King Arthur Pendragon Wants Ancient Bones Returned to Stonehenge

Oct 10, 2011
Jo Harrington

Photo: Arthur Pendragon and Warband at Stonehenge - Rev King Arthur Pendragon

When human remains were found at Stonehenge, scientists could only legally keep the bones for 2 years. The law was changed, but King Arthur keeps the vigil.

"I'm not going to go away," Reverend King Arthur Pendragon told Suite101. It is October 10th 2011 and the Battle Chieftain of the Council of British Druid Order has been occupying Stonehenge for three long years.

What began as a short picket, in order to protest lack of public access to the World Heritage Site, has grown into an enduring protest against several pressing issues. The most prominent of these is the return of semi-cremated human remains, which were taken from Aubury Hole 7 on the site. Arthur Pendragon added, "I'm still planning to take this to judicial review."

Stonehenge: Human Remains Cause Tensions Between Archaelogists and Pagans

In August and September 2008, the Riverside Project excavated the Aubury Holes at Stonehenge. A quantity of human remains were removed under the supervision of archaelogist and broadcaster Julian Richards, freelance archaelogist Mike Pitts and Sheffield University's Professor of Archaelogy Mike Parker Pearson. This action caused a clash between the academic need to learn more about our past and the right of individuals to rest in peace.

As news spread about the disinterment, several groups travelled to Stonehenge to protest, including a large number of Pagans. The Riverside Project invited them to bless the bones before they were taken away, but an impromptu meeting saw an agreement amongst assembled Pagans not to comply. Arthur Pendragon wrote at the time, 'No one has said we are against studying the past, we feel this is essential.' The issue was over when the human remains were to be returned.

King Arthur Fears that Human Remains will Never be Returned to Stonehenge

Arthur Pendragon told Suite101 that the remains had already been retained one year longer than was originally legal. The Burial Act 1857, section 25, stated that 'it shall not be lawful to remove any body, or the remains of any body, which may have been interred in any place of burial, without licence under the hand of one of Her Majesty’s Principal Secretaries of State, and with such precautions as such Secretary of State may prescribe as the condition of such licence.'

When the Riverside Project took the remains, this licence was for just two years. However, the Ministry of Justice extended this for another five years, when Sheffield University stated that the remains were needed to facilitate the study of a PhD student. Both provisions re-interpret the Burial Act, as that stated that all removals were only possible, if the bones were being interred in likewise consecrated ground.

Arthur Pendragon remains sceptical. He says that the Ministry of Justice have been 'duplicitous with us', telling the archaelogists that the bones will never be returned to Stonehenge, while informing himself that they will. He also noted that the official form requesting the removal of human remains has since had a box added to it, wherein applicants can choose to take them 'for museum retention'. This is against the wording of the law, as outlined in the Burial Act.

Stonehenge: King Arthur's Battle with the Royal Court and the Ministry of Justice

In an email dated November 2nd 2010, the department wrote to Arthur stating that, 'it is proposed that once the work has been completed the religious views of the Pagans and Druids will be respected and the remains reinterred.'

This was submitted as evidence recently, when Arthur started legal proceedings, in an effort to force the return of the remains. A court refused permission for a judicial review to be undertaken. It was a decision that was welcomed by Mike Pitts, who wrote, 'we have every right to expect that in fact the license will be changed to allow for permanent retention – which of course is what we believe strongly should happen.'

Beyond the judiciary, Arthur has taken his battle into politics. He has stood as an independent in four successive general elections, twice in Stonehenge's constituency of Salisbury. In August 2011, he also took advantage of an initiative launched by the British government, wherein issues receiving 100,000 votes would be guaranteed a hearing in the House of Commons. His petition reads, 'We support King Arthur's call for the reburial at Stonehenge of the ancient cremated human remains (known as the Guardians) held by Sheffield University.'

His on-going battles are chronicled at the Loyal Arthurian Warband website.

King Arthur Says It's Not About Paganism but Common Decency

For many observers, this is a purely Pagan protest. For three years, the picket of Stonehenge has found its headquarters in an on-site caravan owned by Arthur Pendragon and his partner Kazz. They are senior druids and they have been there every day.

Much of the support for their cause has derived from the British Pagan community. There is a prevailing sense that there would have been more of an outcry had the bones been taken from Christian holy ground. With thousands of years separating us from the original burial, it is impossible to guess the wishes of the people interred here. But Arthur Pendragon states, "They were put there for a reason. They were laid to rest and they should be left to rest."

