Stonehenge Roads Inquiry Documents

1. BDO Submission BDO/1/1
2. TDN Submission DN/1/1
3. Some comments on the Stonehenge road proposals and the 'reburial issue' by Drs Jenny Blain and Robert Wallis DN/2/1
4. Response by the Highways Agency to the BDO submission HA/13/5 (formerly HA/BDO/1)
5. Response by the Highways Agency to TDN submission HA/13/6 (formerly HA/DN/1)
6. Message from Philip Shallcrass, Chief of the BDO, to Val Lucas, Inquiry Programme Officer, explaining that Emma Restall Orr will be presenting on behalf of both TDN & BDO
7. Transcript of Presentation and Cross-Examination by Emma Restall Orr at the Inquiry 25th February 2004.

 

 

THE DRUID NETWORK
PO Box 3533, Whichford, near Shipston on Stour, Warwickshire CV36 5YB, England
http://druidnetwork.org
Contact Stonehenge Pages Co-ordinator

STONEHENGE A303 ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PUBLIC INQUIRY
PROOF OF EVIDENCE DN/1/1

1. The Druid Network
1.1 TDN is an organization that works for the international Druid community, offering information about the Druid tradition, in terms of history, theology and current practice. Its remit is to provide a well into which people can submit ideas and information, others in turn drawing from this well. It runs a dynamic interactive website, publishes the key magazine in the Druid community worldwide (The Druids’ Voice), and deals with a constant flow of queries.
1.2 Its basic tenets are those of honour, care, respect and honesty. There is no tolerance for rumours and all efforts are made to ensure that information posted on its website and available to non-internet users is factual and of the highest quality.
1.3 Working along side TDN are the major Druid Orders, including the Order of Bards Ovates and Druids (OBOD) and the British Druid Order (BDO), many Pagan Gorseddau and dozens of Groves, as well as individual members of the community, all of which use the TDN network.
1.4 While it is not in tune with TDN principles to claim that we represent anyone, according to its key purpose TDN is present at this Inquiry in order to work as a bridge between those involved in the Stonehenge Road Improvement and the international Druid community as a whole.

2. The Druid Standpoint
2.1 Stonehenge is an ancient sacred site, created and used by the priests of our heritage in a religion that revered the powers of nature. What those priests called themselves 4000 years ago is to many utterly irrelevant, for their religion is the same religion practised by Pagans and Druids today, having naturally evolved over millennia, adapting to changes in climate and culture. As a result, Stonehenge as a circle of stones, and the burial mounds that surround it, are considered of exceptional importance to Druids and those of other Pagan traditions across the world.
2.2 The Druid premise is that of communication through respectful connection and truth. Our presence at this Inquiry is not, then, primarily to object nor to obstruct, but to find clarity about the situation, to raise issues that we feel have been neither adequately addressed nor prioritized, and to ensure that there is sufficient opportunity for the Druid community to be involved in the upheavals that are about to happen to one of its key temple sites.
2.3 The general proposal, based on the Stonehenge WHS Management Plan Objective 9, “The appropriate landscape setting for the Stones and immediately related ceremonial monuments in the core should be restored”, is fully supported by TDN.

3. The Key Concern
3.1 Our key concern is in regard to the sanctity of the landscape and the ancient ceremonial and funerary monuments that lie upon it. Although it is stated briefly that the area is acknowledged as valuable to many different groups and individuals for a variety of reasons, nowhere in the Summaries of Evidence nor the Statement of Case does it clearly mention the significant importance of the site as a temple area for those of the modern Pagan and Druid religions. In other words, the fact that it is a temple to many thousands of practising Pagans and Druids is not registered.
3.2 This concern is reflected in the unease about the proposed development throughout the international Pagan and Druid communities. This unease is liable to break into manifestations of defensive, protective and antagonistic objection toward the project. Through the fringe elements of the Pagan and Druid community, and because so many within British and ‘Celtic’ international culture feel strongly about this powerful temple of our heritage, such aggression could easily spread through the swathes of society who are looking for a forum for their general discontent (viz the numbers who now attend the summer solstice event).
3.3 The Druid community at large does not wish to see such displays of protest.
3.4 TDN feels that such problems could be diverted if those involved could ensure that the sanctity of the temple and its environs is explicitly and unequivocally acknowledged and conspicuously respected throughout the process of work.

