Peasant

2008-11-06T01:41:00.001Z

Here are some books I only just stopped myself buying on line today -

- Popular romances of the West of England : or the drolls, traditions and superstitions of Old Cornwall by Robert Hunt

- Legends and Folk-Lore of Devonshire. Illustrated by Cecily M. Rutley and writen by Mildred R. Lamb

or

- Devonshire: County Legend & Folk-Lore by Cecily M Rutley (may be the same book, but this one has a chapter entitled "Chagford Pixies"!)

- Tales of the Dartmoor Pixies Glimpses of Elfin Haunts by William Crossing

- Dartmoor Legends by Roberts Eva , C.

- Traditions, Legends, Superstitions, and Sketches of Devonshire by Anna Eliza Bray

or any other nice old books in a simmiller vein...

Also enjoying the music of Joanna Newsome!

If anyone feels like getting me any of these for Christmas I would be very happy indeed, espesially if they where old and battered and smelt nice...

In the stump of the old tree

2008-09-09T12:39:00.005Z

One of my favourite poems, by Hugh Sykes-Davies

Poem (‘In the stump of the old tree...’)

In the stump of the old tree, where the heart has rotted out, there is a hole the length of a man’s arm, and a dank pool at the bottom of it where the rain gathers, and the old leaves turn into lacy skeletons. But do not put your hand down to see, because

in the stumps of old trees, where the hearts have rotted out, there are holes the length of a man’s arm, and dank pools at the bottom where the rain gathers and old leaves turn to lace, and the beak of a dead bird gapes like a trap. But do not put your hand down to see, because

in the stumps of old trees with rotten hearts, where the rain gathers and the laced leaves and the dead bird like a trap, there are holes the length of a man’s arm, and in every crevice of the rotten wood grow weasel’s eyes like molluscs, their lids open and shut with the tide. But do not put your hand down to see, because

in the stumps of old trees where the rain gathers and the trapped leaves and the beak and the laced weasel’s eyes, there are holes the length of a man’s arm, and at the bottom a sodden bible written in the language of rooks. But do not put your hand down to see, because

in the stumps of old trees where the hearts have rotted out there are holes the length of a man’s arm where the weasels are trapped and the letters of the rook language are laced on the sodden leaves, and at the bottom there is a man’s arm. But do not put your hand down to see, because

in the stumps of old trees where the hearts have rotted out there are deep holes and dank pools where the rain gathers, and if you ever put your hand down to see, you can wipe it in the sharp grass till it bleeds, but you’ll never want to eat with it again.

Contemporary Poetry and Prose, 7 (Nov. 1936), 129.

Cloud faces

2008-05-21T18:56:00.001Z

Yet more trolls...

2008-05-21T18:55:00.002Z

Even More Trolls...

2008-05-21T18:52:00.001Z

More Trolls...

2008-05-21T18:50:00.002Z

Trolls..

2008-05-21T18:45:00.002Z

Family tree thing

2008-05-01T08:19:00.003Z

http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/h/i/n/Thomas-W-Hine/index.html is where I have lots of information regaurding the Hines, Burrells, Williams, Dishmans ect. that I am (barring illegitamate children!) related to.

Frederick Williams 1866-1956

Edith Williams nee Dunckley 1873-1961

My Great-Granparents (my fathers mothers parents)

2008-04-30T15:03:00.001Z

Essays - Pah!

trees!

2008-04-25T12:44:00.003Z

Piscy Mushroom Face

2008-04-25T12:28:00.004Z

...Visited Chris Godfree-Morals...

Dancing Trees

2008-04-25T12:21:00.004Z

Lovers...

...Young...

...Old...

...Dance... ...then colapse, exhasted!

Queen of trees - still being done...

2008-04-23T13:12:00.001Z

scetches - The Mouse and Cat Dance

2008-04-23T13:11:00.001Z

Green Being - calender in production

2008-04-23T13:10:00.002Z

scetches - Faerie Poem

2008-04-23T13:09:00.003Z

Scetches

2008-04-23T13:07:00.001Z

Why are Anthropologists interested in death?

2008-04-19T18:17:00.005Z

Caricature of a typical British funeral from an animation called ‘The Godson’ (Catlow et al. 2004) – here portrayed as dark, dull and miserable. Originally I wanted this opening picture to be of the inside of a British church funeral service but this proved impossible to find online, due perhaps to the solemnity of the proceedings precluding the triviality of photography. There where however many photographs of the coffin being carried to or from the church (see the discussion on later of the differing importance of the procession verses the church service when comparing Romany funerals to that of the majority in England and Wales.

