Archeological Digging at Stonehenge: Should it Be Allowed?

[WhyAngelsFall]

An ongoing debate: (In a debate format the question is a statement preceded by the word "Resolved." This makes it easier to deturmine the Affirmative Side and the Negative Side):

Resolved: Archeological digging at Stonehenge should be allowed.

The sides:

The Affirmative Side: Most of the linage who built it are dead. To dig would allow the gain of knowledge into the minds and thoughts of the people who lived there. It is a historic site under protection that has historical significance to be explored. The more we know about the site, the more we know about the religion practiced there, and the people who lived there.

The Negative Side: The Native Americans petitioned to keep archeologists away from their burial sites. We should do the same. We know enough. It is a symbol to NeoPagans everywhere. -- Because the religion has caught back on, it should be considered a sacred site, even if the followers cannot claim to be direct decedents like the Native Americans did. Archeologists don't research modern religions that have ties to the site, and will not be mindful to them.

The Fence: Appathetic or can't decide.


And another interesting point: Should people be allowed on the site for solstice celebrations?

[WhyAngelsFall]

And to start us off:

I have to say that I stand Affirmatively. While the site has many qualities both as a symbol and as a religious site, we can still gain knowledge from the archeological digging of the site and surrounding areas. The more we know about the site the more we can understand about the religion and the people who erected the timeless monument.

As far as should people be allowed? Tough question - the Druids that were there, I think, had good reason to be there. Opening it up to the public hurt the connection they had to their holy site, and made it almost a spectacle as opposed to something sacred.

I also wish they could limit the numbers as well as huge numbers of people tends to hurt sites like this one. Potential finds are inches below the surface, it could destroy them easily.

And morons were climbing on the rocks in 2004! AND THE CROWD CHEERED THEM ON!!!! !@#$ers!!!!!!

[Toby Stimpson]

I say it should be allowed. How many here can truly say that they KNOW stonehenge and that it isnt merely something you read about in a book? How much of what we know is wrong or has proven to be false over the years? And ofcourse, how will an excavation HELP in the restoration of the area?

I am from england...I was born there and I lived there half of my life. It is amazing how many things we have at home that the general public know nothing about. Becasue of the various invasions we havnt been able to be taught the significance or the history of our sites as the Native Americans, Aboriginees, Buddhists, Hindus...Arabains, Christians and so many more are able ot about their ancient sites. Most of what our ancestors knew are now down graded to folklore and tales that are different where ever you go. I for one believe that an archealogical dig would probve and disprove many of the theories...but then again, there have been digs there before. Why is this an issue when its all been done many times before? I think as a national historical site, this isn't merely a Pagan thing but this is a druid thing...this is a welsh thing...as it is a Christian thing. The stones of Salisbury have stood over the entire modern history of England.

Now looking at both sides, I cans ee why Pagans would be annoyed or aggravated, but how sure can we be that Druids built this site? How sure can we be that it has ANYTHING to dow ith the goddess...and ofcourse, who here can say it has any connection what so ever to Pagans, when Paganism in it's modern form did not exist and has never contributed to building it. The Druids that gather there have done so for decades. There is a fine balance between the Govornment and the hoohas who would go there to ruin the experiance of others...so the question should be: Should the rule of allowing ppl to go up to the stones be enforced again? I rememebr when my sister went back to visit, she wanted to go and visit the stones but the closest you can get to them are the road that passes nearby. You could not walk up, and could definitly not touch the stones. should this be enforced again? And ofcourse, would a dig help to preserve the stones as it would be closed off?

Namaste

Tobias

[Ninjakitten]

I say it should be, but that's only because I know how careful and respectful modern archaeologists would be at a site like that. I think we could learn much about our history if we allowed digging through a sacred site. I also don't feel that "churning the earth" a little to find artifacts would desecrate the site at all, as I feel whatever energies are there now would still be there when the archaeologists have come and gone.

[Shanti]

Fence here!! Learning is a biggy for me but I would need to know the how, whats and the after your done info before I could decide. If they want to rip everything up and make a mess..no but if they have a good plan...lots of care is in it...and you would never be able to tell they were there when its done...maybe...how long and what shape everything would be in during the exploring is a factor too.

Oh and I would want to know why they think there is anything to find that hasnt been already found...some proof of something...dont go ripping stuff up because maybe there might be something there...heck have they done test to see if there is anything around there?

Just not enough detail for me at all.

[Darkdale]

Knowledge is good. As long as they don't disturb too much, I don't see why it would be a problem.

[Greybird]

We know enough. It is a symbol to NeoPagans everywhere.

So is truth and understanding. Provided the archaeologists are careful and respectful, ensuring that it is left in the same shape it is in now, then by all means it should be examined. Who knows - it could reveal a whole new aspect of early European religion that could benefit every one of us.