3.5 How can this be done?
3.5.1 TDN would like a meeting arranged between the relevant Stonehenge Project personnel and representatives of TDN in order to put together a Statement of Intent, wherein the issue of the sanctity of the land is acknowledged and relevant issues subsequently addressed. This would be published in all key Druid and Pagan journals and websites. Feedback would be addressed back to the TDN and considered at following meetings between TDN and the Stonehenge Project personnel, with changes made if and where necessary.
3.5.2 Such a Statement would include courses of action that would enable the Pagan and Druid community to be involved throughout the years of significant disruption. Regular interaction, where respect was evident, we feel would significantly reduce the underlying distrust and stress around the proposed improvement.
3.5.3 Rituals would be advisable, co-organized with Project personnel, at significant points and times, including :
- at first ground breaking, to ease the spirits of place and ancestral spirits
- when work nears particularly sensitive sites such as Longbarrow Crossroads, the Avenue, the Heel Stone
- at times of archaeological finds, when these are significant or of human remains
- at the end of the work, when a reconsecration ritual can be done
3.5.4 Kate Fox states in her Landscape Summary: “Seeding of grass and wildflowers and tree and shrub planting is also proposed in keeping with the landscape character.” If trees are to be felled, and when replanting is done, here is an opportunity for the Druid and Pagan communities to be involved in a way which is positive and productive.
3.5.5 Where possible and relevant, these would be advertized throughout the Druid and Pagan media, and support has already been given to TDN from the largest Druid organizations.
3.5.6 The Constructor’s Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) includes the employing of a Public Liaison Officer. Meetings with this individual must be regular and assured, with contact kept up in order to keep the international Druid/Pagan community informed of progress and alleviate concerns.

3.6 Pagan Human Remains and Archaeological Finds
3.6.1 The Summaries and Statement of Case focus attention purely on tourism, with no mention whatsoever on the fact that this site is considered a temple to so many. This is clearly summed up in the Management Plan Summary, which states: “The [core] zone would be primarily managed for both archaeological, landscape and nature conservation, and for the access and enjoyment of the very large numbers of visitors who it is anticipated will continue to concentrate, at least initially, in the core zone.” TDN would like to see this attitude shifted in order to acknowledge the needs of the relevant spiritual communities.
3.6.2 Lawson’s Summary (cultural heritage), 8.1, looks at different forms of mitigation, by which we assume he means what will be done to minimize negative affects to heritage issues. These include: “avoidance, protection by design, field-walking, topographic survey, full advance excavation, strip-map-excavate, watching brief, restoration of ground adjacent to monuments, replacement of milestones.” There is nothing here about how finds will be dealt with, and in particular human remains.
3.6.3 The body employed by the Stonehenge Project responsible for archaeological work throughout the implementation of the proposed improvement must be aware of the widespread concern felt about what is found and/or unearthed.
3.6.4 Of particular concern are human remains. TDN seeks assurances that any Pagan human remains found during the work are treated with appropriate respect. While we do n ot wish to stop the archaeologists from gaining knowledge, removing human remains to store in museums is no longer acceptable within international Pagan communities. All human remains must be reburied with the appropriate Pagan ritual as close to the site of discovery as possible, together with their grave goods (or appropriate facsimiles).
3.6.5 We would support the setting aside of a piece of land within the WHS that could act as a ceremonial funerary shrine for the Pagan and Druid community. This could be used not only for the reburial of the ancient dead, but also as a place of honouring the dead within many modern spiritual communities.
3.6.6 TDN requires regular communication with regard to finds during the construction period and the progress of investigation of those finds, and proposals regarding their eventual disposal. This is especially crucial where human remains are concerned, where we require consultation at all stages.

