,” Folklore no. 113: 318.
75
Cusack, “Charmed Circle,” 151.
76
E.A. Powell, “Solstice at the Stones,” 40.
22
to all of them. And, most importantly, many do not take pagan religions as seriously as they do
others such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. For example, newspaper articles, the authors of
which otherwise seem to exhibit neutrality about the English Heritage-Druid conflict, or actually
appear to be siding with the Druids and other neopagans, often always mention the peculiarity of
the neopagans along with their report of events. In an article titled “No Ancients in Stonehenge
at the Solstice,” a reporter referred to a neopagan’s “breezy attitude that the earth itself is for
flopping onto and musing upon.”77 Not only is this description unflattering, the title referring to
Druids and neopagans as “ancients” is indicative of the notion that neopagans and their beliefs
are incompatible with today’s society. The same reporter also made special note of a “digital
watch peeping out from under the sleeve of his pure white robe.”78 Not only is it unlikely that the
same reporter would have made a similar comment about something as mundane as someone
wearing a watch had he been observing a Christian or Jewish ceremony, but it once again
suggests that neopagans are an irreconcilable paradox. Commenting upon the attire of neopagans
in the media is fairly commonplace. A London reporter, covering a summer solstice event
likened the Druids’ robes to the Ku Klux Klan, while another described the Druids two years
later as “oblivious in their bedsheets.”79 This is one area in which the lines between academia
and the public are most permeable and demonstrates that the problems lie both within the
academy and beyond it. If the public normalizes seemingly harmless parodies of neopagans, then
what will push academicians, most notably archaeologists, to take them seriously? And if
scholars, those trusted pontificators who help us understand our world, regard neopagan religions
77
Francis X. Cline, “No Ancients in Stonehenge at the Solstice,” New York Times, June 22, 1986, Infotrac
Newsstand, accessed April 27, 2014.
78
Ibid.
79
Stephen Pile, “Why a Druid’s lot is not a happy one; Annual solstice ritual at Stonehenge,” Sunday Times
(London), June 22, 1986, Infotrac Newsstand, accessed April 27, 2014; Elizabeth Grice, “Sticks and stones will not
save the henge; Stonehenge,” Sunday Times (London), June 26, 1988, Infotrac Newsstand, accessed April 27, 2014.
23
as less substantiated articulations of belief, much of the public will feel comfortable following
suit.
Whether this indifference on the part of some archaeologists and interpreters is a personal
or professional vow to avoid presentism, the consequences are pertinent to the dynamic of power
within the production of history and thus have implications for human rights.80 This
“determinedly empirical and unselfcritical”81 tendency to reject folklore, contemporary culture,
and minority voices as viable sources of significant information and routes to understanding
creates hierarchies of competence regarding who is apt enough to contribute to the history that
the present public and subsequent generations will consume, or be subject to. This premise, “that
objects designated as heritage cannot be used by today’s generation” leads to “a narrow
perspective on what constitutes heritage.”82 If Ian Hodder’s observation that, “in the West,”
archaeology “is only possible when the past is dead,”83 is correct, then this obviously excludes
from interpretation and preservation plans contemporary interactions with sites and rejects
plurality. Scholars and those responsible for interpretation have “promoted [the past] as
something which is completed, and no longer contingent upon our experiences in the world.”84
According to Kevin Walsh, the promotion of a distant and fixed past is instrumental in distancing
“us from the processes that affect our daily lives,” such as war, racism, and searing poverty in
countries with whom we trade, and is a hallmark of our post-modern world. Separation of past
80
Michel-Rolph Trouillot, Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History (Boston, MA: Beacon Press,
1995). In this book, Trouillot asserts that traditional historical narratives contain silences normalized by the groups
in power who not only produce the history, but also create much of the archive from which narratives are derived,
resulting in marginalization of less powerful people and their experiences.
81
T.C. Champion, “Theoretical Archaeology in Britain,” in Archaeological Theory in Europe: The Last Three Decades
ed. Ian Hodder (London, Routledge, 1991), 151.
82
Atkinson, “Education,” 2; Laurajane Smith, Uses of Heritage (London: Routledge, 2006), 4, 29.