It seems highly pretentious to pretend from a few books that a culture is understood, or even pretend to understand some practice carried out by that culture, particularly when dealing with concepts as powerful as death and the burial of the dead. Given that I have here the opportunity to spend a few weeks with secondhand accounts of a different culture, and not a lifetime of study within a living culture I will undoubtedly reveal, no matter how I strive against it, an ethnocentric bent to my writing and understanding. For this purpose I have chosen my own culture – reasonably mainstream English – and my own experiences of death and funerals to be one of my two ethnographic examples (henceforth I shall refer to this culture as ‘my own’). The other culture that I shall be looking at shall be that of the English and Welsh Romany Gypsies (henceforth referred to as ‘Romany’) as these people not only have been well studied over a long period of time but they also inhabit the same geographical location. Their own culture, though distinct and unique, has, in some writers accounts (Okley 1993:77-78), been shaped in opposition to that of the hegemony (as probably to a lesser extent has ours by that of the Romany’s). The customs I have highlighted in the following essay are only a few of the many associated with burial, those that seemed most useful when used in comparison.

For this essay I shall use Huntington and Metcalf’s Celebrations of Death –the Anthropology Mortuary Ritual (1980) to discuss the importance of death to Anthropology. The works of Jarman and Jarman (1998) and Okely (1993) shall be my primary sources on Romany burial practices, and finally I shall use my own experiences to inform my analyses of my own cultural practices. I was going to also use information from the local funeral directors, but unfortunately it did not display its opening times, and always seemed to be shut.

In this essay I shall be looking primarily at the differences between the two cultures burial customs and attitudes, and then through this attempt to show that these apparent differences hold many of similarities, especially when looked at through the lens of Van Gennep’s tertiary structure of ‘rites of passage’ ceremonies (Huntington and Metcalf 1998:9).

Death is in some ways the ultimate ‘right of passage’ that any culture or individual can face. It shapes our values within a society (Huntington and Metcalf 1998:5). It is universally applicable – all cultures have to deal in some way with the death of the individuals within that society (Huntington and Metcalf 1998:1). This makes it of particular interest to anthropologists looking for wide pan-cultural themes, as well as having important more local roles in ethnographic studies. The transition of an individual from life to death is accompanied by powerful feelings and reactions and thus the rituals associated with it are usually full of meaning (Huntington and Metcalf 1998:1). Death and the reaction to it seems to emphasize many of the attitudes of the culture involved, casting the participants in a harsh light of loss that brings to the fore the otherwise sometimes hidden world of identity inside. As people pass irreversibly from one state of being (that shared by all the living members of a community) to another separate one the living must do their best to cross this change in group dynamics while holding the remaining society together. Perhaps consequently to this universal and shaking up nature of death, where the edges, distinctions and common values between people are often emphasized, the study of cultures attitudes to it go right back to the origins of anthropology, with anthropologists such as Tylor, Frazer and Durkheim (who influenced the work of Van Gennep, whom I shall discuss later) all focusing on death as a way of understanding the living (Huntington and Metcalf 1998:5-8).

Another important realization (from a rational western point of view) to have about death is that it is primarily a ceremony for the living, no matter what emphasis is put upon the dead. The dead person is now a passive player in society (though many societies might protest this), their only active role being through that of their memory, emotional and cerebral. It is the living who decide what is done to the dead persons body (though their spirit may still in some cases be seen to operate as a free entity – the Ramanys would seek to control this as much as possible (Okley 1993:215-230)).

The Death-Mask taken from Ishi after he had died. This along with his brain and most of his possessions were kept without his consent or prior knowledge after he had died. It was considered by his white American friends there was “no objection” (Kreober 1961:234) to the creation this mask, though they had agreed Ishi’s body should be “touched and handled as little as possible” (Kreober 1961:233) out of respect for him.

A good illustration of the way that death ceremonies are a construct of the living people, rather than that of the dead person, is shown in the death of Ishi, “the Last Wild Indian in North America” (Kroeber 1964). When Ishi died he was treated within the hegemony with reference to his own perceived beliefs: he was burned in a crematorium, not an open wood fire, his ashes placed in an urn, not a basket and he was buried in a cemetery of the dominant American culture, not in a place of his own peoples choosing (Kroeber 1964:234-236). All this was done with respect to his friends guesses of his beliefs: he was not buried - he was burned with grave goods (“all of which we felt sure would accord with Ishi’s wishes” (Kroeber 1964:235)); and his urn was of native American origin (though not his own culture – it was also inscribed with his name that was given to him on his “discovery”). Also, in the climate of the times where native American remains where routinely retained for study and against the wishes of Ishi’s academic friends (who had now gone beyond merely studying him – one wrote afterwards “he was the best friend I had in the world” (Kroeber 1964:234)) his brain was removed and kept for study (Kroeber 1964:235). All this shows quite clearly that it is the living and the living culture who decide the fate of the dead (the focus of the study of anthropology). The dead have crossed an irreversible barrier, and the living must do their best they can for themselves and the surviving society, easing guilt and lessoning grief by reaffirming there own beliefs and principles.