4. Specific Objections
4.1 Over and above the concerns about the general sanctity of the temple site, and in order for the Druid and Pagan communities to be satisfied with the proposed improvements, the following issues do need to be addressed.
4.2 The disruption caused around Longbarrow Crossroads is acknowledged within the proposal, and causes significant concern. With no clearly viable alternative, we would here simply emphasize the need to protect the main area of barrows.
4.3 We seek clear assurance of thorough investigation of any areas disrupted by work, particularly in the location of the contractor’s compound. The Summary does not mention that the site will be thoroughly surveyed before work begins. Notably, Sites 20 and 21 are not mentioned in the Summaries and look to be obliterated by the proposal.
4.4 The proposed road also comes closer to Round Barrow (Site 37) than the existing road; at this point, the proposed road is descending into the Western Portal. There appears no mention of it in Lawson’s Summary.

5 Concluding Remarks
In conclusion, The Druid Network supports the idea of returning Stonehenge and its environs to an open landscape that better honours the temple and surrounding monuments. However, the proposal of improvements lacks any acknowledgement of this ancient site’s significance as a working temple for existing spiritual and religious communities. As a result, it also lacks the sensitivity needed in terms of communication with those communities. A major concern is the potential lack of respect given to our ancestors and their physical remains.

Top of Page

 

A303 STONEHENGE IMPROVEMENTS ENQUIRY BDO/1/1
Submission from THE BRITISH DRUID ORDER

1) The British Druid Order (BDO) is an international spiritual organisation numbering about 1200 members of the Order itself and a further 5,000 to 6,000 through affiliated groups such as the Gorsedd of Bards of Caer Abiri (Wiltshire), and the Gorsedd of Bards of Caer Pugetia (Seattle, USA). To facilitate Druidic ritual access to Stonehenge, the BDO founded the Gorsedd of Bards of Cor Gawr in 1996.

2) Among the membership of the BDO, a wide range of views is held regarding the proposed road alterations at Stonehenge. Many members see the site as of great spiritual significance, both for our ancestors and for us as modern pagans. Most agree that the current state of the roads, car park and visitors’ centre is unacceptable. Some, however, are opposed to the present plans in their entirety, viewing them as a needless act of vandalism in the heart of what everyone agrees is one of the most archaeologically sensitive areas in Britain. Some wish to see the whole scheme abandoned, others wish only the closure of the A344 to be pursued, some feel that the A303 should not be widened, others that a dual carriageway in a longer bore tunnel would be acceptable. Some feel that damage done during the building phase will be compensated for by the long-term improvement to the area.

3) There is widespread concern about the effect of the present scheme on the archaeology of the area, particularly around the Longbarrow Crossroads. We wonder if it mightn’t be possible to preserve the cluster of barrows at the crossroads and bring them within the accessible area to be opened up around the henge by extending the tunnel further west and swinging the A360 in a loop to the west of the present crossroads.

4) If the barrows at the Longbarrow Crossroads cannot be preserved, many BDO members are concerned about the treatment of human remains that may be unearthed during construction. English law encourages reburial of excavated Christian remains, with appropriate ritual. We feel that the same respect should be accorded our pre-Christian, pagan ancestors, who surely have as much right to respectful reburial as their Christian descendents.

5) We are not arguing that archaeologists should be denied access to such remains for study, merely that, after such study, they should not be packed away and forgotten in cardboard boxes in museum basements or, worse, put on public display. These are the remains of fellow human beings, with hopes and fears, loves and lives probably not that different from our own. Their burial sites were chosen for reasons that were clearly important to their kin, in this case to be close to the primary temple of their age, Stonehenge. We suggest that the bones of our ancestors should be re-interred as close as possible to their original burial sites, preferably with any grave goods found with them, or with replicas of such grave goods where the originals are deemed important enough to retain.

