You are currently browsing the monthly archive for March 2009.

by Littlestone
All is still
Image credit Willow
Emmeline Fisher was born in 1825 in Poulshot, Wiltshire and died (aged 39) in 1864. Her mother was William Wordsworth’s first cousin. Although Emmeline published a book of verse in 1856 she is perhaps best remembered today for the poem she wrote on the opening of Dean Merewether’s 1849 tunnel into Silbury. The poem, along with other items, was placed in a ceramic urn and left at the end of the Merewether tunnel where it lay undisturbed for some 160 years. The urn was finally unearthed by Richard Atkinson during his and the BBC’s ‘activities’ there at the end of the 1960s. This 1849 Silbury ‘time capsule’ was at some point then deposited in the Alexander Keiller Museum at Avebury where it seems to have languished unnoticed until 2005. The urn itself has subsequently been ’lost’ but its contents, including Emmeline Fisher’s poem, are kept (though sadly not displayed) at the Alexander Keiller Museum. Mike Pitts, who was for some time curator at the Alexander Keiller Museum, discusses the contents of the urn (and Emmeline Fisher’s poem) in the January-February 2008 issue of the British Archaeology Magazine.*
It’s interesting to speculate why Emmeline Fisher, a young woman of 24 and Wordsworth’s second cousin, should have written her poem in the way that she did.** For example Emmie alludes, in the last few lines of the poem, to what seems to be the ‘pagan’ practice of strewing (human) ashes amid the corn and, by comparison, the Christian practice of interment? Was there some renewed interest in paganism and Druidism at the time Emmie wrote her poem that was rattling the Church authorities, of which her father was a respected member?
Who knows, but one thing is certain, after some 160 years Emmeline Fisher’s poem, with its apology to our forefathers who built Silbury, stands as the only half-decent thing ever to have been placed within the structure by modern hands. Thankfully even Emmie’s poem is no longer there, though sadly the Atkinson/BBC’s corroding iron tunnel work struts of the late 1960s (not to mention English Heritage’s thousands of plastic sacks of the early 21st century) still are.***
 English Heritage’s 2008 ‘conservation’ project at Silbury


The envelope

Emmie’s poem was placed in an envelope with the following inscription, on the obverse, in the same hand (hers?) as the poem itself –
Lines on the Opening of
Silbury Hill, written by
Miss Emmeline Fisher,
Daughter of The Reverend William
Fisher, Canon of Salisbury and
Rector of Poulshot in Wiltshire
August 1849.


The poem in the urn
Suggested by the opening
made in Silbury Hill,
Aug 3rd 1849
Bones of our wild forefathers, O forgive,
If now we pierce the chambers of your rest,
And open your dark pillows to the eye
Of the irreverent Day! Hark, as we move,
Runs no stern whisper through the narrow vault?
Flickers no shape across our torch-light pale,
With backward beckoning arm? No, all is still.
O that it were not! O that sound or sign,
Vision, or legend, or the eagle glance
Of science, could call back thy history lost,
Green Pyramid of the plains, from far-ebbed Time!
O that the winds which kiss thy flowery turf
Could utter how they first beheld thee rise;
When in his toil the jealous Savage paused,
Drew deep his chest, pushed back his yellow hair,
And scanned the growing hill with reverent gaze, –
Or haply, how they gave their fitful pipe
To join the chant prolonged o’er warriors cold. –
Or how the Druid’s mystic robe they swelled;
Or from thy blackened brow on wailing wing
The solemn sacrificial ashes bore,
To strew them where now smiles the yellow corn,
Or where the peasant treads the Churchward
Emmeline Fisher (1825-1864) 
NB Both the paper on which the poem is written and the envelope which held it appear to be handmade (it’s difficult to tell from the photo in the British Archaeology Magazine but the bottom and right-hand side of the letter-paper seem to have a deckle edge). The ink may be made from oak gall which means it’s probably acidic and will eventually eat though the paper if left untreated. Emmie’s poem itself is important but so too are the materials used to record it – let’s hope English Heritage are taking the necessary steps, as they undoubtedly took at Silbury itself, to preserve this item for posterity.

A group of French metal detectorists (from ANDL, the National Association for the Metal Detection of Leisure) has started sending details of their finds for recording at the Roman Legion Museum of Caerleon, in Wales, asking for an “archaeological asylum”. That’s the details of their finds, note, not the objects themselves – they are keeping those for themselves not giving them to the museum.  

                (Image credit – Happah)frogcrim11

Voici le patrimoine français, illégalement excavé par moi. The coins I will take home for myself. The knowledge I will send to les rosbifs. Je suis un unsung hero de France! 