[Athena-Nadine]

I don't think it's any more sacred than the Egyptian pyramids, and I certainly don't think it's nearly as sacred as a Greek temple, Roman temple, or even a church built for the specific purpose of worshipping a god(s). Stonehenge is fair game, just like allthe temples, cities, and tombs archeologists have been digging up for ages.

[Penthesilea]

So is truth and understanding. Provided the archaeologists are careful and respectful, ensuring that it is left in the same shape it is in now, then by all means it should be examined. Who knows - it could reveal a whole new aspect of early European religion that could benefit every one of us.Another thing to consider is the fact that archeological sites are more likely to get government protection than the "sacred sites" of pagan people. The Native Americans got their sites protected because they are around to make noise and file lawsuits. It is unlikely that a modern Druid group, for instance, could make a similiar case to protect sites in England.

[Childof_theMorrigan]

my first reaction was BAH! LEAVE IT you desecrating fools!

but after thinking about it and reading the posts... I must say... if they're going to dig around pyramids and other sites, why not this one? At least we'll learn something... and I hope they don't ruin it in the process.

[Seshata]

Should the rule of allowing ppl to go up to the stones be enforced again? I rememebr when my sister went back to visit, she wanted to go and visit the stones but the closest you can get to them are the road that passes nearby. You could not walk up, and could definitly not touch the stones. should this be enforced again? And ofcourse, would a dig help to preserve the stones as it would be closed off?

Hi,

Firstly another one in England..

Ok - a quick reminder some of the stones are were set in concrete a good few years ago.

I don't have a problem with the archeologists being there - a good few are pagan and do respect the area. I don't know how much more they can glean from the site, but it would be interesting.

We can't say it has anything to do with the druids or goddess worship - all we can look at is that it is aligned to solar happenings.

A lot of work was done by Druids to get access to the stones again, so I would say that closing them off wouldn't be a good step. What has to be taught is respect and understanding. So, some don't respect the 'religious' aspect to the stones, then respect the fact that there are lichens that live on them and some can be rare. I went to Stonehenge when it just re-opened to the first sunrise, it was a nightmare in that there were people with cans of drink and jumping on stones, pushing in with enormous baby buggies .... I lost my voice trying to stop people climbing on... Anyway, there is still alot of work that is being done. There are Druids and other pagans on the board linked with Stonehenge, advising and trying to achieve things by working with the authorities.

On an aside mini rant - Avebury! Every time I go there I and the coven spend alot of time taking 'offerings' out of the stones. Flowers are left in the crevices to rot, some with the plastic or foil wrappings attached. If offerings of any type are made at the stones, could people leave them to one side. As the plants etc rot they do damage the stones and the lichen. And I won't even start on the so-called dragon droppings....

Mini rant over! <G>

BB

Seshata

[ap Dafydd]

I don't have a problem with the archeologists being there - a good few are pagan and do respect the area. I don't know how much more they can glean from the site, but it would be interesting.


Agree on that, there's been a lot of work done on both sides to bring Pagans and archaeologists together and for the most part they tend to behave sensitively and respectfully to ancient sites these days.


On an aside mini rant - Avebury! Every time I go there I and the coven spend alot of time taking 'offerings' out of the stones. Flowers are left in the crevices to rot, some with the plastic or foil wrappings attached. If offerings of any type are made at the stones, could people leave them to one side. As the plants etc rot they do damage the stones and the lichen. And I won't even start on the so-called dragon droppings....


It's another one of my pet hates, what do folk think that they are playing at? I've heard of even worse things being done including candles being lit on stones, bits of crystal stuck into cracks or buried at the bases, or even bits being chipped off and taken away, it's greedy and selfish as well as disrespectful to the Ancestors.

At popular sites, it would be nice to have somewhere not part of the original stones where people can leave offerings, some sort of altar site which those who care for the site can then discreetly clean off and recycle a few days later. But would people use it anyway?

gwyn eich byd

Ffred

[Moon Flower]

I studied archaeology.
I have a degree in it.

I am also British.

So, I see this from a certain perspective.

First of all. Stonehenge has been dug over for centuries. Hardly any of it is original.
As has already been said, the stones are now set in concrete.
The more that can be discovered about this time period the better. There is a lot that is not known, a lot that needs more investigation.
If digging stonehenge will throw light upon this period then why not?
It cannot be made less 'authentic', as it is no longer even slightly so.


Second.
Many of the people that call stone circles 'sacred', do not really have much idea about the history of these places, what they were originally used for and who by.
This is fine. If someone wants to say a place is sacred to them, and to invent a spurious history to support this is a liberty to do so.
But it does not make it fact.
Archaeologists, while not perfect by any means, and who are biased by the time and place in which they live, by the things that they have learned and by the ideas they hold, are never the less attempting to disover the true history of these places. They do take great pains to get rid of any bias they hold, and do admit it and try to take it into account.
Many of them love these places and feel as much for them as does any pagan.
Some of them are pagan.
They are still scientists and acedemics who wish to know the truth, rather than believe something just because they want to.