6) In support of this, I quote Jacqueline McKinley of Wessex Archaeology, who excavated a late Romano-British burial in Woodford Valley to the south of Stonehenge in 1996. She states [Wiltshire Studies, the journal of the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, ‘A Wiltshire “Bog Body?”: Discussion of a Fifth/Sixth Century AD Burial in the Woodford Valley,’ Vol. 96, 2003, pp. 7-18] that: “the responsibility legal and moral for the care and appropriate treatment of such remains lies with the excavators … in the rare cases of reburial which may occur it is necessary to ensure an appropriate location is used, that physical packaging is of a standard which will maintain the integrity of the remains, and that any attendant rites and rituals followed during the reburial are appropriate to the date and probable beliefs of those being reburied as deduced from their archaeological context. In the latter, the probable beliefs of the dead are tantamount [sic] and should take precedence over those of the living who may not share the same beliefs.”

7) This statement provides an excellent blueprint for excavators dealing with the remains of our pagan ancestors. We request that those responsible for the proposed A303 road works ensure that the Home Office license granted for archaeological excavation in this case allows for the respectful reburial of any human remains recovered, with appropriate ritual, and as close as possible to the original burial site. Home Office licences commonly refer to the need for reburial in a legal burial site, usually Christian consecrated ground. In the case of the Woodford Valley burial the Home Office agreed with the excavators that it would be inappropriate to rebury clearly pagan remains in a Christian burial ground, and Salisbury District Council’s Director of Housing and Health approved reburial close to the original grave.

8) The area around Stonehenge was clearly consecrated ground for our ancestors. The density of burials in this area shows it to have been a cemetery, with Stonehenge the mausoleum and temple at its heart. Most modern pagans regard the henge and the area around it as consecrated still. Our ancestors presumably built these monuments of earth and stone so that their durability would ensure continuity of respect and reverence. Advances in understanding through the modern discipline of archaeology, and our own intellectual and spiritual growth, surely make it more important than ever that we show respect for our ancestors. The level of interest in this inquiry testifies to the importance attached to Stonehenge and its environs. Surely the importance we attach to the monuments should be reflected in the respect we show the physical remains, and the spirits, of the builders?

9) The Woodford Valley case demonstrates that respectful reburial is only likely to come about through cooperation between landowners, excavators and all other agencies involved. We therefore request that the planning process encourages consultation with all interested parties in bringing about respectful reburial, and allows for an area of land to be set aside for this purpose. Appropriate ritual for reburial could and should be constructed in consultation between archaeologists and present-day pagan priests.

10) Our final concern may lie outside the scope of this inquiry, but we feel its importance is such that it should be raised at this stage. We are told that when road works are completed there will be open access to Stonehenge via footpaths. We would like to know what measures will be taken to limit damage to the henge, to ensure continuing ritual access for spiritual groups, and to prevent the land around it becoming host to a semi-permanent free festival.

Thursday, 15th January 2004
Philip Shallcrass,
British Druid Order, PO Box 1217, Devizes SN10 4XA

Top of Page

 

THE DRUID NETWORK
Proof of Evidence DN/2/1

Some comments on the Stonehenge road proposals and the 'reburial issue'
by Drs Jenny Blain and Robert Wallis

(Note: This paper was originally sought by Philip Shallcrass (Greywolf), Chief of the British Druid Order. It was passed on to The Druid Network for submission to the Inquiry after it was decided that a joint BDO/TDN presentation should be made. Hence it is numbered as a TDN Proof of Evidence.)

Dr Jenny Blain is a Senior Lecturer in Sociology at Sheffield Hallam University. Dr Robert Wallis lectures in Archaeology at Richmond, the American University in London. They have been jointly researching into Pagan and Prehistoric Archaeology at Sacred Sites for two years and have published articles and lectured on modern Pagan engagement with ancient sacred sites.

Introduction
The Sacred Sites/Contested Rights/Rites project, underway since 2001 and based on earlier research by both its directors, has been funded by the Human Rights Centre and more recently by an ESRC grant (December 2002-October 2003). We are looking at engagements of Pagans with Sacred Sites, notably Stonehenge but also including Avebury, the Rollright Stones, and Stanton Moor.