It’s a bit of a stunt, aimed mainly at the French authorities, who they hope to “shame” on the grounds that metal detecting for archaeological artefacts shouldn’t be illegal over there. The only impact it is likely to have in Britain is that the Caerleon museum will lift the phone to the British police who will lift the phone to their French counterparts.

Or so one might think. But no!

Enter UKDFD (the British detectorists’ breakaway database for those who won’t record with PAS) : UKDFD has offered a clone of its database to the French guys and also host it for them

In case UKDFD is unfamiliar with Article L 542 of the French Patrimony Code, it says: Nobody can use equipment that allows the detection of metal objects , relating to seeking monuments or objects that could relate to prehistory, art or archaeology, without having, in advance, obtained an administrative authorisation delivered in relation to the qualifications of the seeker & the nature & methods of the research.

Since these French detectorists say they will be imprisoned if they report these items to their own authorities we can be confident that all the items for which asylum is being sought in Britain have been obtained without having obtained the necessary “administrative authorisation”. In other words, they are illicit.

In the circumstances one might have expected UKDFD to advise these people that if French law tells them not to put leurs patts grossières on French heritage they should simply do what they are told. Sadly, that is not the case since UKDFD, which constantly complains it has been branded “irresponsible” by all of Britain’s archaeological and heritage organisations is proposing to aid, abet and host a database of looted artefacts supplied by French criminals!

This revelation may not change the opinion of UKDFD in the minds of the British establishment any time soon!
It might also give them pause for thought on a wider level: if foreign heritage criminals see Britain as a sort of lawless banana republic where they can escape the consequences of their illegal activities in their home countries, maybe Britain needs to consider who is out of step, Britain or the rest of the world?

English Heritage’s recent “Consultation on the Future of Human Remains in Avebury Museum” (prompted by a suggestion by one Druid group that the remains should be reburied) has generated a certain amount of heat but little light, hardly surprising since the issue is a matter of opinion and opinions inevitably vary. The results and perhaps far more importantly what (if anything) English Heritage will do about them are yet to be announced.

We hope the decision will be in accordance with certain realities:

Crucially, no-one can show they have significant or special ancestral ties to the ancient inhabitants of these islands and no-one can demonstrate they have spiritual beliefs or ritual practices in common with them. Consequently, no-one can claim a greater right to be heard or heeded than anyone else and there are absolutely no parallels to be drawn with, for instance, the treatment of the remains of Native Americans where one group claims a special authority. In our view therefore the decision should contain no acknowledgement, even a token one, that Druids or pagans have a “say” beyond what their numbers relative to the whole population afford them. This is not an “anti-pagan” viewpoint. Rather, it is a perception that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and atheists ought to be justly represented in a communal decision. We, as humans, must decide collectively how ancient human remains are to be treated. What is decided cannot validly reflect the special viewpoints of any individual belief group, even in a “token” fashion.

English Heritage has highlighted two possible options and our views on those are as follows:

1. Reburial (either in a way which makes the remains unavailable for further examination or in a way that ensures they will be).

For us, either form of reburial is a non-starter. The original burial places are impossibly lost or disrupted. We have no right to assume reburial in approximately the same place in approximately the same way would accord with the wishes of the dead. If we cannot reinstate them precisely we have no right to reinstate them at all for who can say that we would not be guilty of error and even greater insult? “Laid to rest in their native land” is a seductive but modern and dangerous concept. We have no right to assume that rest was what they sought or if they did how they saw it being achieved or even that Avebury was where they wished to be buried the first time. If we do not know we should not pretend otherwise.

2. Retention in the Museum in a way which shows respect for CoBDO’s beliefs, for example for by providing access for ceremonies.

Once again, we see this as a complete non-starter. Or to be more precise, the way it is phrased is quite wrong. The issue is not respect for CoBDO’s beliefs it is respect for the dead and, as we have said, it is a decision that we as humans must decide collectively and which cannot validly reflect the special viewpoints of any individual belief group since no group can demonstrate special authority in the matter.

As if this wasn’t a sufficiently maladroit piece of drafting, we also have the extraordinary reality that CoBDO themselves take great exception to it! As they say about this option: “CoBDO feels that this shows no respect for our beliefs whatsoever. Indeed it  is more than insulting. We do not believe that there are any druids or pagans  who wish to perform ceremonies with the bones of once living people, whether  ancient or modern”.