Many of these ancient sites have, in the past, been lost and destroyed, ploughed out by farmers,built over by developers. As has already been said, it is the work of the archaeologists that preserves these places for everyone.

People make of these sites what they want.
They see in them what they want.
An example of this is the belief that Stonehenge was built by druids.
It wasn't built by druids.
It was originally a neolithic site. They built the henge, possibly erected the heel stone, dug the 'aubury holes and erected stakes in the centre that could have been a building.
At this time it was probably alligned on the northernmost moon, and was probably used for defleshing the dead.

Then, after a period of disuse, the early bronze age people cleared it and started putting up the bluestones.
Later the sarcens.
There were a few arrangements of these,but it ended up in the layout it has today.
It was also realligned at this time to the solstices.

Then it went out of use.

Then the iron age started.
This was the time of the celts and the druids.
There was almost no continuity of sacred sites (and assumed religious practices) between the time of the stone circles and the time of the druids.
The druids did not build stonehenge. It is very doubtful that they used it. This is a victorian invention.

The comparison between stonehenge and native american sites is a poor one in my opinion.
The native americans have a continuity of religion and culture.
The desrtuction of their culture has been so very recent that they can look at their sacred sites and tell about people who used it, people to whom they can trace their lineage, people almost in living memorey. (or perhaps actualmemory. I know less than I'd like about native americans. I am not one and I would hesitate to speak for them.)
Anyhow, the British sacred sites whent out of use so long ago, the purpose of their original construction is so nebulous, so open to interpretation that it can be said that there is no continuity of either use or of knowlede and understanding.
Therefore all the arguments of the pagans and neo pagans, witches and heathens, is built upon supposition, on what they want to be true, not what is known to be true.

I love these places. I feel a deep resonance in my soul. It is one of the reasons I studied archaeology.
However I do recognise that me wanting (and feeling) them to be sacred now, and the fact that they were sacred in the past, are not necessarily the same thing.
And I believe that only archaeology, properly done, will answer my questions about the past.

I would also like to ask why people should not leave offerings upon the stones at Avebury. (and anywhere else)
This is their way of connecting with the stones.
Is it not as valid as anyone elses?
Archaeologically it is probably bad. But from a spiritual standpoint, if this is right for them, then is it not as good as anyone elses way?

[Sierra]

Speaking as somebody with a strong archaeological background, I answer with a whole-hearted "YES!".

Archaeology is not what it once was. When archaeology was a newer field, a lot of desicration and destruction of the sites occurred, before proper tools and methods were formed that are now utilized to help preserve the sites being researched. There are certain Mayan sites that have been ruined by past "archaeologists", who were nothing more than treasure-hunters, but keep in mind this was the birth of archaeology. Very little is destroyed in an archaeological/paleontological dig now (both of which I've been a participant been), and great lengths are undergone to make sure as much of the natural area as well as the artifacts gathered are left in pristine, and sometimes even in better condition than which they were found.

So much knowledge can be gleened from archaeological surveys, and I'm a big believer in the pursuit of human history to teach us about ourselves today.

I also say no, most definately people should not be allowed to practice any sort of ritual work on the site, and I'd say the same with any other ancient site. I know I may come under cross-fire for this, but unintentionally it is so easy to contaminate or damage a historical site, not to mention if they open it to one group it would have to be open to multiple others, therefore creating a larger chance for it to become further damaged.

Also, I wanted to say, Moon Flower, you said everything I wanted to say and more! My area of study was not the UK, rather Central America so it's excellent that you brought those points up! :)

[Moon Flower]

Thank you! nice to meet another archaeologist!

Central Americal must be fascinating.

The neolithic is mostly 'Oh! a stone!' :)

I agree, archaeology is not what it once was. And inmy own mind I would divide 'archaeologists' into two groups.
In one would be the treasure hunters and antiquarians of the past, to who archaeology was either a 'get rich quick' scheme, or a way to bloster their particular pet theory. (and yes, I include thegreat antiquarians like Stukley and Aubury, even early Petrie, in this group!) In another group would be present day archaeologists, to whom the colour of the soil itself is as important as anything that may be found within it.

The past if a fascinating place. It is also (as someone once said) a foreign country.
The ancient past, with no written records, can only be learned from careful investigation of sites and material remains.
Without that we are reduced to guess work and making it up.

Yay! for living in a tent, digging in the rain, and another stone to draw!

[Meadhbh]

I say dig. At first I was against the whole ideal, but then it hit me that it won't be right or in anyone's best interest to not find out all we can about the site. I'm sure their be as careful as they can be and go running a muck with cranes and the like. The more we understand about the site the better it will be for everybody, so long as its done right I don't have a problem with it.