Paganisms are very diverse, and pagan engagements with Sacred Sites range from caring for sites as 'guardians' (official or unofficial), negotiating protection and clearing up the traces left by other visitors, to negotiating access and celebrating personal events or festivals, and practices involving leaving offerings (as a mark of respect or to honour the spirits of the site). Pagan relationships with sacred places are complicated, but often involve ideas about 'ancestors' and relationships constructed with these ancestors being those who have made use of the site in the past, particularly in a perceived ‘sacred’ context. Human remains found in sacred pre-christian contexts are therefore of importance to many pagans.

Our work adopts an ethnographic approach to analysing pagan accounts of 'ancestors' and landscape. This kind of material is not easily amenable to a quantitative analysis: it is therefore often dismissed and we are concerned that the qualitative meanings of landscape are being dismissed within, for instance, the environmental statement relating to the Stonehenge proposals. We therefore wish to point out that this type of analysis is central within the disciplines of anthropology and cultural studies; it is predominant in studies of indigenous groups worldwide; and it is increasingly being adopted within archaeology and heritage studies.

Our project is making some analysis of impacts of the road proposals on what the landscape of Stonehenge means to people. In this document we focus solely on the issue of sensitive reburial of human remains uncovered during potential excavation, whether in the Stonehenge area or elsewhere. This should not be construed as approval of the project plans.

Note: some material here is taken from an article we are preparing for publication in ‘British Archaeology’

Context: Negotiating the Issues
Recent moves to 'return' both skeletal material and artefacts associated with burials or cremations are reflected in the Human Remains report (November 2003). In summary, indigenous peoples are requesting the return of remains and increasing numbers of archaeologists and anthropologists see the 'collection' of materials as a reflection of a colonial past. A climate of respect for the sacredness (perceived or imputed) of ritual contexts and remains is steadily growing.

For instance, a recent (21st November) event at the British Museum facilitated the re-engagement of a London-based Maori community (Ngati Ranana) with various Taonga (what many in the west would misleadingly and too simply term ‘ritual artefacts’) collected during the Cook voyages, exemplifying how a mutually beneficial and dialogic relationship between indigenous peoples and the current curators of such ‘sacred’ artefacts can be established.

There are issues here of how 'sacredness' and direct 'claims' to ancestors are established.
While some indigenous communities may be able to demonstrate genetic or cultural links in order to claim return of remains, addressing the extent to which pagans can claim British prehistoric remains are ‘theirs’ is to miss the point.

Most pagans, whatever their claims on the past, generally do not claim an exclusive relationship to ‘the ancestors’. Rather, they are emphasising an understanding of landscape, people and respect that is growing within contemporary Britain. Increasingly comments are voiced - from the general public and from archaeologists - about the display of remains in museums and retention of remains in boxes on shelves, both of which are perceived as problematic. Dialogues with christian communities are resulting in a critical assessment of christian remains; but there is apparently no 'pre-christian' community to make representations on behalf of pre-christian remains. Some pagans are therefore attempting to do this, as part of the community of Britain.

The issue rather than being one solely of academic/heritage discourse versus public understanding, or of (scientific) authenticity versus (perceived ‘wacky’ pagan) inauthenticity is of multivocality as well as forms of knowledge and power.
In the current politically aware and interpretative climate of archaeology, with its emphasis on community engagement and dialogue, there is need for archaeologists, heritage managers and others to be self-reflective, accountable and transparent, and for them to open up their research/data to external scrutiny. So the issue is really whether archaeologists are prepared to address such pluralities and engage with them dialogically, rather than dismiss them as ‘fringe’ and ‘eccentric’.

Sacredness vis-à-vis Science
An online critique of the Human Remains report (Jenkins 2003) points out that 'the affiliation of remains, as defined by the committee, extends ‘beyond families' ties’ to someone from the same 'country, culture or belief group' - in sum, anyone who might fall into the category of 'cultural descendants’ (quoting from P.7 of the report).
For Jenkins, this is apparently a very serious problem, denying the claims of 'scientific' study of skeletal material. Similarly, this online critique suggests that according to the report, 'Every molecule, hair and fingernail is seen as sacred until proved otherwise'
(Online: http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DFDE.htm).