This binary division of Life from Death was part of the study of ritual by Van Gennep in 1909 (Huntington and Metcalf 1998:8). Van Gennep, later developed by Turner, realized that in transitional rituals such as funerary rites (rites of passage) three stages where involved (Huntington and Metcalf 1998:9,11). In between the two states involved with a rite of passage (e.g. life/death) was a third transitional stage that he christened a ‘liminal’ stage, where the individual involved (and to some extent the community around them) where neither of one state or the other. Prior to Van Gennep’s study very few anthropologists had looked at any cases of rites of passage with thought given to this liminal stage, Hertze and his 1907 study into secondary burial being a notable exception (Huntington and Metcalf 1998:13). This development has been crucial in the development of the discipline of anthropology, as has other insight gained from the special nature of death in human societies as discussed above.

In order to apply this idea of liminality to Romany culture I shall first take a brief look at one of the principle beliefs picked up by those who have studied them, and which has a baring upon their death ceremonies. This is the concept of an inside world / outside world binary division and the possibility of polluting the inside with the outside that permeates through many aspects of Romany culture, be it from a cat polluting its body by licking its fur, to the outsider Gorgios (non-Romany) inherent Mochadi (polluted) nature compared to those of the insider Romany culture (Okely 1993:80-83,95-96).

The liminal period of the dead person in the Romany culture begins even before a person is dead. If possible the dying person is taken outside the living area, often to a hospital, not (according to Okley 1993:217) for the possibility of healing but because the place is seen as mochadi enough already not to have the living Romany world disrupted by the event. In the past a special tent would have been set up outside the camp to serve this purpose (Okley 1993:217, Jarman & Jarman 1998:26) This is the first in a long line of ritual practices designed to prevent the mixing of the living and the dead worlds, of ensuring the mulo, or ghost, (Okley 1993:193) remains apart from the living Romany’s.

A caravan burns at Brecon at the funeral of an old Welsh Romany man. Before setting it on fire the caravan was beautifully decorated inside with white cloth (Online BBC News (b) 2007).

In my own culture, in the 21st century, the polluting nature of death seems superficially more limited, almost to the point of being just to the senses themselves (if you can not see,– and defiantly not hear, smell, touch or taste - the dead person then all is well). However, a room in which somebody died could be seen as haunted and thus polluted. If it is redecorated, or maybe altered in some way in order to help remove that memory then this pollution can be removed. Maybe this is similar to the burning of the tent or caravan that a person has lived in within Romany culture (Jarman & Jarman 1998:26). Similarly within both cultures the final resting place for the dead persons body are widely seen as polluting. This appears within my own culture to apply if the individual is buried; the place where ashes are scattered after a cremation are regarded differently. In the case of the Romany, the burning of a persons body is seen as anathema. Okley (1993:222) would suggest this is connected to the ‘settling’ of the mulo after death to prevent it returning to haunt the living community.

In mainstream English and Welsh culture (at least outside the local community level) graveyards are not beyond redemption back into the world of the living, as is shown in the decision (being one such case among many) to build flats over a cemetery in Wrexam (Online BBC News (a) 2007). Here a similar theme to the removal of the dead from the seniority world at a funeral can be observed, for the flats where deemed as acceptable to be built so long as the bodies beneath them remained ‘undisturbed’. This probably is not the entire picture in this case, it is also a way of letting money exchange hands without letting its flow be disturbed by the relations of the dead, or by other non-fiscally-inspired groups, who can be told that these ancestors have been ‘respected’ – despite the fact they have now been built upon.

This in the Romany world could be seen as another example of the morchadi nature of the Gorgio. Here the world of Outside/Inside (in this case Dead/Living) has been violated to such an extent that people are now living in a realm reserved for the dead. Okley (1993:220,222) suggests that it is precisely because of the hegemony’s preserved greater respect for the sanctity from development of these places that they are chosen as sites for Romany burial, with all the church-based paraphernalia that has to be endured to insure burial. It is also suggested that the burial is also seen as the removal of the mulo from the vibrant, fluid, inside world of the Romany camp to the morchadi, dead, settled, outside world of the Gorgio, for being dead the person must stay forever in one place (Okley 1993:228). I do not hold this view, as the grave is treated with the same respect for cleanliness and beauty as the inside of a caravan, and visited often, with generations being buried in the same areas of the same graveyard (Okley 1993:226-227). This suggests to me that the dead are simply entered a different realm, still possessing a separate nature from that of the Gorgio, and have not become assimilated into the Gorgio society, despite their now sedentary nature.