[Seshata]

I would also like to ask why people should not leave offerings upon the stones at Avebury. (and anywhere else)
This is their way of connecting with the stones.
Is it not as valid as anyone elses?
Archaeologically it is probably bad. But from a spiritual standpoint, if this is right for them, then is it not as good as anyone elses way?

I don't have a problem with people leaving flowers etc by the stones, but jamming stuff within them etc isn't a way to preserve them - rotting vegetation etc is known to damage not only the stones but also the lichen that live on them. Essentially if people want to preserve sites that may or may not at some point but have become sacred, they need to think a little on what they are doing. We have native animals and plants which are dying down, lichen may not be up at the top of people's 'save' list after all it's that fluffy stuff that lives on stones etc but it has an important ecological part to play in our countryside.

So, in essence, my feeling are that offerings using a little common sense are fine. Also things like the glass stones etc can also be taken by animals and can be the cause of death in some cases.

I personally feel that I would like to contribute to keeping some of these interesting structures etc from those times for others in the future to enjoy and experience.

BB

Seshata

[Agaliha]

my first reaction was BAH! LEAVE IT you desecrating fools!
but after thinking about it and reading the posts... I must say... if they're going to dig around pyramids and other sites, why not this one? At least we'll learn something... and I hope they don't ruin it in the process.

I agree. I voted: (Aff) Digging allows us to see the history behind it, and help fuel knowledge of the site & people.
Sierra said it well:


Archaeology is not what it once was. When archaeology was a newer field, a lot of desicration and destruction of the sites occurred, before proper tools and methods were formed that are now utilized to help preserve the sites being researched. There are certain Mayan sites that have been ruined by past "archaeologists", who were nothing more than treasure-hunters, but keep in mind this was the birth of archaeology. Very little is destroyed in an archaeological/paleontological dig now (both of which I've been a participant been), and great lengths are undergone to make sure as much of the natural area as well as the artifacts gathered are left in pristine, and sometimes even in better condition than which they were found.
So much knowledge can be gleened from archaeological surveys, and I'm a big believer in the pursuit of human history to teach us about ourselves today.

I also know that archaeologists must leave portions of the site untouched for the next generation. They have stick red-tape and protocols to follow. It's not how it was in Egypt (way back) where mummies were damaged, things stolen and looted, and people taking whatever they wished.

I've seen a program about the theories and things about Stonehenge. It was quite interesting. But a lot of things are still a mystery. Archaeological surveys could shed some light on those matters. I believe it's not jsut England's history, but all of ours as humans. Those people that built and used Stonehenge were not "English", they were an early civilization of people...

[Toby Stimpson]

I don't think it's any more sacred than the Egyptian pyramids, and I certainly don't think it's nearly as sacred as a Greek temple, Roman temple, or even a church built for the specific purpose of worshipping a god(s). Stonehenge is fair game, just like allthe temples, cities, and tombs archeologists have been digging up for ages.

Tell me, what is less sacred about this place than the Temple of Zeus at Olympia...or the Parthenon...or the Temple at Dephi? Just curiosity...

[ap Dafydd]

I would also like to ask why people should not leave offerings upon the stones at Avebury. (and anywhere else)
This is their way of connecting with the stones.
Is it not as valid as anyone elses?
Archaeologically it is probably bad. But from a spiritual standpoint, if this is right for them, then is it not as good as anyone elses way?

First of all, it's disrespectful to others. When I visit a sacred site, I don't want to find it covered in rotting vegetation because someone else was there last week and left a load of stuff there.

Secondly, depending on the "offering", it could damage the stones. Candle grease is a major case in point. Or it could damage lichens growing on the stones. And it creates a lot of work for those Pagans who put their time in (unpaid) to care for these sites.

Thirdly, because the way in which "offerings" are placed can also damage the stones, I've heard examples of things being physically hammered into cracks in stones.

Decades ago when there weren't many of us, then our activities didn't cause much pressure on ancient sites. There's a fixed number of sites, and (say) 1000 Pagans visiting them wasn't a problem. But we've gone past the 1000 point, and we've gone past the 10000 point, we're on the way to the 100000 point, and that means we can no longer afford to be selfish.

Otherwise what will happen when we get to the 1000000 point?

gwyn eich byd

Ffred

[Moon Flower]

Yeah. I understand the importance of lichen, etc. And of preserving the stones.

I just wondered if there was a spiritual reason for not leaving flowers and stuff.

Also, No, the people who built Stonehenge were not English.
They lived on the land that became England a few thousand years later.
English, and England are specific references to the Angles and the Saxons that came here at around the time the Romans were leaving.
However, it is only a word, and it's specific meaning is only part of it's general meaning. ie. the people who live in England and call themselves English, whatever their ancestry, be it Norman, Saxon, Roman, or Jamaican and Pakistani. People have been coming to Britain for thousands of years. (and leaving it to go elsewhere!)

