People care about ancient monuments for a host of cultural, spiritual, religious, social, economic, political and personal reasons. Yet the UK archaeological community persists in not fully recognising and respecting the often deeply-felt care and connection many people feel to heritage sites and ancient monuments as well as the upset and anger people can experience when they learn of their accidental or wanton disturbance or desecration. Indeed, archaeologists and heritage practitioners, sometimes collectively (if thankfully rarely), show their disdain for those that have spiritual and other unconventional, magical or personal affinities to monuments and the landscape.
Such a negative, simplistic and denigrating response was recently and prominently illustrated by the 19 December 2023 ‘open letter’ signed by 1,207 archaeologists and others criticising the Stonehenge Alliance for political campaigning against the construction of a new road tunnel through the World Heritage Site. That letter claimed it wanted the ‘Stonehenge Debate’ to be ‘reframed’. While it contained many valid points regarding the need to avoid mischaracterising archaeological mitigation work and demonising professional archaeologists doing that work, it set as context the desire for the ‘rhetoric’ of the anti-road/tunnel campaign to be ‘toned down’ seemingly inspired by social media claims by the Stonehenge Alliance and its supporters towards the timeless sacrality of the landscape. Thus, the letter contrived a stark opposition of archaeologists to those with spiritual affinities with the Stonehenge landscape – including those who perceive ancestral connections to the Stonehenge environs and its planned transformation by road-building as ‘desecration’. For these others, including campaigners as part of the Stonehenge Alliance, the letter lay the accusation of ‘opening the door to an archaeological narrative of ethno-natonalism’.
This stance is very disappointing. Certainly, spiritual claims of timeless ancestry can be an integral part of ethno-nationalist and white supremacist discourses surrounding archaeological narratives, sites, monuments, buildings and landscapes. There are many who will stoke outrage to defend statues, memorials and other historic buildings they didn’t care about until they could weaponise heritage against minority groups. But this is a simplification and grossly misleading without context and for multiple reasons, and not fairly applied in this instance.
First, it is deeply hypocritical given the signatories included academics and heritage professionals that have long played fast-and-loose with ethno-nationalistic narratives and framings of the human past in Britain for prehistory and historical eras including those utilising the term ‘ancestors’ and the ‘sacred’ in a broad and unspecific way. It’s a bit rich to blame Pagans for doing the same and following archaeologists’ lead!
Second, it’s also hypocritical since organisatons and individuals involved have long stayed silent on the misuse of ethno-nationalistic narratives by British authorities and institutions on multiple scales to characterise Britishness, Englishness, and the island’s story from archaeological evidence which perpetuate and promote hatred of specific religious, ethnic and other marginalised groups. Equally on a global scale, including current conflict zones in Ukraine and Gaza, cultural genocide is being perpetrated without a peep from many UK archaeological voices. Similarly, few UK archaeologists who are signatories have spoken out about the UK governments anti-immigration rhetoric drawing explicitly on Britain’s deep-time past, for example.
Third, it presents a needlessly simplified and unevidenced opposition between ‘experts’ and ‘enthusiasts’: the latter framed as somehow ‘fringe’ and lacking credibility for caring about the development of the countryside – natural and cultural – and the tangible and intangible heritages it embodies. Again, it seems the archaeology and heritage communities are out of step and missing opportunities for positive engagement.
This combination of issues fosters and encourages the ‘establishment’ and ‘ivory tower elitist’ framing of archaeologists and ‘archaeology’ as not for or by people. This allows non-professionals, spiritual and faith communities to be instead excluded from archaeological discourses and facilitates their absorption within pseudoarchaeological and extremist political parables. A preferred solution would be for constructive dialogue with campaigners and local people to combat misinformation and misuses of the archaeological record and mischaracterisations of the archaeological profession.
I publicly distance myself from this divisive stance. In particular, as a mortuary archaeologist, I’m fully aware that it is often prehistoric, historic and contemporary burial sites, cemeteries and funerary monuments – places and spaces of the dialogue between the living and the dead – are the focus of the most heated controversies and the most passionate and heartfelt concerns regarding the respect of the dead and their legacy for today’s world and for future generations. For these places, the historians and folklorists, as well as archaeologists and heritage specialists, risk repeatedly alienating contemporary users and visitors of these places, as well as those with affinities with the deep-time stories they can tell us, by not engaging with, and tackling, concerns and questions regarding their investigation and development as well as their neglect and vandalism.
There have been many controversies and archaeologists often find themselves on different ‘sides’ in individual public debates about heritage protecton and heritage crime, but now it is the turn of the Clava Cairns near Inverness: a site I worked on as a student at the University of Reading for a project directed by Professor Richard Bradley. In this instance, I find myself firmly on the side of those criticising the removal of items from the site. This is a particularly interesting case study since, while there have been previous instances of vandalism and ongoing multiple uses of the sites by a range of groups for religious and political purposes, the outrage is sparked over the taking of a single pebble! Morever, this pebble seemingly has no archaeological value, but has sparked a controversy nonetheless as being perceived as integral to the site and removed without permission and potentially in breach of the law.