Other precautions are taken to ensure that mulo remains separate from the living once the person dies. The dieing person’s (smart) clothes are turned inside out in order to help their mulo away from the body (Okley 1993:218, Jarman & Jarman 1998:27-28) symbolically turning the persons inside/outside roles into reverse, expelling them from the living world. The night before the burial the Romany’s body is then taken back to the camp where an all night wake is held, with friends and families gathering around communal bonfires. All rivalries are forgotten for the period of the funeral. This gathering could be seen as a way of re-establishing community bonds, of ensuring stability at a difficult time. Within my own culture this bonding period seems to usually take place after the internment, when everyone returns to the persons house. I can remember in particular at the funeral of my 14 year old cousin my family gathering together and the older generation telling family stories that we in the younger generation knew by heart, even being prompted by us to tell stories we all knew. No mention was made of my cousin until right at the very end before we said goodbye. The family have been in much closer contact ever since. Thus the gathering of family and a reaffirming of these bonds at a time of crises such as at a funeral can be inscribed into the rituals associated with it.

Large procession preceding the burial of the man mentioned in the preceding photograph (Online BBC News (b) 2007)

Small groups of relatives keep watch on the body in an open coffin (Okley 1993:217, Jarman & Jarman 1998:27). This watching over the body may occasionally occur in my own culture, I have at least one friend who spent the night by her sister in an open coffin with her mother and partner, but this seems unusual, it is more likely that the body will arrive the day of the burial already safely sealed within their coffin. One major characteristic of the Welsh and English funeral in recant years (even when excluding from consideration those not culturally of English or Welsh origin) is the diversity and opening up of different kinds of funeral practices and rituals. These range from a ‘traditional’ funeral, through a plethora of humanist funerals and beyond, with many people taking and adapting (or even inventing) various funeral rites to fit the individual and their family and friends, possibly as a result of both the collapse of religious power and rise in individualism within our society (e.g. Humanisim.org 2007). This phenomenon is also affecting Romany funerals, with older individuals within this community bemoaning the fact that traditional funerals are dieing out (Online BBC News (b) 2007). This could be used to show how closely interwoven the two cultures actually are, sharing both the land and being affected by each others politics.

One major way that the two cultures differ is in the gathering attending the burial. In my own culture even if the individual who has died is known quite well unless the family (or maybe close friends) have invited you you would not turn up to the funeral. In Romany culture importance is attached to how many as well as who is present. In the procession from the camp to the graveside (maybe via the church) the more people of Romany origin who attend the better, with importance also being attached to Gorgio onlookers. The numbers attending is seen as an indicator of how important a role the person played in Romany society, and thus how good a Romany they were. This indicates to me the strong identity of the Romany culture, and the importance of ensuring its cohesion in the face of a much larger society.

Another difference lies in the different importance given within the two cultures to the church/crematorium ceremony and the actual burial/cremation. Romany funerals are focused more towards the procession to and gathering at the graveside (Okley 1993:220, 218), the place which henceforth shall become an inside area for the dead person. It is here the grief of the family is expressed most strongly (or even acted out – a practice to elevate the importance of the dead person, and consequently the remaining family as well) as well as symbolic gestures given towards the locking out of the mulo from the living world. These might include floral ‘gates of heaven’, not seen as keeping the evil out of heaven, but on keep the dead in (Okley 1993:226). Within my own culture, at least in the more traditional settings, the church ceremony is seen as the important component, with the actual deposition treated almost as an afterthought. In my own experience of cremation ceremonies the actual placing of the body in the place where it is burnt and its firing up is removed entirely, being replaced instead with an electronic curtain.

This division could be thought of as symbolic of the Christian importance associated with the soul over that of the body. However, as Romany culture is also broadly Christian (Okley 1993:216), I would associate another meaning to it. I would see it as a hangover from a time when the church was a very powerful political and spiritual force within mainstream society and this level of importance would be reflected (and actively encouraged) by a focusing on the church at a time when people are at their most fragile. It also serves to connect with the other important rites of passage within a persons life, their christening and marriage.

Finally there is an interesting division between the treatment of the belongings of the dead within the two cultures. In traditional Romany culture the belongings would be burnt, along with the caravan or tent within which a person lived (though they could also be sold to Gorgios if they where considered very valuable) (Okley 1993:222, Jarman & Jarman 1998:27). Even their animals may have been destroyed in the past (Jarman & Jarman 1998:26). This was seen as a fear of the mulo being drawn back to their belongings (Jarman & Jarman 1998:27) (see ‘Into The West’ (Newell 1993) for a filmic example of this happening when a husband fails to burn his wife’s caravan). Small keepsakes such as photographs where kept, though not on display, and money was also kept by the family (Okley 1993:222,225). Any relation made homeless by the destruction of the van was give money by the community (perhaps another effort to ensure unity within the society). If a caravan was particularly valuable then before the person died they could be given a cheaper one to live out the last of there life in, and this would be later destroyed. In my own culture the valuable belongings of a person would typically be shared out according to their wishes as set down in their will, with other objects being taken as a keepsake. In a way, the ‘polluting’ of an object with a persons spirit is seen as what makes it valuable, and what affords it special treatment above that accorded to it by its utilitarian or monetary value.