The people who built Stonehenge probably had a name for themselves (or a few names, considering the length of time it took to find it's 'final' form) However, we do not know it.
We can assume tribal societies in both the bronze age and the neolithic, and although they undoubtably had names for their tribes, it would be hard to know if they had a name for the island of Britain as a whole.

It is also often assumed that these bronze age peoples were pushed to the fringes of the island by incoming celtic and then roman 'invaders'. Though again it is sometimes difficult to distinguish an ancient invasion of people with a simple change in culture of the indigenous peoples.
This would make the so called 'celtic' cultures of Scotland, Wales and Cornwall, the last remnants of the neolithic/bronze age circle builders.
And it would be thier languages that should be searched for the name they might have given themselves.

However, much of this is meer theory and speculation.
The fact remains that Stonehenge and many of the other circles are built on the land that is now called 'England', and 'Britain', and by the ancestors of at least some of the people that now call themselves English and British.

Therefore I do not have a problem with people saying that Stonehenge was built by the English, although this is not technically correct, it is still as correct enough for most people.
I would personally say that it was built by the ancient Britons, but I am sure that other people would find fault with that term, as I feel it is more properly applied to the ironage celts.

But, unless we find something better, English or British will have to do. Unless you want to call them 'the ancient inhabitants of the island that is now called Britain, and the specific part of it that is now called England.'
Which is a hell of a mouthful!

The Egyptians claim the pyramid as their own, built in Egypt by Egyptians. They do not say it was built by the people of Khem.
Britain should be proud of it's history.
Most particularly it's ancient history.

[David19]

I think that archeologialists should be allowed to dig at Stone Henge because we will be able to learn more about the people who built it, maybe what it was for, and other things but they should be careful that they don't break it or ruin any of the stones since it is one of the landmarks of England and has survived for thousands of years so it does need to be protected from damage.

[Sierra]

The thing with leaving offerings and stuff is that most people don't understand unless they've had formal training on the subject what rammifications their presence and disturbance is actually having. While I would trust an archaeologist to come and leave an offering, I wouldn't trust Joe-Shmoe Pagan who works in an office building to leave an offering, even if they think they are being extremely careful.

I always say anybody that's interested in human history would do well with attending an archaeological dig, I suggest you all do it! ;)

Moon Flower - I have to admit, I find neolithics fascinating, but my real area of interest has always been trade routes and ancient agriculture, and Central America is definately rich in the agricultural history! I'm not practising archaeology anymore, I moved into the world of film, but I still try to keep up as much as I can with what's going on in the world of archaeology, and someday I'd like to go back and get my doctorate. Some day!

[Moon Flower]

Yes, the same with me.
I got married and settled down and got old.

But like you, I try to keep up with it and everything that is happening.
Some 'recent' investigations at Stonehenge has carbon dated items found in the ditch. Antlers and such like.
It had been supposed that these were tools left over from the digging. However, it was found that a number of artefacts were substantially older.
Dating, in fact, from 100's of years before. Long before the ground at stonehenge was ever touched. possibly going back into the mesolithic.
It seems that these things, for some reason precious and special to these people, had been carried around for generations of hunting and gathering, before finally being laid to rest in the ditch of the henge.
Some kind of 'foundation offering' possibly.

I find that fascinating. (perhaps only an archaeologist would!)

[Sierra]

I think it's fascinating too! But then again, I'm into archaeology too ;).

I saw a show I believe just recently on that, something from the BBC, but it was played over here on the Discovery Channel. I wish I could remember now, but there was an archaeologist managed to get the approximate age of the site down to something insane like 80 years give or take, due to taking several samples and cross-referencing all her data that had been dated. But I remember them talking about the antlers and the tools and trying to figure out just how old they were and how far they may have pre-dated the actual building of the site.

I think the skeleton on the site is fascinating because they just can't quite seem to figure out his association with the site itself. Like I said, that part of the world is definately not my area of expertise, but the matter in which he was buried along with what he was buried with, which if I remember correctly was fairly minimal, just does not denote that he was somebody of high-status. So what was he doing there?

Haha, whenever I get into this stuff with my friends they call me a dork, but what do they know? :p

[StarCraftLia]

w

[Moon Flower]

Part of me is saying allow it, as long as they restore the stones and the Earth when they're done <- Which, let's face it, WON'T happen.

Well, as there is hardly anything original left there, does it actally matter in the case of Stonehenge?
Archaeology is, by it's very nature, destructive. Which is why it is imperative to mae and keep accurate records of everything that is done, and to pubish them. Which also sometimes does not happen.


The other part of me is growling and saying don't touch it.
Which also won't happen.