83
Ian Hodder, “Changing Configurations: The Relationship between Theory and Practice,” in Archaeological
Resource Management in the UK: An Introduction eds. John Hunter and Ian Ralston (Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton
Publishing Ltd, 1993), 12.
84
Kevin Walsh, Representations of the Past: Museums and Heritage in the Post-Modern World (London: Routledge,
1992), 2.
24
and present creates false compartmentalizations that disregard continuity of human experience
and can desensitize the present public to contemporary injustice. Authoritative dispositions
regarding what and how history should be interpreted, as we have seen, can result in human
rights violations. Even though issues regarding access to and interpretations of megalithic sites
that affect a (growing) minority of the UK’s population might seem to pale in comparison to
other contemporary human rights violations such as genocide, the underlying motivation is the
subjugation of others’ opinions and a gross intolerance for dissent. This needs to be fixed.
Despite the fact that preservation efforts instigated the access issues at Stonehenge,
historic preservation and the research processes (archaeological investigation) that necessitate its
implementation are not a bad in and of themselves. It is the way that scholars and “heritage
officials” execute preservation and regulate heritage that is problematic and creates
circumstances ripe for human rights violations. Historic preservation does not mean freezing
objects or structures in time, but preserving their ability to make meaning and facilitate
discourse. Authority should be shared and those officials and scholars responsible for providing
access to history should act as “guide[s] and facilitators[s].”85 Recent works such as Jeanette
Atkinson’s Education, Values and Ethics in International Heritage: Learning to Respect
explores whether or not an increase in awareness of plurality within “heritage education
programmes” are able to ensure “that when those heritage professionals take their places in
museums and heritage organizations they bring that awareness with them, and so the practice
brings about the regulations, not the other way around.”86
Tourism provides another obstacle with which heritage organizations that control sites
such as Stonehenge must contend. Interpretations of the past are becoming increasingly
85
86
Thomas, “Archaeology and Authority,”144.
Atkinson, Education, 3.
25
intertwined with trends in tourism; interpretation sometimes follows tourism, resulting in
“edutainment.”87 Because Stonehenge is one of the most notorious sites in Europe, it is a “tourist
hotspot” that receives over one million visitors a year.88 While the new visitors’ center is part of
a project to return Stonehenge’s environment back to a more natural state, one less interrupted by
tourist infrastructure, the new undertaking was undoubtedly affected by a recent push for
heritage sites to remain relevant to an increasingly visual and instantly gratified society.89
English Heritage’s website boasts a “transformed visitor experience” at Stonehenge “with a new
world-class visitor centre, housing museum-quality permanent and temporary exhibitions, plus a
spacious shop and café.”90 English Heritage seems to measure success by tourist numbers, citing
“the huge interest in Stonehenge due to the opening of the new facilities, with visitor number far
exceeding previous years.”91 It appears that tourists are more of a constituent group than
neopagans regarding preservation and interpretation of Stonehenge. While tourism is an
important component of public history, measuring success by numbers of visitors only nears the
commodification of history which implies a packaged story and production process, sacrosanct
and inviolable by the present.
English Heritage and neopagans are once again being forced to revisit the fundamental
aspects of historic preservation. In March 2014, the Ministry of Defense proposed building
housing for 4,000 soldiers on an air-field close to Stonehenge. The new development threatens to
ruin the atmosphere of the site, and people are especially worried about whether or not the new
87
Atkinson, Education, 3.
“Tourist centres reap benefits of sunshine,” Nottingham Evening Post (Nottingham, England), March 6, 2014,
Infotrac Newsstand, accessed April 27, 2014.
89
“Ancient grandeur, modern facilities; Thousands of years old, Stonehenge gets a makeover,” The Spectator
(Hamilton, Ontario), January 18, 2014, Infotrac Newsstand, accessed April 27, 2014.
90
English Heritage website, “Stonehenge,” https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/stonehenge,
accessed April 27, 2014.
91
English Heritage website, “Increased Visitor Numbers,” http://www.englishheritage.org.uk/about/news/stonehenge-transformed-one-month-on, accessed April 27, 2014.