This is not to say there are not individuals who do wish to however and it is therefore perfectly fair that such people should be afforded the opportunity to hold ceremonies or otherwise honour the dead. It is simply very unfortunate that this has been suggested as being “in a way which shows respect for CoBDO’s beliefs” rather than “all beliefs”. For instance, the Unification Church might have written asking to be given facilities in museums to practice their “ancestor liberation ceremonies” and there would certainly be no reason to refuse them (or consult about it).  

Thus, it seems to us the Consultation bears much similarity to a porcine listening device. Two main options are highlighted – reburial (which we doubt could ever be seriously contemplated) and retention (for a reason which the organisation named as wanting it finds offensive!)

What about the obvious, fair, non-offensive and viable option? Should that not be highlighted? Let this matter be decided with regard to the needs of the community as a whole, and let not the text of the decision involve even a token nod towards the beliefs of individual groups or any element of reading the minds of the ancient dead. In our view “Access for all to honour the dead” with no embellishments whatsoever is the only fair solution for the living and the only available one for the dead. Seven words only. We await the actual decision with interest to see if it contains more!

Nature demeaned by ritual 'tat'

Nature demeaned by ritual 'tat'. Image credit Willow

The following quotes are taken from an exceptionally impassioned email Heritage Action received sometime ago, which deserves to be expressed as an individual response to the clutter of ‘new age’ litter often to be found at sites.

Our ancient sites, not just those in Wiltshire, but everywhere throughout the country should be protected, treasured and maintained, as indeed most are. It is therefore unfortunate that certain religious factions see fit to participate in irresponsible pursuits in the name of paganism and druidism, both in my opinion, sadly misplaced in the 21st century.

My concern is not for the pagans or the druids and their beliefs, I couldn’t care less, no, it is for the rubbish they leave behind. I refer to the ribbons, bits of clothing, Wiccan effigies, which can all be seen adorning the trees at the Swallowhead Spring and on the approach to West Kennet Avenue. These trees have their own beauty, they don’t need bits of tat hanging from their branches like so many split bin bags.

Silbury Hill doesn’t escape either, ‘don’t climb on the hill’ the sign says, so why is it that nearly ever time I pass it, some air head is up there trying to get closer to their god. Avebury too has seen its stones daubed in graffiti over the years not to mention bits being chipped off the stones, god knows why, souvenirs I suppose. I am not suggesting for one minute that religious factions are responsible for all the defacements and damage, but it is true that the vast majority is down to them, my feeling is that they should take with them their rubbish, paraphernalia and imposed beliefs and leave our ancient sites tidy and tranquil once more.

For all their religious practices, I strongly believe that so called modern druids and pagans have no claim on Avebury, Silbury Hill, Stonehenge or anywhere else for that matter as they would have you believe.




Strong words, and Heritage Action in printing them is reflecting a personal viewpoint, these words do not represent our attitude to the Pagan world. Protection of ancient sites belongs to us all, but the above comment received by Heritage Action shows sometimes how deep the feelings of the ordinary public are when they visit these sites.

Heritage Action does not of course go along with the idea that Pagans, in all their manifestations, should have their religious activities on the site of our ancient monuments stopped. This is a free world, how we wish to interpret our own beliefs is a matter for the individual. Such issues as litter at sites needs to be addressed however. Damage to stones cannot be tolerated, but these acts come from many sources. Pagans are as keenly aware of the need to address these problems, and do much to protect the sites, probably far more than the general public.

The ‘tat’ seen round the Swallowhead Spring, the Christmas decorations swaying from the trees on Waden Hill or down the Avebury Avenue does offend the eye. Such tat needs to be removed, and people should feel free to remove it without the slightest compunction of guilt. Avebury and it sites are, after all, for everyone whatever their religious beliefs.

While we welcome articles and reports on heritage-related subjects to the Heritage Journal, the opinions expressed therein and the accuracy of the reporting lie solely with the originators of the report.

stonehenge“It is our aim to conduct the traditional rites, such that we all may play a part without conflict or competition as is our way, and as best serves the public and respects the spirit of the place.”

One of the many things to come to the fore in this modern age is the rise of Paganism. It follows many paths and has many adherents, and is almost impossible to classify as a religion, or that it conforms to certain rituals.

But it exists filling in that space between Christian faith and the creeping secularism that is part of our British culture, and though I am not laying aside all the other religions that exist in our multi-layered society, it is Paganism that I would like to focus the attention on.

For it is this ‘way of thought’ that has over the last few years defined a relationship with our old megalithic stones. In particular, the great stone circles, Stonehenge and Avebury. The history that has accrued round these famous monuments has brought a lot of discussion out into the open, issues such as reburial, access to the stones, offerings at sites, and ceremonies at certain times of the year. English Heritage has met this challenge and now consults with the Druidical sect that has official sanctioning at Stonehenge for some of its Celtic ceremonies.