I would also like to say that in many peoples opinions, the whole of the earth is sacred, not just one little dot in England.
There are many stone circles, not just the big few that everyone knows, there are many other ancient monuments, many of which no onecares about at all, some of which have dissapeared off the face of the earth all together because no one cared about them.
But more than that, the whole of the earth is sacred, and an entire living eco system.
That has never stopped people building houses, mining, digging,polluting and poisoning.
Just by sitting at this computer I am using resources, and creating pollution that is killing the earth.
The earth is being destroyed a little bit every day just for my convienience. Not for my survival, but for my comfortable, wasteful western lfe.
So it would be a little hypocritcal of me to say that a certain place cannot be dug just because it is special to me and I like it the way it is.
They will soon rape Alaska for it's oil (unless they have already started). Because we all want oil. We want the pleasures and the convienience and the comforts that it gives. We want cars and electricity. We want light and heat at the touch of a button.
Is not Alaska sacred?
I have never been there, but I believe it is sacred to the indegenous people who live there.
Until we all give up everything that the earth gives that makes our lives more comfortable, we are all as guilty as each other.

Sierra. They don't know what they are missing!
The BBC do some very interesting documentaries.
I think I know the guy you mean.
Is it the body that was found in the ditch?
I believe he had an arrow head in him. He is a bit of a puzzler. Was he a sacrifice? a murder?
Yes, he is very intereting.

There was also another body, found (I believe) near the slaughter stone. I think this one was dated to far later. To the dark ages I think.
If I remember right he is considered to be a criminal, buried on what was considered at the time to be very unsanctified ground.
As if the place of his burial was at least part of his punishment. Though that is, of course open to speculation.

Another body found 'recently' was near Amesbury, the small town/big village nearest Stonehenge, and the place where the avenue goes toward.
(although at that time neither 'Stonehenge' nor it's avenue was as we see it now)
He was found with an interesting assemblage of things. Stone tools, archery equipment, but most importatly metal working artefacts.
Tests have shown that he was born on the continent, and that he came to 'England' as a stanger, at the boundary between the stone and bronze ages. This man was one of the first metal workers ever to come to britain, bringing with him this magickal new technology. This is a man whoes very existance tells us of one of the most significant changes to come to Britain.
A younger man, buried with him may have been his son, (born, if I remember right) near whayt is now Bristol) which shows that he came and stayed, marrying and having children, travelling across Britain with his most marvelous talents.

A further interesting aspect of this body is his leg. Which was terribly damaged. He had, amongst other injuries, totally lost a whole knee cap!
An yet it had healed. This was an old injury, and not the one that killed him. This speaks much about this individuals personal strength, and of the capabilities of the healers of the time.

Archaeology is destructive. It cannot not be. Once you dig something it is dug. The bigger and more famous the monument the earlier and more destructivley it was dug. We hae lost so much of Stonehenge to the digging of victorian treasure hunters.
I hope things are done better now. Many techniques have been developed to look beneath the surface without disturbing it, to minimise the damage and the need for exploratory trenches.

These may be 'scared place' to some people, but they are first and foremost national monumnets. The ruins must be maintained, and it is the duty of scientists and archaologists to discover the past from these remains.
There is no continuity of use for these monuments. They were sacred in the past, some would see them as sacred now, but inbetween? we are lucky they wern't all destroyed by puritans.
We do not know what they were use for, and how they were used.
Everything that is done and believed now is mostly guess work. Any true reconstruction of usage, any true understanding of the sacred nature of these places that is at all connected to their original use, or to the concepts of the original builders, must be founded on the discoveries of good, well performed archaeology.

And even then we will not know very much.
not until we invent a time machine and we can go back and ask them what they are ding and why.

[Sierra]

I think I know the guy you mean.
Is it the body that was found in the ditch?
I believe he had an arrow head in him. He is a bit of a puzzler. Was he a sacrifice? a murder?
Yes, he is very intereting.


Ya! That's the guy I was talking about. :)

I love mortuary practices, they always tell so much about the culture and the area, one time I did a huge project on a few selected cultures from First Nations groups in Canada and the US. That's also what really piqued my interest in trade routes in the Americas, which most people think I'm crazy to be so excited about, hah!

I find it funny when people say "no, it shouldn't be dug!" But then protest that people aren't allowed on the site anymore. It's far more destructive to let people roam around there than to have a scientific survey on the site.

It's funny though what people place so much value in, and then totally forget about other places. I think it's mostly just because there's been so much intrigue worldwide in the ONE area, that somehow people place more importance on it than all the other stone circles, or long barrows, or standing stones that are scattered across the UK.

[Brenda]

I think they should allow digging or investigations, as long as they don't touch the structure of the stones, and with the modern technology, can't they x-ray things first before starting digging? At least then they know what they're looking for

[Jenne]

So is truth and understanding. Provided the archaeologists are careful and respectful, ensuring that it is left in the same shape it is in now, then by all means it should be examined. Who knows - it could reveal a whole new aspect of early European religion that could benefit every one of us.