88
26
structures will block the view of the sunrise.92 This situation highlights the role that historic
preservation can play in mediating the desires for the maintenance of significant and in this case
also historic, landscapes and the material and structural demands of the present day and future.
This threat to Stonehenge also creates an opportunity for the opposing camps illustrated in this
article to work together towards a common goal. “Pagans, druids, and heritage campaigners”
have, since the announcement, banded together to oppose the housing development, lying aside
differences in order to maintain the integrity of the site.93 Hopefully this will encourage
archaeologists and English Heritage to take more implement “community archaeology” at
Stonehenge, the practice of which creates convenient allies “in the protection of sites.”94
The inability of scholars to pin down an origin story for Stonehenge has forced them,
however begrudgingly, to “agree to disagree.” Without new evidence overwhelmingly
substantiating one theory, it seems this will always be the case. This enduring ambiguity
regarding how Stonehenge came to be has implications for its preservation and interpretation.
Perhaps neopagans, archaeologists, and English Heritage officials will soon adopt a similar
mindset regarding Stonehenge’s significance. As Atkinson asserts, “Values’ and ‘cultural values’
are complex and indeed contentious terms for which no definitive definition is available,”95 thus,
those assigning conflicting values to the same site do not have to abandon their convictions, but
must create space for multiple voices and help maintain environments that are conducive to
discourse, evolution of meaning, and minority participation. Inclusion is not only beneficial to
“affected groups” and the status of human rights, it provides “ways for archaeologists to navigate
92
“Stonehenge homes protest,” Daily Mail (London), March 13, 2014, Infotrac Newsstand, accessed April 27, 2014.
“Military won’t spoil sunrise, says Minister,” Western Daily Press (Bristol, England), May 2, 2014, Infotrac
Newsstand, accessed May 5, 2014.
94
Shadreck Chirikure and Gilbert Pwiti, “Community Involvement in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
Management: An Assessment from Case Studies in South Africa and Elsewhere,” Current Anthropology 49, no. 3
(June 2008): 477.
95
Atkinson, Education, 163.
93
27
their way into the future” and remain relevant.96 The human rights violations that took the
English Heritage-Druid conflict to an international tribunal demonstrate the dangers of
prohibiting multivocality in preservation, but the current military housing predicament exhibits
the ability of diverse interests to work together. In an increasingly globalizing, and shrinking,
world, we all do not have to agree, but it is becoming more imperative than ever to corral
differences into productive working models in order to not only represent various voices and
share authority, but to use that diversity to benefit scholarship, preservation, and foster mutual
understanding on broader scales.
96
Chirikure and Pwiti, “Community Involvement,” 478.
28
Bibliography
Primary sources
Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act, 1979, c.46.
Chappell v. United Kingdom, No. 12587/86 (European Court of Human Rights, 1986), HUDOC.
National Heritage Act, 1983, c. 47.
Pendragon v. United Kingdom, No. 31416/96 (European Court of Human Rights, 1996),
HUDOC.
Secondary sources
Abungu, George H. Okello. “Africa and Its Museums: Changing of Pathways?” in Art and
Cultural Heritage, edited by Barbara T. Hoffman, 381-394. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2006.
Atkinson, Jeanette. Learning to Respect: Education, Values, and Ethics in International
Heritage: Learning to Respect. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2014.
Barthel, Diane. “Historic Preservation: A Comparative Analysis,” Sociological Forum 4, no.1
(March 1989): 87-106.
Cabot, Laurie, and Tom Cowan. The Power of the Witch: The Earth, the Moon, and the Magical
Path to Enlightenment. New York: Bantham Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, 1989.
Champion, T.C. “Theoretical Archaeology in Britain.” In Archaeological Theory in Europe: The
Last Three Decades, edited by Ian Hodder, 149-159. London, Routledge, 1991.
Chippindale, Christopher. Chippindale, “Stoned Henge: Events and Issues at the Summer
Solstice, 1985.” World Archaeology 18, no.1 Perspectives in World Archaeology (June
1986): 38-58.
29
Chirikure, Shadreck Chirikure and Gilbert Pwiti. “Community Involvement in Archaeology and
Cultural Heritage Management: An Assessment from Case Studies in South Africa and
Elsewhere,” Current Anthropology 49, no. 3 (June 2008): 461-479.