However, he wishes to move away from the notion that this is an issue which should only concern Pagans. The British public should be concerned with the re-interpretation of their laws for a start; while the disturbance of graves is a matter for all religions. Arthur Pendragon would like to see people of all denominations lend their support to the cause. "This is not a Pagan argument," he told Suite101, "Common decency. It's just common decency."

Jo Harrington - Jo has a BA (Hons) in History and Philosophy and a MA in History. She has a book published on the history of Wicca.

Comments

Oct 10, 2011 11:13 AM

Guest :

These are interesting and important issues, but several statements in this piece are misleading.
1. The Burial Act 1857 requires that exhumations be licensed, but this is limited to relatively recent burials. In a trial in 1880, counsel (whose case was upheld) specifically said that the act did not apply to “the remains of Druids [by which he meant prehistoric people] who had been buried on Salisbury Plain”. The act itself says nothing at all specifically about ancient remains of the type we excavated.
Licenses are issued to archaeologists under a recent interpretation of the act – archaeologists actually requested them of the Ministry of Justice in 2008. The terms of these licenses are not subject to legislation, but ministerial interpretation. It is incorrect to say of our excavation that any change in law has occurred, or that anything that has happened is “against the wording of the law”, or similar claims.
2. The claim that the excavation of Aubrey Hole 7 “caused a clash between the academic need to learn more about our past and the right of individuals to rest in peace” is contentious. An interest in the past is not the exclusive property of “academics”. Around a million members of the public visit Stonehenge every year, many of whom are deeply interested in the site and in what these remains have to tell us – not to mention the millions of others who don’t actually visit. Secondly, it is incorrect to talk about “individuals” “resting in peace”. What we excavated was a dense, jumbled mass of broken and burnt bone in which no individual could be discerned. We suspect around 50 or so people are represented there, and that is one of the things we are hoping to resolve, though we will never have a precise figure. This mass is composed of what had been saved from the excavation in the 1920s of individual cremation burials (in most cases at least unlikely to be the complete burials), which in turn were the remains collected from pyres that themselves were unlikely to be all that had survived the fire. These remains are a long way from a group of individual people.
3. It is misleading, for reasons described above, to imply that our excavation incurred “the disturbance of graves”. We were in effect excavating an archaeological dump, remains that had been first excavated in the 1920s and were unwanted at the time by anyone.
4. “An impromptu meeting saw an agreement amongst assembled Pagans not to comply” is not entirely how events seemed to us at the time. We had agreed with a group of Pagans, who were supportive of the excavation, that they could hold a ceremony at the site before excavation began (at that stage it would be fair to say we were not even certain the bones were there). This ceremony did not occur, however, as it was interrupted by another group of Pagans.
5. “Much of the support for their cause has derived from the British Pagan community.” It should also be noted that many Pagans do not support the demand for reburial of these remains.
Mike Pitts

Oct 10, 2011 11:28 AM

Jo Harrington :

Thank you for your side of this story. It certainly appears to be a very contentious issue.

Nov 2, 2011 12:54 PM

Guest :

Very well written. Those who are laid to rest should stay there, or at least be returned. The indigenous peoples all over the world are having the remains from various museums returned to their home countries. The remains of the Stonehenge Guardians should be returned.

Nov 4, 2011 2:12 AM

Guest :

What Mike fails to point out is that the secondary group that came to Stonehenge were all for blessing the bones, but it was when we were all told that they would not be returned that both groups of pagans, Mike's guests and the secondary group (guests of Mike's guests) agreed that this was an outrage and it became in impromptu protest.

It swings both ways Mr Pitts. So cut the spin.

Not once has your side of the argument, including your implanted PFA group of sheep who have very strong connections to the academic world said a single word about our real stance. Your side have constantly spun the misnomer that we just want the bones buried and are against research. So here it is again.

1. You may retain some of the material for testing as you really do not need it all for forensic testing.

2. The rest should be returned and can be buried in suitable containers if necessary at the site of their burial for retention and future exhumation when science advances enough to warrant study.

3. That this issue not be taken as precedence for other ancient burials. Something which your side bleated to the papers about at the beginning of this year in full knowledge that this was not our intent.

The bones are not fit for display.
Your profession contaminated them when first they were dug up and left under a bed for years.
There are better remains at Durrington that are contemporary to the remains you are retaining.

Regards

Jim

4 Comments