I think this is where I stand too--formerly on the fence on this issue, but in weighing it, I think the archeological profession would be properly respectful. The benefits are certainly huge.

[WhyAngelsFall]

It’s very interesting the differences in opinions varying from the different websites I’ve posted the question at. One was vehemently against digging, with most of the responses being negative – but there, there was no option see the results before you yourself voted, which makes me wonder how this would have gone differently if I had hidden it here as well, Fascinating.

For further reading on this issue, I recommend:

The Archaeological Institute of America’s (AIA) Archeology Magazine: September/October issue Volume 56 Number 5, pg 36: Solstice at the stones (http://www.archaeology.org/0309/abstracts/stonehenge.html)

And British Archaeology magazine June/July 2005 issue (of which I don’t have a link, as it’s too late to be a current issue but too soon to be in their archives) of which most of the issue is dedicated to Stonehenge.

One reason that this issue has come up is because of the disrespect that some archeologists have for the Pagan practices. For instance if you read the article written in The AIA Archeology Magazine there is an obvious contempt for the Pagans who wish to keep it a sacred site, further emphasized by a later issue that talks about a different subject but still involving Pagans: their worship of the Greek Gods in Greece. Gods return to Olympus jan/feb 2005 (http://www.archaeology.org/0501/abstracts/letter.html)

It is wonderful to see other people who are interested in archeology here, and very interesting to see the responses. To play the devil’s advocate however, I question what others think of allowing thousands of people to the site of Stonehenge every year for Solstice? And what can we do about the fact that while there are many Pagans who will look into the history and archeological practices going on at Stonehenge, will the archeologists give the same respect in finding out why some modern Pagans find the site to be sacred?

[Athena-Nadine]

Tell me, what is less sacred about this place than the Temple of Zeus at Olympia...or the Parthenon...or the Temple at Dephi? Just curiosity...

It's a personal opinion, nothing more. I am a Hellenic Reconstructionist. Stonehenge has no particular meaning for me.

[thecount692003]

A part of me say's yes, the other say no it's too sacred. how would others feel if they wanted to dig up the vatigan.

[Moon Flower]

Ya! That's the guy I was talking about. :)

I love mortuary practices, they always tell so much about the culture and the area, one time I did a huge project on a few selected cultures from First Nations groups in Canada and the US. That's also what really piqued my interest in trade routes in the Americas, which most people think I'm crazy to be so excited about, hah!

I find it funny when people say "no, it shouldn't be dug!" But then protest that people aren't allowed on the site anymore. It's far more destructive to let people roam around there than to have a scientific survey on the site.

It's funny though what people place so much value in, and then totally forget about other places. I think it's mostly just because there's been so much intrigue worldwide in the ONE area, that somehow people place more importance on it than all the other stone circles, or long barrows, or standing stones that are scattered across the UK.

Yes, yes, yes!

Mortuary practices!
Let's get back to the traditional way and start defleshing the dead again, then we can arrange the bones in significant patterns on the floors of communal tombs!

Yes, I love mortuary practices, it's so interesting.

I also agree with you (and with others) that large visitor numbers can be far more damaging that an archaeological dig.

Furthermore you are quite right that all the emphasis does seem to be on Stonehenga and possibly a couple of other large and famous sites.
Really all the other ancient monuments should have just as much a claim to sacredness as these.

Which makes me think that it is in many ways a political argument rather than a religious one. Stonehenge has become a symbol of the clash of one culture against another. This would date back at least to the 80's and the 'beanfield' incident. (if anyone don't know what that was, a convoy of 'new age travellers' on their way to the stonehenge free festival (a very destructive event for the stones) were stopped by the police using massive brutality toward them, including women and children).
So Stonehenge became a symbol of both the 'traveller' counter culture, and the govenments opposition to it.
The travellers spoke of the stones as sacred, even as they were damaging them and the archaeologically sensitive area around them.
Would they have held them as sacred if they had not needed to find a reason and excuse to defy the ban?
I don't know, but there if definately a political agenda there still. On both sides.

The question that interests me is why peopleconsider this site to be sacred.
There is no continuity of usage as I have already pointed out.
We barley know it's original purpose. (which I believe changed significantly between the stone and bronze ages)
Without an idea of it's purpose the people that hold it as sacred are doing so on no more than a whim, and on invented and spurious 'beliefs'.
And, from what I have seen, a lot of the people who shout the loudest, who make demands and try to say what should, or shouldn't be done, are the ones with the least knowledge, the ones who reinvent it to suit their own purpose and then support their ilogical and untenable arguments with vague talk of ancestors and auras.

Anyone can decide a place is sacred to them. I had a place once, it was under a motorway flyover, next to a filthy canal basin. But it was special to me. It was sacred in a strange and personal way that I cannot discribe.
Stone circles and chamered tombs are also sacred and special to me in the same way.