Anthropology can learn a lot from the burial customs of individual cultures, especially to highlight the similarities and differences between two cultures. For example, in relation to the Romany funeral components like the all night wake, ban on rivalries and mass inclusive procession all serve to show and emphasize strength and separate (unified) identity of a minority culture in the face of a majority. This pattern of constantly reaffirming cultural identity, and creating clear boundaries between those inside it from outside it is not so clear in the mainstream English and Welsh funeral, indicating the less immediate threat to cultural identity. However, the many-faceted division of modern funeral rights in both cultures may indicate a growing sense of individualism (or conversely a collapse of monolithic cultural identity) throughout England and Wales, and probably, though beyond the scope of this essay, across the western world. In addition to this role of individual cultural insight the study of burial customs can and has also been used to look at some fairly universal components of human cultures, for instance Van Gennip’s rites of passage theory.

Bibliography

Catlow, B., C. Catlow & L. Catlow 2004 The Godson 3 bear animations. Available from: http://www.3bears.co.uk/btsgodson/btsgodson.html [Accessed:2/28/2007]

Humanisim.org 2007 Humanist Funerals British Humanist association. Available from: http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentviewarticle.asp?article=1176 [Accessed:2/28/2007]

Huntingdon, R. & Metcalf, P. 1980 Celebrations Of Death – The Anthropology Of Mortuary Ritual Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Jarman, A. O. H. & E. Jarman 1998 The Welsh Gypsies – Children of Abram Wood Cardiff: University of Wales Press

Kroeber, T. 1964 Ishi – In Two Worlds – A Biography Of The Last Wild Indian In North America Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press

Newell, M 1992 Into The West Miramax Films

Okley, J 1993 The Traveler-Gypsies Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

· Online BBC News (a) 2007 Graveyard flats 'morally wrong' British Broadcasting Association. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6335935.stm [Accessed:2/28/2007]

Online BBC News (b) 2007 Respects paid as caravan burns British Broadcasting Association. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/3031922.stm [Accessed:2/28/2007]

perhaps I should go to sleep, instead of looking at youtube

2008-04-18T14:49:00.005Z

TRANCE, PHAT, E, ACID...

Are they good for you? Oooh hydrodginated!

I prefure butter...

Chagford

2008-04-17T15:44:00.002Z

Scorhill

The Pepperpot

The three hares, or Tinners Rabbits

Any thoughts?

CHAGFORD

2008-03-19T18:49:00.003Z

Looking for information about identity of place in chagford - just a plea in the darkness for my undergraduate disertation...

What comes to mind when you read the word Chagford?

Buildings?
tastes?
smells?
music?
emotions?
history?
myth?
confusion?

Any comments greatfully received while I think about how this dissertation thing might work....

The Man In The Corner

2008-03-12T19:10:00.001Z

There once was a man
Though you wouldn’t know it
He sat in the corner
But only when the crowds where thin

When the music suited his skimming mind
When the light cast no shadows
When the earth was closed
And the sky was all there was

And in his dark corner he sat,
The beer blundered through his fingers
And dragged down his fractured mind
And on that day she saw him

She was the Goddess of the floor
The Goddess of the sky
The Goddess of the brightest light
AND SHE SAW HIM
And he looked up

~*~

There was no lightning
No thunder cracking bolt
But when the dancers looked around
The dark corner was grey

In the pub the burnt out people
Pirouetted to a halt
Their frames where lead
Their feet soft clay

They drew in
Then out
No one left to prop up
The dark corner
That placed them in the light

They went home
They left the womb

As they trundled back
A few looked up
At the burnt stars
Cinders of distant suns
They saw her light

She was there
She was there
But at her back
The black flamed,
In velvet blossomed sky

And she stood proud
She stood bright
For the moon was
Never fuller
Than on the
DARKEST NIGHT

Abstract Footage to music

2008-03-12T15:34:00.004Z

If this works then horrah!

And a rock face....

2008-03-12T15:30:00.001Z

Looks like they are sleeping...

Faces in trees! (and a person)

2008-03-12T15:26:00.000Z

More tree being pictures...

some more tree people

2008-03-12T00:56:00.001Z

tree people

2008-03-12T00:47:00.002Z

Tree people from the internet. Hope I am not braking anyones copywrite thing by gathering theim in one place...

2008-03-06T22:25:00.000Z

Cader Idris - February 2008

Stonehenge, Politics and Archaeology

2008-03-03T11:24:00.005Z

In this essay I will be looking at how far archaeology could be considered to be a political practice. This is a very large question to be answered in within the word-count. Because of this I will be focusing on one area, namely the influence that archaeological remains and their interpretation can have on wider political activities. I will be using the example of Stonehenge to illustrate this, with particular reference to the events of the solstice of 1985 that became know as ‘the Battle of the Beanfield’. I shall not be looking in any depth at the flipside of this approach, the effect of politics upon the archaeological discipline (Shanks 2006:6).

I will look at the history of political connections to Stonehenge, starting with a brief review of some of the historical political appropriations of the monument, before turning to the modern day. For this I will first focus on the connections the monument has with the ‘alternative’ scene in Britain, then look at ‘the Battle of the Beanfield’ and its background. Finally I will compare Stonehenge with another similar monument, Balfarg/Balbirnie, and how differently it is treated due to its lesser political, not archaeological, importance. Through out this I shall assess the information in light of the question set. The main sources I will be using Cippindale et al’s “Who owns Stonehenge?”(1990) and Barbra Bender’s “Stonehenge: Making Space” (1998) primarily, though not exclusively, for their insights into the views of the Archaeologists. I shall also extensively use Andy Worthington’s collection of interviews and essays in his book “The Battle of the Beanfield” (2005) to provide an outline of the beanfield event itself. It must be acknowledged that Worthington's book has a slight bias toward the views of the travelers and festival-goers being, in his own words, an attempt to “redress the balance” of media misinterpretation (2005:1).

In its early recorded history until the 17th century Stonehenge kept a relatively low profile, after which early antiquaries and tourists started to take an interest in it (Chippindale 1983:173). One important exception lies in the early 12th century author Geoffrey of Monmouth’s book “History of England” (Cippindale et al 1990:13) that could be seen as an early use of the monument as a political tool, supporting mythical classical roots to British society (Cippindale et al 1990:69).

Aubrey, in 17th century, and later Stukley, in the 18th, both linked Stonehenge (incorrectly) to the Druids (Sebastian 1990:96, Greene 1995:22) and, in the case of Stukley, these druids are connected to the old testament (Bender 1998:111). To Welsh nationalists Stonehenge and its druidical connections symbolized ancient British and not classical roots (Bender 1998:112). Stonehenge was being used as a tool to legitimize Britain’s place in the world of the 18th centaury. For these people Stonehenge had enormous theological and political connotations (Bender 1998:111)

It has, since the 17th century, become a very important area for the study of British archaeology, both in the development of the discipline and in understanding British prehistory (Cippindale et al 1990:14). From this time on Stonehenge began to acquire more and more visitors, some of them quite destructive (Cippindale et al 1990:14-16). The land was in private ownership but it was not until 1900, when erosion from visitors caused two of the stones to fall that the land was fenced and the footpath that had previously run through the monument closed (Chippindale 1983:174). This event caused uproar at the time; many people saw Stonehenge as a creation beyond the ownership of individuals, as a monument that could properly belong only to the people of Britain (Chippindale 1983:174).

In 1918 the last private landlord gave Stonehenge to the government, and received (in return?) a knighthood, with the 600ha of surrounding country being bought by public appeal for the National Trust to manage (Cippindale et al 1990:16). If it is correct to say that Stonehenge was swapped directly for the knighthood, then this is evidence of how archaeological remains can directly influence the political control of a nation.

From 1905 until the 1970’s (and more recently they do so again) Druid revivalists celebrated the solstice at Stonehenge, in line with Aubrey’s original interpretation (Bender 1998:126) but at odds with more modern archaeological interpretations. To these people Stonehenge had acquired a status that was no longer ‘a curiosity’ or an archaeological artifact, but a dynamic part of today’s reality. This dimension also exists for some people outside the druidic tradition and one only has to look at documentation put out by groups such as the ‘Antiquarian Society’, an organisation that focuses the spiritual dimensions of ancient remains and natural phenomena, to appreciate this (The Antiquarian Society 2006). It could be said, as Shanks does, (1992:27-28) that this reaction against archaeological approaches is because archaeology is seen as operating using “contemporary capital[ist]” (1992:28) ideologies, treating the world as a collection of items to be controlled and utilised for self-interest.

In 1974 the first Stonehenge free festival (an inherently anti-capitalist event) took place not far from the monument itself (Worthington 2005:12). These people where less tolerated at Stonehenge than the druids had been, perhaps being less conductive to the paid tourism, (Bender 1998:126). The scattering of the ashes of the initial organizer, Phil Russell, whom some saw as being murdered by the state, initiated the first large illegal invasion by festival goers of Stonehenge (Worthington 2005:15). The free-festivalers resented what they saw as exclusive dictatorial approach of Stonehenge’s appointed managers to when and by whom the monument could be used (Worthington 2005:16). In many ways this was a resurfacing (in a different guise) of the uproar caused by the first closing of the monument to the public (see above). By the 1980’s the festival had become the central point for the ‘alternative’ scene, (Worthington 2005:12) with Stonehenge being seen as an intrinsic element of the event (Bender 1998:199).

What changed was the politics of the people involved. (Worthington 2005:21)In the lead up to the 1985 festival, the travelling component of the ‘alternative’ community in Britain was coming under an increasingly heavy handed treatment from the police (Worthington 2005:24). Political pressure was also being brought to bare upon these sections of society (although around this time the higher levels of the political establishment believed “…there is no such thing as society” – Margaret Thatcher, 1987) (www.margaretthatcher.org 2006a) Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister, set herself against those participating in the alternative scene, and is recorded as having said “I am only to delighted to do anything I can to make life difficult for such things as hippy convoys”, (www.margaretthatcher.org 2006b) with Tory MP Robert Key suggesting the use of troops in the removal of mass nomadic squats (Bender 1998:115). Indeed, the eviction of one camp saw “the largest peacetime mobilisation of troops in the UK” (Worthington 2005:24)

In 1985 the National Trust, English Heritage and 17 others issued a ‘precautionary injunction’ against 83 named individuals (Cippindale et al 1990:151), threatening further injunctions against organizations like St Johns Ambulance (Worthington 2005:25) in an attempt to stop the festival taking place. It is hard to understand how the removal of 83 individuals from an anarchic, leaderless event could have made a serious impact on reducing damage to the monument, unless this stemmed merely from a complete misunderstanding of the nature of a different culture. Another (less kind) interpretation might be that they realized that this could be used as a justification to target everyone involved.

The reasoning given behind the injunctions was that it was considered that the free festival constituted a threat to the integrity of the archaeology of the Stonehenge surroundings (Cippindale et al 1990:147). This is surprising, given that the festival field had been deep ploughed in the 1970’s and that in 1985 a 4.6 meter by 1.8 meter ditch was dug to prevent the festival site being used, with more dug in 1989 (Cippindale et al 1990:147). Chippindale states in his 1983 article for Antiquity that the solstice two day invasion of the monument that year left “no immediate sign of damage” (:177).

This may be why the stones are now reopened to the public for solstice (English Heritage 2006) as a result of a House of Lords ruling and further invasions of the monument from those wishing to celebrate the solstice there (Worthington 2005:229). This reopening may also in part result from the fact that the free festival is now dead, due in part to changes in the law (Worthington 2005:212). Note the new attitude taken by English Heritage in the last lines of their document ‘Summer Solstice 2006 Conditions for Entry’ given to those who wish to attend – “We hope the weather will be kind and wish you a peaceful and celebratory summer solstice” (English Heritage 2006:7). This stands in stark contrast to the events of the 1st of June, 1985.

On this day a convoy of travellers and festival goers headed towards the festival site near Stonehenge ignoring police warnings to stay away (Worthington 2005:60) and where stopped by roadblocks eight miles from the henge (they never actually reached the ‘exclusion zone’ set out in the injunction) (Worthington 2005:34). The convoy pulled up into a field beside the roadblock, around the same time as having some of their vehicles smashed by police (Worthington 2005:36,61,97-98,142). The police, who when all evidence is taken into account, seem to have set out with the intention of arresting all present (Worthington 2005) then prevented them from leaving the field, unless into police custody, (Worthington 2005:83) while reinforcements were arriving (Worthington 2005:122). This is despite offers by the travelers to leave and even to be escorted “as far as Newcastle” (Worthington 2005:82) and therefore achieving the (reported) primary objective of protecting the integrity of Stonehenge.

What followed when the final arrests came was in many cases violent. This description, I think, dose not give an adequate description of the events, so I will outline a few individual occurrences: a heavily pregnant women being hit with a truncheon, babies showered with glass; people being dragged by their hair through broken windows; police throwing grapefruit-sized lumps of flint through the windscreens of moving vehicles; 12 year old children sitting in riot vans watching while someone was beaten unconscious (Worthington 2005:52,100,104,108,174). In the follow up to these events children were separated from their parents and homes where looted, destroyed or made uninhabitable. (Worthington 2005:53,71) Over 500 people where arrested, (Fowler 1990:151) of which 70 where latter successfully charged and almost all of them had pleaded guilty to minor offences (Worthington 2005:161). Those who pleaded not guilty were almost entirely acquitted (Worthington 2005:161). 21 people successfully sued the police force for events relating to that day, despite the best efforts of the judge (Worthington 2005:147,150). When considering that all this was done (supposedly) to protect an ancient monument from possibly being damaged it becomes obvious that wider issues than Stonehenge where at stake.

With the benefit of hindsight, given friction between the police and traveling people in the lead up to the solstice the outcome becomes fairly inevitable. The festival at Stonehenge saw the majority of the new traveling community gathering in place. It happened to be a well known archaeological site, with plenty of archaeological and public sympathies to be played upon to give justification to any activities undertaken by the police. Perhaps one unexpected side effect was that it “martyred” the festival, and intensified traveler connection to revivalist pagan traditions (Worthington 2005:217) – and therefore with ancient (‘archaeological’) monuments, politicizing the remains still further.