We see the report as having opened up a considerable debate, with room on all sides to explore the contested territory of what is 'sacred' and how 'science' may negotiate with the sacred. Indeed, pagans, indigenous people, and many British people today including some archaeologists are indicating that 'sacredness', rather than perceived ‘objective’ and universally applicable scientific knowledges, should indeed be the default position. Prehistoric burials and other funerary remains consistently involve the deliberate deposition of a person within a landscape. While indeed we cannot know the particular interpretations of that landscape, or the person's relation to it pertaining at the time of deposition, we do know that there was an intention which, from comparison with ethnographic records and indigenous accounts today, suggests a consistent 'sacred' or at least ‘respectful’ relationship. By breaking the association of person, land, and grave-goods, archaeology and other forms of human disturbance interrupt that relationship. We do not negate claims of scientific knowledge; nor do we automatically support cases for reburial that may be put forward. We do suggest that the evaluation of respect for British prehistoric remains (human, animal and cultural) is every bit as pressing as that for overseas indigenous claims. We posit that science should have to make a particular case for the retention, in the private or public eye, of such material. We commend the report on Human Remains, and anticipate seeing similar recommendations for indigenous British material in the near future.

With specific reference to the Stonehenge situation
If tunnelling and road construction goes ahead, it is expected that archaeological remains will be found. We would strongly urge that a default position of 'sacredness' be applied and that, under most circumstances, after a suitable period of study, reburial as close as possible to the original association of person/artefact and land be encouraged. Furthermore, we advise that the reburial be conducted with respect for the possible beliefs of the group who initially interred the person or persons concerned. Recent reburials conducted by the Church of England have occasioned pagan protests because of extreme differences in philosophy between most christian and most indigenous perspectives on landscape. While a formal 'pagan ritual' of the types most commonly found today would likewise be inappropriate, a respectful statement of returning the person to its original relation to the landscape, whether conducted by pagans or archaeologists, would seem appropriate.

Top of Page

 

HIGHWAYS AGENCY
Doc Ref No: HA/13/5 (formerly HA/BDO/1)
Response to the British Druid Order

1. The British Druid Order (BDO) raises four main points:
- concerns about potential damage to archaeology of the area
- suggestion that the proposed tunnel be extended and the A360 rerouted to the west
- request for respectful reburial with appropriate ritual and that land be set aside for this purpose
- concern as to how access to the area around the henge may be controlled or restricted after the Scheme is completed.

2. Point (1) is a reflection of the wide range of views within the BDO which potentially lead to a number of different (conflicting) approaches ranging from doing nothing to pursuing a longer bored tunnel. The concerns raised are all being addressed by others intending to appear at these Inquiries in pursuit of alternative solutions, so these matters will all be fully discussed in informing a final decision on the Scheme.

3. Point (2) links the concern about potential archaeological damage with Longbarrow Crossroads in particular. Paragraph 7.4.7 of the HA's Proof of Evidence on Cultural Heritage (HA/7/1) presents the guiding principles that the design for the Published Scheme has sought to adopt for Longbarrow Crossroads. The BDO appear to be under a misapprehension that the Scheme would destroy the barrows at Longbarrow Crossroads. This is not correct. The design has ensured there would be no direct impact on any of the Scheduled Monuments (ie Sites 25, 26, 28, 29, 32 and 33). The suggestion of extending the tunnel further to the west means that the BDO is a potential supporter of Alternative Route AR5 which incorporates a 4.5 km tunnel and which will be presented later at these Inquiries. The BDO may wish to keep in touch with the Programme Officer about this.

4. The HA confirms that any human remains found during the construction of the Scheme would be treated with respect. The question of reburial is a matter for the Home Office, as any removal of human remains has to be conducted under a licence, which specifies how the remains must be treated. Thus, the location of any sites for reburial are not within the control of the HA, but the HA via its Contractor would ensure there is full liaison between all relevant parties in the event of such circumstances arising. The Contractor would appoint a full-time Public Liaison Officer (see the Proof of Evidence on Construction, HA/4/1, Section 5.2). This Officer would liaise with organisations with an interest in the construction of the Scheme, including the BDO. The Home Office also currently has a Human Remains Working Group and the BDO may wish to make its views known to that Group.