I do not, however, try to tell anyone that my own, personal feelings have any more merit than anyone elses. That they should be taken into consideration to the detriment of the country as a whole, just because that is how I think it ought to be.

If the pagans wish to be taken seriously with things like that, if they wish to argue that they are following in the path of their ancestors, and therefore should be allowed to do it now, they need to actually know what their ancestors did (and I assure you, they would not like a lot of the things they did!), not just what they want them to have done.
The only thing that can tell them this, that can give them the amunition they need to convince people in authority of the reality of the traditions they talk about, is archaeology.

Further more, 'paganism' is a catch all term that is used for many different beliefs and traditions.
If you ask 10 people why Stonehenge is sacred you will get 10 different, sometimes conradictory answers.
If pagans want to be taken seriously, if they want their beliefs to be taken into consideration, it would help if they were all saying the same thing. If their reasons were the same they would meke a much stronger lobby, that would have to be taken more seriously by those in power than a dozen disparate groups all giving different reasons.
Again, only archaology can provide this unity. An official truth about the stones from which a myriad of different practices can spring.

The comparison with the vatican is not a good one.
First of all, from what I know, there have been archaeological investigations at the vatican, even at it's most sacred heart.
Second, the vatican is the heart of catholic christianity, which has been ongoing and evolving for 1500 years, at least.
Paganism, and paganism at stonehenge is a relativly new thing, trying to build on practices and traditions that ended thouands of years ago.
If christianity had gone out of practice thousands of years ago, and new believers were trying to revive it in the present day, then they too would need to investigate their sacred places in order to know what exactly they were reviving.
Wether I like it or not, Christianity is recognised as an official religion with history and traditions, with a unifying set of beliefs that connect all the differing strands. Paganism does not have this. it is not (in Britain, at least) an official religion.
Any paganism that wishes to exploit Stonehenge as 'their' sacred place, needs archaeology if they wish to be taken seriously.

[Sierra]

The question that interests me is why peopleconsider this site to be sacred.
There is no continuity of usage as I have already pointed out.
We barley know it's original purpose. (which I believe changed significantly between the stone and bronze ages)
Without an idea of it's purpose the people that hold it as sacred are doing so on no more than a whim, and on invented and spurious 'beliefs'.
And, from what I have seen, a lot of the people who shout the loudest, who make demands and try to say what should, or shouldn't be done, are the ones with the least knowledge, the ones who reinvent it to suit their own purpose and then support their ilogical and untenable arguments with vague talk of ancestors and auras.

That's what I wonder as well. There are so many other sites older than Stonehenge, and aren't even necessarily protected, but nobody pays attention to them.

I still say if you let one group on the lands you have to let everybody on the lands, and by that rate it'll be entirely destroyed. Who benefits from it then?

I'm not saying some people shouldn't figure it to be a spiritual site, I just dislike people saying it's spiritual because the ancient pagans used it as a temple. Yes, I have heard that from a few people, and to that I say, show me the evidence. So little is known about the site, lets face it, the evidence for what it was used for is sporadic at best! If it's spiritual for you, that's great, but don't assume what the site was used for, and don't assume that you have some right above others.

Archaeology is like a 5000 piece puzzle, and every 10 years you get to find one more piece and when you have 10 pieces that fit together, you can see a little something, but you can't see the surrounding parts. It's a little extreme of an analogy, but that's what archaeology is.

WhyAngelsFall - I've yet to meet an archaeologist that has any contempt for Pagans. Archaeology is a field of taking a step back and looking at people's beliefs and practices with as little bias as possible (I say as little as possible because we are only human and aren't immune from it), but all the archaeologists I've had the pleasure of meaning follow those ethics very closly. I'm not saying this is necessarily you, but I think there may be a certain amount of hypersensitivity about Paganism for Pagans, which comes naturally after you've had to convince people that you aren't like those little spinny teens in The Craft ;).

Brenda - There are sonar/ultrasound items used in archaeology, but all that is gotten from those is WHERE to dig. It basically looks like a little dot on a screen, and you have to dig to figure out what it is, it might not even be an artifact. Not to mention when you dig you gain multitudes of information, such as what the item is made out of, microscopic pollens or resins left on the item, looking at the strata where the item is, as well as usually having to take a small bit of the item to date (dating processes destroy the portion you take, but fortunately now you can take incredibly small pieces and get good data from that). If there was just an x-ray, you could see it in the ground and go "oh great, there's an atltal" but you wouldn't know anything else, so it would be essentially useless.

[Moon Flower]

Sierra.

You say it all so well and so succinctly.

I agree absolutely.

And I would also like to say that I don't know what the hell is wrong with me...

Someone mentions archaeology, and I start writing essays!
This must be some unresolved university thing.

Someone give me a mark out of ten, and maybe I'll stop. :D