Clava is an Early Bronze Age funerary landscape in which there are three monuments – two passage graves and one ring cairn – each surrounded by a stone circle within a guardianship area – Balnuaran of Clava. These are located on a ridge above the River Nairn within a drystone walled enclosure and a setting of trees: a contemporary environment that affords tranquility and a sense of sanctity discrete and discreet from the surrounding landscape. These monuments are the focus of a wider cluster of Early Bronze Age tombs relict amidst farmland but another monument is also accessible at Milton to the south-west. These monuments have long attracted tourists and visitors but this intense interest – particularly the proximity to the Culloden historic battlefield – but this has increased of late due to the site’s status as a source of inspiration for the Outlander books and TV series.
The recent controversy relates to a visit to the Clava Cairns with a local tour guide by a Florida resident on holiday who describes themselves as a witch and who has a sizeable social media following. She picked up some small items from the guardianship area as mementoes and subsequently shared the cuttings from a tree and a pebble on social media. Many reacted negatively, including Scottish witches, who pointed out the spiritual and ethical issues with taking away items, no matter how small, from an ancient burial site. Many have called for the ‘#returnthestone’.
I was asked by multiple creators to share a perspective as a professor specialising in the archaeology of death and here is my video.
Now it should go without saying but it is worth reiterating that I do not condone abuse or harassment of any social media creator or user, and certainly not on grounds of their age, gender, ethnicity, race, nationality or religion. Hence, while I made reference to the ‘witchtok’ controversy, my points were not geared to the actions of that singular individual who took the stone, but to try and utilise this as an opportunity to share responsible guidance on the harm that looting and casual interventions and removals of items – even if merely humble items unconnected with the ancient monument’s structure itself – from a protected ancient monument can be. Even if a recent addition to the guardianship area: to people who care for the site it is as integral to the landscape as the ancient monuments themseles.
Likewise, I’m not an expert on the legality of the removal of the stone based on the partial information and shifting narratives associated with its ‘acquisition’. Still, there are clear ethical and moral issues not only in the act of the tourist and their claims that ‘permission’ was granted by landscapers and tour guides, but to the promoting of such activities via social media when so many of Britain’s (including Scotland’s) ancient monuments are subject to casual neglect, accidental damage, as well as concerted vandalism and looting. The sense among those reacting to the furore that the Clava Cairns are ‘ancestral’ and linked to ‘Scotland’s past’ is indeed an ethno-nationalist framing, but it need not be a negative one if it can be used as an gateway to engage non-academics in the importance of these monuments. Caring for the Clava Cairns is not irredeemibly ‘racist’ or ‘nationalist’ in itself!
To my surprise, I found that, without permission (presumably they felt none was required as my TikTok post was publicly available), the MailOnline quoted extensively from my video in a news story posted yesterday, as follows.
I despair at seeing the MailOnline unable to characterise the Clava Cairns accurately and instead call them a ‘stone circle’ and ‘Pictish’, and I am frustrated to see this publicity serves to conjure further xenophobia against Americans and tourists. But still, I hope it this incident serves as a teachable moment to shed light on the value of archaeological heritage and how much people care about their local, regional and national monuments outside the profession and the academy.
What now? On a TikTok live I hosted last evening it was confirmed that the person who took it will indeed by returning the stone to the monument. So the #returnthestone informal social media campaign, including the press attention, seems to have worked! Moving forward, we can think of ways academics and heritage professionals can support such initiatives at short notice and via social media and serve as allies to avocational advocates for the historic environment. Yet to do so requires us to support others, not talk over or down to non-specialists! This is what I think I successfully did in this instance by giving information and perspective as an academic to voices who lack the training and knowledge about the archaeological heritage. It is important to respect the spirituality of these places as well as the archaeological value of these sites, and these are not in agendas opposition and can together be drawn upon to build a consensus for the custodionship of these monuments for the future.
In the past, I’ve tried to educate via social media regarding responsible behaviours at heritage sites and ancient monuments. I’ve made clear that the focus should not be only blaming only or primarily international tourists or ‘Outlander fans’ (or similar niche groups) for such damage and activities at funerary sites and monuments. This applies to witches, many of whom have been proactive campaigning and distancing themselves from such behaviours of taking stones, twigs and other items from protected ancient monuments and their environs. Thus, it is important to avoid thinly veiled xenophobia and deriding marginalised groups in targeting those who visit ancient monuments and landscapes and through ignorance or misadventure cause damage or disrespect. Also, and more widely, I repeatedly highlight how spiritual communities and faith groups are some of our greatest allies in promoting responsible education, engagement, conservation and management for our historic environment. And so, while the ‘pebblegate’ drama is perhaps a storm in a teacup, it should be a salutary lesson for the heritage sector: whether megalithic monuments or tiny pebbles from a path, we must recognise that people passionately care about the archaeology and heritage of death and memory: Archaeodeath. Dismissing or ignoring these concerns, including those by witches and local people, is at best a dick move, at worst a missed opportunity for constructive stakeholder liaison and dialogue on a global scale.
Archaeo𝔡𝔢𝔞𝔱𝔥 