5. On the setting aside of land for reburial, the HA does not have authority to acquire land for such purposes. Requests for use of land within the WHS but outside the highway boundary would be better channelled via English Heritage.

6. Point (4) is outside the scope of these Inquiries, as acknowledged by the BDO. This concern should be pursued with English Heritage and the National Trust who will be pursuing the management of the area around the henge in accordance with the aims and objectives of the World Heritage Site Management Plan.

Top of Page

 

HIGHWAYS AGENCY
Doc Ref No: HA/13/6 (formerly HA/DN/1)
Response to The Druid Network

1. The Druid Network, in Paragraph 2.2 of DN/1/1, states the presence of this organisation at the Public Inquiries is "not, then, primarily to object nor obstruct, but to find clarity about the situation, to raise issues that we feel have been neither adequately addressed nor prioritised, and to ensure that there is sufficient opportunity for the Druid community to be involved in the upheavals that are about to happen to one of its key temple sites." Regarding communication and consultation, it should be noted that the concerns of the Druids have been raised through regular attendance by Arthur Pendragon of the Council of British Druid Orders at the Public Community Liaison Group (PCLG) meetings and his continued participation would be welcomed. The British Druid Order has also been represented at the PCLG by Mr Philip Shallcrass.

2. If the Scheme proceeds, to ensure that this communication and consultation process continues, the HA's Contractor will also appoint a full-time Public Liaison Officer (see the HA's Proof of Evidence on Construction, HA/4/1, Section 5.2). This Officer will liaise with organisations with an interest in the construction of the Scheme, including The Druid Network, to establish contact at an early stage.

3. The stated key concern of The Druid Network (Paragraph 3.1, DN/1/1) is "in regard to the sanctitv of the landscape and the ancient ceremonial and funerary monuments that lie upon it". The Environmental Statement, Vol 1 (DD 9) in Section 5.3.4 acknowledges the spiritual aspects of Stonehenge, recognising its importance to different groups. Para 4.5.15 in the Proof of Evidence on Cultural Heritage (HA/7/1) also records the association of Stonehenge with different groups. Thus the concerns of The Druid Network are fully recognised and respected.

4. Paragraph 3.2 (DN/1/1) raises the potential for outward shows of discontent amongst the international Pagan and Druid communities. The Druid Network suggests (Paragraph 3.4) that "such problems could he diverted if those involved could ensure that the sanctity of the temple and its environs is explicitly and unequivocally acknowledged and conspicuously respected throughout the process of work". Their proof outlines a number of mechanisms for achieving this, as discussed below.

5. The Druid Network suggests that a meeting is arranged between the HA project team and themselves in order to prepare a Statement of Intent. The HA welcomes this suggestion and a meeting will he arranged. This could also involve other like-minded organisations as appropriate. It is anticipated that this meeting will include the Contractor's Public Liaison Officer who would be responsible for maintaining communication throughout the construction phase.

6. Paragraph 3.5.3 (DN/1) suggests rituals at significant points and times. The HA team would certainly be willing to discuss these wishes in the context of other considerations which would have to be taken into account, such as the need to ensure full compliance with all health and safety requirements and fitting in with the construction programme.

7. Paragraph 3.5.4 (DN/1) refers to trees to be felled, replanting and the "opportunity for the Druid and Pagan communities to he involved in a way which is positive and productive." A short stretch of overgrown hedge would he lost at the Winterbourne Stoke Western Access Junction and another at the Shrewton Road crossing. The hedgerow north from Grant's Barn would lose a limited number of trees. Existing A303 mitigation planting would be lost in the centre of Longbarrow Crossroads and to the west of the A360 next to Longbarrow Crossroads, also the poplar plantation in the centre of Countess roundabout and a few trees and shrubs around the slip roads. None of these are in any way notable, and the number of trees to he felled are few; most would be classified as shrubs rather than trees and the trees are almost all semi-mature. The Druid Order does not indicate the nature of their involvement in this and replanting but their views would be considered through the consultation process noted above.