Compare this ultra-precautionary approach taken by the government and the public landlords (English Heritage and the National Trust) in 1985, using the archaeology as a justification, (Shanks 1992:59) and to a by no means total threat, with that of another henge, Balfarg/Balbirnie by Glenrothes, Scotland in 1977/8 that was completely removed to make way for housing (Barkley and Russell-White 1993:49). This henge was connected with a less visually impressive stone circle (moved in 1970/71 to make way for a road) (Barkley and Russell-White 1993:49) and had with fewer outlying features, in a less archaeologically famous area of the country (Barkley and Russell-White 1993:43) (Cleal et al 1995:0-1). But it also has less of an archaeological history of excavations on the site. This latter factor could be seen as giving Balfarg/Balbirne a higher priority for preservation in situe, as Stonehenge has been widely excavated and preserved in record (Cleal et al 1995).

Baring this comparison in mind there appear to be relationships of power and control at play around the practice of archaeological that show it as being far from politically neutral. This arises because archaeology is merely an academic discipline in a larger political world and as such its operators as well as its operations are influenced by current political and cultural trends. Nobody called in riot-police when a large ditch was dug through the Stonehenge avenue in 1979 to insert a telephone cable, (Cippindale et al 1990:133) because this action was considered legitimate by the state.

In conclusion, I hope to have shown through the example of Stonehenge that ‘archaeological’ remains, even the operational requirements of the discipline, can have serious present day political connotations. The artifacts and theories that archaeologists study are not neutral, they are heavily charged with political power and influence. Sometimes real present day lives can be altered by the actions taken and not taken by in the pursuit of archaeological knowledge (even in modern Britain). In asking ‘to what extent is archaeology a political practice’ I think the answer has to be that it is intrinsically so. The past influences how one thinks about oneself and how one views the world and each other. This is probably its fascination.

Bibliography

· Barclay, G.J. and C.J. Russell-White, 1993. Excavations in the ceremonial complex of the fourth to second millennium BC at Balfarg/Balbirnie, Glenrothes, Fife. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 123: 43-210

· BBC 2006 On This Day June 1st BBC.co.uk. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/1/newsid_2493000/2493267.stm [Accessed 30/11/2006]

· Bender, B. 1998 Stonehenge: Making Space Oxford: Berg
· Cleal, R.M.J., K.E. Walker and R. Montague 1995 Stonehenge In Its Landscapes: Twentieth-Century Excavations English Heritage : Archaeological Report 10

· Chippindale, C. 1983 What Future For Stonehenge? Antiquity (57) pp172-180

· Chippindale, C., P. Devereux, P. Fowler, R. Jones and T. Sebastian 1990 Who owns Stonehenge? London: B. T. Batsford Ltd

· English Heritage 2006 Summer Solstice 2006 Conditions for Entry English Heritage http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/Conditions_Entry2006v6.pdf

· Greene, K. 1995 Archaeology: an introduction London: B.T. Batsford Ltd

· Lodge, A. 2005 Stonehenge And ‘The Battle Of The Beanfeild’ Available from: http://tash.gn.apc.org/sh_bean.htm [Accessed 01/12/2006]

· Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2006a Interview for Woman’s Own (“no such thing as society”)1987 Sep 23 Margaret Thatcher Foundation. Available from: http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=106689 [Accessed 30/11/2006]

· Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2006b House of Commons PQs 1986 Jun 5 Margaret Thatcher Foundation. Available from: http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=106413 [Accessed 30/11/2006]

· Shanks, M. 1992 Experiancing The Past London: Routledge

· Worthington, A 2005 The Battle Of The Beanfeild Teighmouth, Devon: Enabler Publications

2008-02-28T17:31:00.006Z

From Birth to Death. My Granny Annie Hine (nee Williams) and probably my Grampa Gordon Withers Hine [with a brother] and their grave.

2008-02-28T15:53:00.002Z

What to exspect of Lampeter University... A walk in the woods can leed to some unexspected encounters...

2008-02-28T15:50:00.001Z

2008-02-28T15:38:00.003Z

Dragon Tree

Beneath the tired ferment
They stretch their night time claws,
Seeking out the bones of those
Who fell to natures wars.

Nurture hotly coursing
through the xylem of the stem
exploding open flaming bluds
to drink the sun again.

Mighty scales, cloaking clad,
Sweet flowers for their wives;
Their nectar overflowing love
Vast wings of burrowed lives.

The brittle bolt of winter
Finds the armours chink once more
And gold and forest pearl are shed
Gift smoke from antlered form

The circle of the tree complete,
A circle never done,
A circle never starting yet,
Nor finished, nor begun…

2007-03-18T23:25:00.000Z

The sculpture as she burned...

2007-03-18T23:01:00.001Z

A drawing I did reciantlyish of a woman hearding a hare with a stick and a cat...

2007-03-18T22:00:00.000Z

Broken Twig

A twisted form of green backed lichen bone
Who had danced to the winds hollow hand
Now poised, broken ends flung down
Toe-pointed elegance upon the solid land

~*~
This is our destiny, fate uncoiled
Set free and carried in life’s lovers wild arms
We who'd brake your trust can not,
For even in death we're held in your charms