_________. Stonehenge Complete. New York: Thames & Hudson, 2004.
Cusack, Carole M. “Charmed Circle: Stonehenge, Contemporary Paganism, and Alternative
Archaeology.” Numen 59 (2012): 138-55.
George, Ian. “Reflections on Historic Preservation Practices in the United Kingdom and the
United States.” Old Pueblo Archaeology no. 63 (September 2010).
Goldhaber, Michael D. A People’s History of the European Court of Human Rights. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2007.
Gowing, Christopher. “The Curator and Conservation,” in Conservation Archaeology and
Museums, Occasional Papers, no. 1. The United Kingdom Institute for Conservation of
Historic and Artistic Works of Art, 1980.
Harwood, Richard. Historic Environment Law: Planning, Listed Buildings, Monuments, and
Conservation Areas and Objects. Builth Wells, UK: Institute of Art and Law, Ltd., 2012.
Herreman, Yani. “The Role of Museums Today: Tourism and Cultural Heritage” in Art and
Cultural Heritage, edited by Barbara T. Hoffman, 419-432. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2006.
Hodder, Ian. “Changing Configurations: The Relationship between Theory and Practice.” In
Archaeological Resource Management in the UK: An Introduction edited by John Hunter
and Ian Ralston, 9-17. Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing Ltd, 1993.
Hoffman, Barbara T., ed. Art and Cultural Heritage: Law, Policy. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2006.
30
Holtorf, Cornelius. From Stonehenge to Las Vegas: Archaeology as Popular Culture. Lanham:
Altamira Press, 2005.
Howard, J. Myrick. Buying Time for Heritage: How to Save an Endangered Historic Property.
Raleigh, NC: Historic Preservation Foundation of North Carolina, Inc., 2007.
LaRoche, Cheryl and Michael L. Blakey. “Seizing Intellectual Power: The Dialogue at the New
York Burial Ground.” Historical Archaeology 31, no.3 (1997):84-106.
Layton. R, Peter Stone and J. Thomas, eds. Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property.
New York: Routledge, 2001.
Mack, Mark E. and Michael Blakey. “The Study of New York’s African Burial Ground”
Historical Archaeology 38, no.1. Transcending Boundaries, Transforming the Discipline:
African Diaspora Archaeologies in the New Millennium (2004):10-17.
Olsen, B.J. “The End of History? Archaeology and the Politics of Identity in a Globalized
World.” In Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property, edited by R. Layton,
Peter Stone, and J. Thomas, 39-47. New York, Routledge, 2001.
Patterson, Thomas C. “History and the Post-Processual Archaeologies.” Man 24, no. 4
(December 1989): 555-566.
Shackel, Paul A. New Philadelphia: An Archaeology of Race in the Heartland. Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 2011.
Silliman, Stephen W. and T.J. Ferguson. “Consultation and Collaboration with Descendant
Communities.” in Voices of American Archaeology edited by Wendy Ashmore, Dorothy
Thompson Lippert, and Barbara J. Mills, 45-57 .Washington, D.C.: Society for American
Archaeology, 2010.
31
Strmiska, Michael F., ed. Modern Paganism in World Cultures: Comparative Perspectives.
Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2005.
Thomas, Roger M. “Archaeology and Authority in the Twenty-First Century.” In Heritage
Reader, edited by Graham Fairclough, Rodney Harrison, John H. Jameson, Jr., and John
Schofield, 139-48.New York: Routledge, 2008.
Trouillot, Michel-Rolph . Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History. Boston, MA:
Beacon Press, 1995.
Wallis, Robert J. and Jenny Blain. “Sacred Sites, Contested Rites/Rights: Contemporary Pagan
Engagements with the Past.” Discussion Document and Report of Current Research
(2001).
______. “Site, Sacredness, and Stories: Interactions of Archaeology and Contemporary
Paganism.” Folklore 114, no.3 (December 2003): 307-22.
Walsh, Kevin. The Representations of the Past: Museums and Heritage in the Post-Modern
World. London: Routledge, 1992.