8. The use of the Druid and Pagan media (Paragraph 3.5.5) for advertising relevant issues could be informed by information supplied through the Contractor's Public Liaison Officer who would also manage a project web page for wider dissemination of information about the project. The use of such media for communicating key issues is acknowledged as being important for allaying concerns of interested communities.

10. [sic] Treatment of finds (Paragraph 3.6.2) is detailed in the Mitigation Strategy. The Mitigation Strategy is described in Section 8 of the Cultural Heritage Proof of Evidence (HA/7/l). This would form part of the Contractors Environmental Management Plan. A copy of the Mitigation Strategy, which has been developed in consultation with English Heritage and Wiltshire County Council, can he made available for consultation, as appropriate. It is anticipated that all finds will be deposited in Salisbury Museum once they have been studied.

11. The HA is aware of the concern for appropriate treatment of human remains and confirms that any found during the construction of the Scheme would be treated with respect. The question of exactly how any remains would he treated, including the decision on any reburial, is a matter for the Home Office, as any removal of human remains has to be conducted under a licence, which would specify how the remains must he treated. Thus, the locations of any sites for reburial are not within the control of the HA, but the HA via its Contractor would ensure there is full liaison between all relevant parties in the event of such circumstances arising. The Home Office currently has a Human Remains Working Group and The Druid Network may wish to make their views known to that Group.

12. Paragraph 3.6.5 suggests that "the setting aside of a piece of land within the WHS that could act as a ceremonial funerary shrine for the Pagan and Druid community". This is not a matter for the HA as highway land cannot be used for such a purpose. Requests for use of land within the WHS but outside the highway boundary should be made via English Heritage.

13. In response to Section 4 (DN/1/1), the HA can offer a firm assurance that no burial mound would be directly impacted by the proposals. Full surveys have been undertaken and specific measures would be adopted to protect the buried remains of potentially similar monuments, including sites 21 and 22, within the Contractor's Compound (see Proof of Evidence on Cultural Heritage, HA/7/1, Paragraph 7.4.13). Site 21, a Very Important scheduled ring-ditch, would be fenced and all activities would be excluded from it, while Site 22, part of a Minor Important linear boundary ditch which is not scheduled, would be protected by a geotextile membrane and imported aggregate. Similarly. Site 37 would he protected, although it was extensively excavated in 1960.

14. In conclusion, the views of the Druid Network are welcome and the HA has, through the meetings of the PCLG, tried to sustain an active dialogue with such organisations. It is the intention, as noted above, for further communication channels to be established. The HA and its Contractor are aware of the sensitivities concerning the treatment of human remains and wish to assure The Druid Network that these would be treated with respect.

Top of Page

 

19/2/2004 Message from Philip Shallcrass, Chief of the BDO,
to Val Lucas, Inquiry Programme Officer

Dear Val Lucas,
In discussing our submissions and the inquiry programme with Emma Restall Orr of the Druid Network, we realise that we would both be presenting much the same arguments, with precisely the same intentions. Since Emma and I worked together on the issues involved for some years, the fact that we share the same views is hardly surprising. In view of this, it seems an unnecessary duplication of effort for us to present essentially the same case twice, one after the other. Therefore, we have decided that the British Druid Order evidence will now form part of the submission put forward at the inquiry by Emma for the Druid Network. I will allow my written submission for the British Druid Order to stand, but will not now be appearing before the inquiry in person. We are happy for Emma Restall Orr to speak on our behalf at the inquiry. This will, we feel, save ourselves and the inquiry time and energy.
Apologies for the lateness of this notice, but it has taken us a little while to work out the details since receiving the inquiry programme.
Thank you for your time,
Philip Shallcrass
British Druid Order,
PO Box 1217
Devizes SN10 4XA