The internet has many leads to the different viewpoints in the Pagan world, far too numerous to go into discussion about. But one organisation strikes a very sensible note –

Frank Somer’s website offers a middle path of acceptance, a tolerance that is inspiring for those of us who do not choose a path of a particular religious bent, his words…

“Stonehenge in its spiritual and inspirational context belongs to the people of the world, with very special significance to those who follow the Celtic Pagan traditions and systems of faith, and among those, naturally, the Druids.”

It is a reasonable approach, the argument that all religious belief does,  is bring strife in on its tail is true but unavoidable,  faith belongs to the individual, society has to be tolerant.


Article by Moss

For many years walkers in the Yorkshire Dales, have ‘traditionally’ added to modern day rock cairns when they achieve a summit or a particular place along a Dale walk.  Unfortunately they rob stones from old Bronze Age burial cairns to build these ‘achievement’ cairns and also windbreaks.

This weekend to repair some of the damage a local archaeologist Yvonne Luke and YDNPA Dales volunteers will take on the task of dismantling some of these modern cairns. Beamsley Beacon, which is near  Bolton Abbey, has a Bronze Age stone cairn which dates back over 4500 years ago, and has been robbed over the years, a further smaller cairn has also suffered from the same type of damage.

We have searched in vain for a clear expression of opinion by an official body relating to the moral issues which recreational and entrepreneurial digging for archaeological artefacts raise. We suspect that in Britain at least no such formal opinion has been published since the activity is legally sanctioned but also subject to recommended but purely voluntary preferred parameters, both implying a toleration of multiple and conflicting behaviours, this being a logical absurdity that cannot be expressed as a single moral position.

To fill the gap, and to provide a basis for discussion, we have produced our own. We should be pleased to receive comments or suggestions for amendments at or in the Comments section.


A Portable Antiquities Charter

1. Archaeology, whether static or portable, is a physical manifestation of History.

2. Consequently, while physical archaeology may be owned individually or collectively it also has an abstract component, knowledge, which is a common inheritance and therefore collectively owned.

3. Physical ownership can be conveniently defined by laws. Knowledge cannot be. Hence, knowledge is indisputably owned but cannot be effectively asserted by its owners, which is the antithesis of ownership. It follows that if society’s claim to ownership of its own history is not to be surrendered it must be actively asserted, if not in law then as a moral principle.

4. From this moral principle flow the following moral assumptions which society has a duty to itself to declare and act upon in relation to the knowledge unearthed during the deliberate recovery of buried portable antiquities by any individual or group, whether motivated by pleasure, interest, profit, conservation or scholarship:

(I) No single individual or group can morally lay claim to, annexe, conceal or destroy it.

(ii) Any deliberate unearthing or removal of buried archaeology, irrespective of legal rights, ownerships or permissions, cannot be held to be moral unless it is done with the consent of and in a manner approved by wider society including the delivery of any and all knowledge relating to the act which society may require.

Police have been strongly criticised after removing human remains from a newly-discovered burial cist in Sutherland dating back thousands of years.

The Bronze Age burial chamber was accidentally uncovered on 26th January in a field at Langwell Farm, a few miles east of Oykel Bridge.”



The line of horse chestnuts (planted by Alexander Keiller) in the top left of the photograph will be removed due to disease. The housing development on the former Bonds Garage site will be situated behind the bank and standing stone. It is not clear if the new houses will be visible from this viewpoint.

First of all what is a crannog? It is a type of ancient loch-dwelling found throughout Scotland and Ireland which can date from about 5000 years ago. More often than not built out on water, though in England we have the similar ‘lake’ settlements of Meare and Glastonbury.

They can be seen as defensive, places of habitation and refuge usually fortified. Built up on layers of rocks with wooden stakes driven into the loch bed, and connected to the land by a causeway.

The Scottish Crannog at Kenmore is a reconstruction of an early Iron-Age thatched roundhouse on the banks of Loch Tay in need of restoration. Information about the centre can be found here – Home of the Crannog Dwellers and the work is being carried out with the help of a grant from a Perth and Kinross Council’s grants scheme.
The restoration work is being done by a team from Poland, called Archeo-Serwis, they come from the open air Museum at Biskupin, near Bydgoszcz. This museum features an early Iron Age settlement reconstruction with two rows of timber town houses. Information on the site can be found here on Wikipedia and see also the Perthshire Advertiser.



March 2009

Follow Us

Follow us on Twitter

Follow us on Facebook

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 10,808 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: