Fennoscandia archaeologica XXXVII (2020)

Themed Section: Communities and Their Archaeologies in Finland and Britain Gabriel Moshenska

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS AS SITES OF PUBLIC PROTEST IN TWENTIETH-CENTURY BRITAIN

Abstract What happens when an archaeological excavation becomes the focus for media attention and public outrage? Protests of all kinds, ranging from letter-writing and legal challenges to mass rallies and illegal occupations, are a longstanding feature of global public archaeology. In this paper, I ex- amine this phenomenon through three case studies of protest in UK archaeology, dating from the 1950s to the 1990s: the Temple of Mithras in the City of London, the Rose Theatre in Southwark, and the ‘Seahenge’ in Norfolk. The accounts of these sites and the protest move- ments that they sparked reveal a set of consistent themes, including poor public understanding of rescue archaeology, an assumption that all sites can be ‘saved’, and the value of good stakeholder consultation. Ultimately, most protests of archaeological excavations are concerned with the pow- er of private property and the state over heritage: the core of the disputes – and the means to resolve them – are out of the hands of the archaeologists.

Keywords: contested heritage, heritage management, public archaeology, social movements

Gabriel Moshenska, UCL Institute of Archaeology, 31-34 Gordon Square, London, WC1H 0PY, UK: [email protected].

Received: 7 May 2020; Revised: 26 June 2020; Accepted: 26 June 2020.

INTRODUCTION from police, construction workers, and senior archaeologists. After three weeks the occupation ‘Operation Sitric’ was launched in June 1979 ended peacefully. When archaeological work fi- when a group of 52 protestors, including aca- nally ended, large areas of the site remained un- demics and local politicians, broke into the ar- excavated and were destroyed by the developers. chaeological site of Wood Quay in the centre of But despite this defeat, the pressure from protes- Dublin, set up tents, and began an illegal occupa- tors and media coverage of the controversy had tion. Years of excavation on the 1.5-hectare site bought time and money to continue the excava- had uncovered the remains of the Viking city, tions far longer than expected, and had a last- with more than 100 buildings and deep complex ing impact on development in Dublin (Bradley stratigraphy. With time and money running out 1984; Heffernan 1988: 1‒2): and the developers growing impatient, the site was at grave risk. From 1976 the ‘Friends of The reaction to events at Wood Quay pro- Medieval Dublin’ had campaigned for the pro- duced one of the most intense battles ever tection of the site, brought legal challenges to waged by the public to save an archaeo- halt the development, and organised marches logical site anywhere. And Wood Quay be- through the city attended by tens of thousands of came more than an archaeological issue; it people, many in Viking costumes. When all else became a political milestone. failed, they occupied the site, facing hostility

181 The idea of archaeological excavations as sites Ground would also have a lasting impact on the of controversy and mass public protest is an odd public understanding of archaeology and herit- and uncomfortable one. All the most interest- age management. ing episodes in the history of public archaeol- Patterns of protest vary worldwide, reflect- ogy involve tensions, frictions, or conflicts. ing the very different political and economic Change and progress are forged in these mo- contexts of archaeology and its histories. Some ments of contestation: the breaking of old insti- of the most important variations reflect the role tutions, the foundations of new ones, narratives of the state in governing and claiming owner- of failure and endurance. Protests of excavations ship of archaeological heritage, and the relation- – rather than museums, heritage sites, or sites ship between states, private landowners, herit- under threat – are relatively uncommon, but the age stakeholder groups, and the archaeological spectacular nature of the excavation makes it a community. natural stage. Protests of all kinds, from letter- Despite the extraordinary Irish and African- writing campaigns to spectacular violence, are a American examples cited above, in this pa- well-studied phenomenon within fields such as per my primary focus is the history of protest history and political science. in British archaeology. As Pyburn (2011: 30) Most archaeologists are conscious of the po- has observed, there are fewer inherent tensions tential impacts of our work, and of the responsi- within British public archaeology than in most bilities that this entails. Archaeology has been a colonial-settler nations: factor in political, religious, legal, and cultural conflict for centuries, and in many of these cases Of course, there are community and na- archaeologists have found themselves on the tional controversies over the disposition of front lines of heated and even violent disputes archaeological resources, but repatriation (e.g. Ucko 1987; Bernbeck & Pollock 1996; and preservation of sites in English con- Hafsaas-Tsakos 2011; Apaydin & Hassett 2019 texts are not areas of dramatic racial or cul- ). By far the most common public protests con- tural contestation, since the museum cura- cerning archaeology are found in colonial-settler tors and site stewards more or less share nations where archaeology has been a tool of de- the heritage of the people whose material humanisation and dispossession of indigenous and human remains they control. and enslaved communities (e.g. Watkins 2000; Taylor 2014). While they might not carry such heavy historical The best-known episode of protest in North burdens, most controversies in British archae- American archaeology concerned the African ology share the same themes that one finds in Burial Ground in Manhattan, New York, where contested heritage worldwide: questions of own- the remains of 419 people were uncovered during ership, control, protection, and access to archae- development work by the US General Services ological heritage; the function of the profession Administration in 1991. While concerned schol- and the state; and the manoeuvres of stakeholder ars and members of the public initially lobbied groups and individuals to project and protect for the protection of the site, protests broke out their interests (Skeates 2000). when it became clear that, in the words of one My aim in this paper is to explore the history archaeologist, ‘the agency’s bureaucratic arro- of protest at excavations in Britain, focusing on gance had led it to violate both the legal require- three case studies: the excavation of the Temple ments of public input and careful archaeologi- of Mithras in the City of London in 1954; the cal resource management’ (Blakey 2010: 62). discovery of the Rose Theatre in Southwark The victory by African-American activists saw in 1989; and the removal of the timber circle the site protected from development, and later known as ‘Seahenge’ from a beach in Norfolk designated as a National Monument. The human in 1999. These sites are well-known and widely remains were eventually reinterred as part of a studied, and the controversies they sparked have permanent memorial on the site. Like the Wood been aired and litigated in public, in the press, Quay site and the other excavations examined and later in scholarship. In this paper, I am inter- in this paper, the protests at the African Burial ested not only in the specifics of the case studies

182 but in their differences and similarities, and the Can we speak in the same way of ‘anti-archae- common themes that connect them. ology’ attitudes and movements? Archaeology This study presents a narrow slice of a much and the natural sciences share many of the same larger issue. Public protest and controversy in ar- legacies of colonialism, structural racism, and chaeology are issues that should concern us, and epistemic violence, albeit to different degrees prompt reflection on both individual and collec- and with markedly different levels of harm. tive levels. A deeper understanding of these pro- Those hostile to campaigns for indigenous or tests that draws on analytical models from politi- post-colonial heritage rights might view such cal science and other disciplines – as attempted movements as ‘anti-archaeological’, and indeed in this paper – can only enrich our understanding they might choose to describe themselves in and contribute towards a critical public archae- these terms. However, outside of colonial-settler ology that can better anticipate, negotiate, and contexts these issues are less often contested in avoid future conflicts, and where possible build such stark terms. In many cases of protest in ar- stronger and better relationships with would-be chaeology, and in the UK examples outlined be- antagonists. low, archaeologists and protestors share a com- Protest in public archaeology is generally mon interest in the heritage and a concern for quite distinct from the much larger and more its protection. The tensions arise, instead, from spectacular world of protests against science, profoundly divergent views on the nature of ar- technology, medicine, and allied subjects. The chaeological heritage, and on how it should be best known of these are the most spectacularly studied, recorded, protected, or destroyed within violent, such as the destruction of genetically the excavation. modified crops, animal testing laboratories, and most recently 5G telecommunications anten- PROTEST AND SPECTACLE AT THE nas by organised groups or individual vigilantes LONDON MITHRAEUM (Monaghan 1997; Kuntz 2012). I am reluctant to generalise from such politically, socially, and Before Mithras, such a massive public pro- economically complicated conflicts, but most test over the destruction of an archaeologi- significantly for this study they describe a level cal site in the City of London had never of systemic and violent hostility that is vanish- been witnessed. (Lyon 2007: 11.) ingly rare in public engagement with archaeol- ogy. However, even here there are exceptions: To visit the London Mithraeum today, one must ultra-Orthodox Jews protesting archaeological make an appointment and book a (free) ticket excavations in Jerusalem have attempted to dis- for a time-limited tour. From the glass-fronted rupt fieldwork by pelting excavators with stones, modernity of the Bloomberg office in the City of accusing them of desecrating graves (Balter London one descends into the darkened cham- 2000). I have personally witnessed religious ber where the reconstructed ruins of the Temple nationalist ‘new believers’ throwing stones and of Mithras are displayed close to (but not pre- shouting abuse at archaeologists on an excava- cisely upon) the spot where they were first un- tion in Russia, accusing them of polluting a sa- covered by archaeologists in the early 1950s. cred megalithic site. It is one of the strangest and most enchanting Sociologists of science have examined ‘an- archaeological experiences in London, echoing ti-science’ attitudes amongst individuals and the similarly subterranean remains of the Roman groups, and have noted distinct and largely ex- Amphitheatre under London’s Guildhall Yard. clusive themes. These include epistemological The London Mithraeum’s journey from initial objections to science such as religious anti-evo- discovery to final display has been odd and con- lutionism; historical-political suspicions based voluted, and uniquely illustrative of the chang- on, for example, harmful and unethical medical ing relationship between rescue archaeology and testing on the African-American population; and public archaeology in the twentieth and twenty- humanistic concerns about the over-reach of sci- first century (see Jackson 2017). It illustrates ence in fields such as human cloning and genetic some of the most important themes in this pa- modification (e.g. Holton 1992; Gauchat 2008). per on the relationships between archaeologists,

183 developers/landowners, the state, and the public. The public reaction to the planned destruction Most importantly, it highlights one of the main of the site, as analysed in some detail by Lyon sources of anger and protest in public archaeol- (2007), focused in part on Grimes’ explanation ogy: the difference between public expectations of preservation-by-record, a concept far outside of archaeology and heritage management, and the public understanding of heritage value. The the (often disappointing) realities. RMLEC team did not ask for or expect the site The excavations on the Mithraeum site were to be preserved in situ, but Lyon quotes letters led by W. F. Grimes under the auspices of the to the press explicitly attacking this perspective: Roman and Mediaeval London Excavation Committee (RMLEC), during the redevelop- If Grimes’ view were to prevail in all our ment of the City of London as it emerged from dealings with those ancient objects which the devastation of the Second World War and the are so difficult and expensive to preserve financial constraints of post-war austerity. Local should we not be asked to satisfy ourselves and national government guidelines recognised with a portfolio of measured drawings in historic buildings as worthy of preservation in place of City churches? these processes but made no mention of archae- ological remains – although rescue excavation [T]he temple is something not merely to was supported in theory and funded in a few be savoured by experts in an excavation cases (Shepherd 1998). Grimes and the RMLEC report. It is part of our national heritage; were invited to excavate the site that would to see and handle its actual structure is an become Bucklersbury House, and began to un- experience which appeals powerfully to cover the remains of a well-preserved Roman the historical imagination of the general structure. Initially the function of the building public. was unclear and it was only in 1954, two years into the excavation – on the final day before [T]he public can only be grateful to the construction was scheduled to commence – that contractor for a fleeting glimpse of anoth- a white marble carved head of the god Mithras er national heritage before he treats it as was uncovered (Grimes 1968). his personal property and destroys it. (All Public reaction to the find was immediate, quoted in Lyon 2007: 9.) driven by a frenzy of media coverage highlight- ing both the great significance of the discovery Public pressure on the government, the devel- and the tragedy of its impending destruction. oper, and the archaeologists, amplified by the The public action took two main forms: first was press, bore fruit: time and funding were found to a campaign of letter-writing to national newspa- extend the excavation work, and to explore al- pers and to government, demanding the preser- ternatives to the destruction of the structure. The vation of the site in the national interest; second government was at pains to justify itself and to was the horde of visitors who descended on the placate the upsurge in public outrage. Press re- site to see it for themselves (Lyon 2007). leases emphasised the government’s concern to As Grimes (1968: 231) recalled: ‘Nobody minimise public costs, and a planned exhibition knew what to expect: perhaps 500 people, it on ancient monuments was adapted to support was thought. The police estimated the queue this narrative. that wound round the streets at least five times that figure. The queues continued on this scale THEMES IN PUBLIC PROTEST throughout the week.’ Queues up to three hun- dred metres long wound around the site and Lyon’s study of the Mithras affair focuses on nearby streets, and some of those denied entry the heritage policy, practice, and governance an- simply climbed over the barriers and broke in. gles, but also sheds light on the public view and For Grimes (1968: 232), the public audience and the motivations for the protests. The public re- their militant attitude towards the protection of sponse, exemplified in the letters quoted above, the site took on ’a curiously nightmarish quality.’ reveal several important themes:

184 • The public regarded archaeological herit- CELEBRITY PROTESTERS AT THE ROSE age management as primarily concerned with THEATRE the preservation of sites and monuments, in situ and (as far as possible) in whole. This must be the wrong way to conduct • Conversely, the notion of ‘preservation such business: bad for the developer, bad through record’ had little or no public recog- for archaeology, and an undesirable exam- nition, and was viewed as elitist, exclusion- ple of street action in the conduct of our ary, and unsatisfactory. affairs. (Biddle 1989: 754.) • There was a public expectation that her- itage sites of national importance would or If the Mithraeum excavation and its political should be owned by the state on behalf of the shockwaves marked the beginning of a new public, and not in private hands. phase of urban rescue archaeology in London, • This public ownership was assumed to the discovery of the Rose Theatre and the bat- include the public right to see, explore, and tle for its survival mark another: the political touch the monument itself. Barriers to view fallout from this discovery and the high-profile and access were seen as unacceptable. work of the ‘Save the Rose’ campaign ‘caused enormous excitement, and enormous trouble for The public hostility to the archaeologists at the the development company’, and played a sig- Mithraeum excavation focused on what they nificant role in the revision of the UK planning perceived to be elitist attitudes and the derelic- process to take greater account for archaeology tion of what was assumed to be their public duty. (Greenfield & Gurr 2004: 332). This led- ulti The presumption that the archaeologists worked mately to the introduction of the ‘polluter pays’ for the state, and that the state had considerable principle through the PPG16 planning guidance decision-making power and control over the ar- document (Bowsher 1998). There is also a good chaeological heritage, were in part artefacts of record of the process: during the discovery and early-1950s British culture, with the legacies the controversy, and in their aftermath, a great of wartime central planning and control still in deal has been written reflecting on the mistakes evidence at all scales of the society and econo- and missed opportunities (e.g. Biddle 1989). my. As one of the correspondents to the Times The Rose Theatre was built in Southwark, noted, ‘Had the Bucklersbury site been found to London in 1587 by entrepreneur Philip contain nationalized oil or coal, instead of un- Henslowe. The fourteen-sided geometrical nationalized antiquities, clearly further building structure was expanded five years after its initial would at once have been prohibited’. Lyon con- construction and was finally torn down a decade cludes of the protestors: ‘People seem to have later. During its relatively short life it staged at been genuinely surprised nothing could be done least two of Shakespeare’s plays and many of to save the temple’ (Lyon 2007: 9). Marlowe’s amongst others. The location of the One common theme in public protests in pub- theatre was well attested from maps and docu- lic archaeology from the Mithraeum, to Viking ments of the period, to the extent that an ar- Dublin in the 1970s and into the present, is the chaeological evaluation of the site in 1971 con- use of the term ‘save’. The public demand that cluded rather prophetically that the site ‘should a site be ‘saved’: whether by the archaeologists be considered one of those areas where public or from the archaeologists is unclear and, given action could make excavation and preservation the poor public understanding of rescue archae- a national issue’ (quoted in Phelan, 1996: 67). ology, they are probably unsure themselves. The Heron Group purchased the site for develop- general sense of ‘save’ is fairly consistent: when ment in 1987 and obtained planning permission an archaeological monument captures the public from the London Borough of Southwark: the imagination, they typically hope for it to be pre- Museum of London had advised that permission served in as clean, original, and visually impres- be granted for the nine-storey development sub- sive a state as possible. There is a fear that – in ject to the developers funding an archaeological the words of the Nintendo quit screen – ‘every- excavation. Heron Group sold the site to devel- thing not saved will be lost’. opers Imry Merchant who paid for ten weeks of

185 excavation, later extended to six months (Phelan the gravel trucks to turn around. Peggy Ashcroft 1996). Excavations on the site by the Museum had already raised official alarm by threatening of London’s Department of Greater London to throw herself in front of the machinery, lead- Archaeology revealed the well-preserved foun- ing to crisis meetings between the developer, dations of the building, with other structural English Heritage, and senior politicians (Phelan traces indicating the construction phases of the 1996). As Biddle (1989: 754) noted: ‘If the lor- theatre, including the use of hazelnut shells in ries had succeeded in dumping their gravel on metalling the floor where the ‘groundlings’ the Rose, the remains of the theatre would have would stand to watch the performances. The been effectively destroyed.’ The ‘Save the Rose’ findings of the excavation constituted a huge ad- campaign succeeded – at least temporarily. vance in the understanding of theatrical staging Laurence Olivier was one of the most promi- and design in Elizabethan London: ‘To lose it nent members of the ‘Save the Rose’ campaign: would be a new kind of Shakespearean tragedy’ his final public appearance was to speak in fa- (Orrell & Gurr 1989: 429). vour of its preservation. When he died in July But by the middle of May 1989 time was up: 1989 the dispute was still ongoing, and the cam- the excavations which had revealed the outline paigners proposed to lay a wreath in his memory of the Rose were halted, and the developers pro- on the site of the Rose. Phelan (1996) consid- posed to bury the site in gravel and drive eleven ers the varying views of this commemoration 1.5-metre-wide concrete piles through the re- as either a crass exploitation of the dead, or an mains. By this point the ‘Save the Rose’ cam- attempt to build tradition, drawing together the paigners had been at work for some time, lobby- lineages of actors past and present. The develop- ing for more time and money for the excavation ers refused and described the proposed wreath- and for the remains of the Rose to be protected laying as ‘deeply provocative and [in] extraor- beneath the new development. The protection of dinarily bad taste’ (quoted in Phelan 1996: 77). the Rose was debated in the House of Commons, With the immediate threat in abeyance, the and subject of a letter to the Prime Minister from campaigners – now a formal ‘Rose Theatre the MP for Southwark (Biddle 1989). Trust’ – continued to lobby for the preservation Archaeologist Martin Biddle was one of of the site, and ultimately succeeded in obtain- many who realised that the thin layer of gravel ing a six-month extension to the excavations and would do little to protect the remains from the around £11 million in funding. Most remarkably, 75 ton piling rigs, and that the reassurances from they won an agreement from the developers to the Prime Minister and the Under Secretary of redesign the building to preserve the remains of State for the Environment were empty words. the theatre in the basement, which was to have The site was at grave risk as the gravel trucks been an underground carpark. The foundations approached, and as Biddle (1989: 753) noted, of the Rose revealed in outline remain on view, ‘parliamentary efforts having failed, direct- ac and the site has also been used as a performance tion was the only means to secure a reprieve’. space. Up to this point the ‘Save the Rose’ campaign had run a high-profile lobbying campaign, with TO EXCAVATE OR PRESERVE? a petition, and extensive newspaper and televi- sion coverage. The main source of this success Martin Biddle’s clear-sighted analysis of the was the campaign’s ability to conjure up a near- Rose Theatre dispute, made well before the so- endless stream of high-profile actors to stand lutions had been agreed and finalised, takes a in or outside the ruins of the Rose and passion- harsh and critical perspective on all parties: the ately defend its unique value including Laurence developer who arguably misunderstood the dif- Olivier, Peggy Ashcroft, James Fox, Ralph ference between an evaluation and a full excava- Fiennes, Dustin Hoffman, Judy Dench, Patrick tion; the divided loyalties and opaque operations Stewart, and Ian McKellen. It was some of these of English Heritage; and a planning process that public figures, together with their supporters and failed to take enough account of archaeology. a number of journalists in attendance, who phys- Before all of this, he points the finger at archae- ically blocked the entrance to the site and forced ologists’ failure to resolve ‘the ethical debate in

186 the profession over excavation versus preser- Pryor 2002). In many respects the story is like vation’, and to better communicate this to the that of the Mithraeum and the Rose: a stunning public. ‘Non-archaeologists’, he points out, ‘do discovery of a threatened site that presented dif- not understand this viewpoint [of preservation] ficult decisions for archaeologists and heritage and react with incredulity (‘you mean you don’t authorities, with public dissatisfaction sparking want to know what’s there?’), and even hostil- protests and an occupation of the site. But at ity.’ (Biddle 1989: 760.) As with the concept of Seahenge the threat to the site came not from im- ‘preservation by record’ at the Mithraeum, the patient developers, but from the relentless force public misunderstanding of rescue archaeology of the sea eroding the site. generates confusion and antagonism, and the The site that became known as ‘Seahenge’ fault must ultimately lie with the archaeologists. was a ring of 55 timbers some seven metres Another important theme from the Rose across, with a large up-turned oak bole at its Theatre campaign is the general marginalisation centre. The trees that formed the structure were of the archaeologists, lacking the legal right and found to have been felled in 2049BCE. Although economic clout of the developers, the executive known to local people for some time, the site power of the government, or the moral clarity came to the attention of English Heritage and and single-mindedness of the protesters. The Norfolk archaeologists in 1998 after the layers slight exception in the case of the Rose was the of peat sealing the site began to be washed away role of English Heritage archaeologists. A senior by the sea (Watson 2005). An exploratory exca- English Heritage manager spoke at one of the vation was carried out, during which a piece of ‘Save the Rose’ rallies and attempted to explain wood was cut from the central oak bole with a the government viewpoint and the complexities chainsaw to provide dating evidence, a tone-deaf of the issue, but he was shouted down during his piece of destruction that would later cause an- speech and faced criticism from all sides for his ger amongst those opposed to the excavations. participation in the rally. One thing everybody English Heritage initially proposed to leave the agreed: a crisis of this kind should never be al- wood in situ to erode away, but with growing lowed to happen again. Martin Biddle (1989: visitor numbers there was concern at the impact 760) noted: on the local community and the nearby nature reserve. With pressure mounting from the press, [T]he now-urgent need to reform the pro- Pagan groups, and some local people, a new cess which allowed the saga of the Rose to decision was made to excavate the site and re- take place as if nothing had changed in the move the timbers. Crucially, this decision was 35 years since the Temple of Mithras was made by English Heritage without consultation discovered in the Walbrook valley. with stakeholders and was announced as a fait accompli to the local community at a public While Geoffrey Wainwright (1989: 434) of meeting that they had assumed would involve a English Heritage concurred: ‘It is clearly inad- modicum of consultation (Wood 2002). equate that the future of a site as well known and The fast-growing opposition to the excava- documented as the Rose Theatre should have tion, sparked in part by widespread media cover- reached a crisis in mid May in the way that it age of the site, brought the local community to- did.’ gether with other stakeholders including Druids, With the right timing, circumstances, power, Pagans, and New Agers. Some travelled to influence, and luck, protesters can win and affect Seahenge to experience the site and to perform changes, both immediate and structural. rituals, while Druid Rollo Maughfling claimed the sites as a Druid creation for all people and SEAHENGE: A PERFECT STORM Pagan protestor Buster Nolan attempted to bring a legal case against English Heritage, without The controversies around the discovery, exca- success. As tensions grew police became in- vation, and removal of the Bronze-Age timber volved, and two of the Druid protestors were circle at Holme-next-the-Sea, Norfolk, have served with legal injunctions restricting them been extensively documented (e.g. Wallis 2003; from accessing the site. Meanwhile the local

187 Figure 1. Confrontation at Seahenge. (Copyright: Archant CM Ltd – Norfolk.) parish council formed the Friends of Seahenge remained unacceptable to some of the New Ager campaign group, which included some of the protestors. Pagan protestors. Excavation work was chal- The confrontations between the archaeolo- lenging as the tides that had eroded the protec- gists and the protestors which had continued tive layer of peat over the timbers now flooded throughout the weeks of the excavations came the site at regular intervals, giving only narrow to a head in July 1999 when the large central oak windows of time for archaeologists to work. bole was to be lifted by a tracked excavator and Meanwhile some of the protestors tried to dis- removed from the site. Archaeologist Francis rupt the ongoing excavation work by occupying Pryor (2002: 259) recalled the event: the site and removing the sandbags that the ar- chaeologists put in place to reinforce their work- [T]hree New Agers had arrived: two wom- ings (Wallis 2003) (Fig. 1). en and a young man. We had met the young Some attempts were made to build dialogue man before and he was mentally disturbed. between the parties: in June 1999 while the ex- In point of fact, he was a genuinely sad cavation was ongoing, Clare Prout of Save our case. The two women were, however, dif- Sacred Sites (SOSS) held a meeting with rep- ferent. One had two young children with resentatives from English Heritage, the Norfolk her … while all eyes were on the tree, the Archaeological Unit, the local community, and policewoman on our side called across the protestors (Watson 2005: 42). This meet- and I looked up to see one of the team ing, which included invocations of ‘Ancestors stop the young woman (the one who came and Great Spirit’, led to a provisional agree- with the two children), who was making a ment that the timbers would be removed and dash towards the tree. He brought her to preserved, but that the site would be reconstruct- the ground. Immediately the policewoman ed. Nonetheless, the removal of the timbers took over, while the intruder screamed blue murder, and the young man with the

188 intellectual impairment screamed wildly, state and local agencies work quietly to manage adding to the general cacophony. archaeological heritage, the protectors of an- cient sites in popular culture are the Medjai in The timbers were removed from the site and The Mummy, the Brotherhood of the Cruciform sent for conservation: today they are on display Sword in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, in Lynn Museum. Despite the violent disruption or the ghouls watching over ancient treasures in and Pryor’s intolerant tone, he and other archae- the works of M. R. James and a dozen other hor- ologists were at pains to avoid an ‘us and them’ ror writers. In short, the image of archaeologists attitude, noting that most of the Pagans present in the media, at Seahenge and beyond, has been at the site were friendly and interested in the ar- negatively impacted by the simplistic but wide- chaeology, even if they opposed the removal of spread notion of archaeologists as despoilers, the timbers. along with the romantic vision of single-minded, dedicated protectors of heritage as both separate IN THE NEWS: ATTITUDES AND from and opposed to archaeology. AFTERMATHS It is worth noting that while Ascherson exam- ined the mass-media coverage of the controver- Seahenge came to prominence and gained its sy and found it favoured the protestors, Pagan nickname through local and national media in- author Robert Wallis (2003) examined the popu- terest: the protests and conflicts around the site lar archaeological media including the televi- were fuelled by this coverage and also served to sion show and British Archaeology heighten it. As with the Mithraeum and the Rose, magazine. Wallis found the coverage to be quite public opinion and press coverage were over- nuanced, with the protestors’ voices heard and a whelmingly on the side of the protestors. Neal great deal of sympathy for their viewpoints and Ascherson’s (2004: 147) study of archaeology in criticism of English Heritage. the British media discussed the case, noting that: The Seahenge controversy generated very poor publicity for English Heritage and for ar- [P]rotesters who attempted to block the chaeology in general. This has been acknowl- removal on grounds of magical integrity edged by senior figures in public forums includ- and chthonic piety received much sym- ing the ‘Debating Seahenge’ event held at the pathy and wide coverage from press and University of East Anglia in March 2000 and led television […] The chairman of the parish to some soul-searching and commitment to bet- council was quoted at some length when ter consultation. Despite these commitments, in he claimed that most locals wanted the the two decades since the Seahenge excavations monument to be ‘left in the care of the it has been disputes between archaeologists and sea’. In contrast, the English Heritage case Pagans around the treatment of ancient sites and for removing the timbers received only a human remains that have formed the basis for single sentence. the great majority of protests and public disputes in British archaeology (see Blain & Wallis 2007; Holtorf draws on Ascherson’s work and notes Parker Pearson et al. 2011; Wallis & Blain 2011; how the New Age protestors were presented Wallis 2015). in the press as protectors of the site, while the archaeologists whose work was at least osten- CONTEXTS sibly responding to a real threat to the site were portrayed as ‘desecrators and violators’ (Holtorf To more fully understand the three events out- 2007: 95). I have noted previously that the popu- lined in this paper we would need to place lar image of archaeologists as rapacious adven- them more firmly within their wider contexts. turers leaves no room for cautious heritage man- Each took place in a distinctive historical mo- agement: ‘the idea of archaeologists as stewards ment, which are worth briefly reviewing here. or guardians of archaeological heritage […] The Mithraeum dig was a spark of excitement has barely impacted upon popular culture and in a nation – and capital – emerging from post- consciousness.’ (Moshenska 2017: 164). While war austerity and beginning to renegotiate

189 its post-imperial national identity. The 1951 tactics from the UK protest movements of the Festival of Britain a few years before had in- 1990s such as the Twyford Down and Newbury cluded a striking set of displays on Britain’s Bypass anti-road protests, and the growing in- archaeological heritage, and Animal, Vegetable, ternational anti-globalization protest movement Mineral? had made television celebrities of that would culminate in the massive protests leading British archaeologists (Hawkes 1951). It against the World Trade Organization in Seattle is debatable to what extent the public interest in in November 1999 (Milton 2004; Della Porta & the site and outrage at its potential loss reflected Diani 2006). The anti-road protests are of par- lingering wartime attitudes of state responsibil- ticular interest, as the over-arching theme of pro- ity, and in particular the state’s power to bring tecting the natural environment from destructive private property into public ownership. The development has a great deal in common with post-war period saw the transfer of large num- the archaeological protests examined above. bers of country houses in Britain from private While a much deeper exploration of the his- owners to the National Trust, and the Mithraeum torical, political, and organisational contexts of protestors’ sense of ‘nationalised’ heritage can these protests is beyond the scope of this article, be seen in this context (Lees-Milne 1992). it is worth considering them through the lens of The two later events at the Rose and Seahenge social movement studies, and in particular the both took place against a strong background of study of protest movements. political activism and social protest. Many of the celebrity participants in the Rose Theatre pro- PROTEST MOVEMENTS tests were seasoned protestors: Peggy Ashcroft was a long-time champion of left-wing causes, [V]irtually all the pleasures that humans and Ian McKellen was then, as now, a pioneer- derive from social life are found in pro- ing and outspoken gay rights activist (Steele test movements: a sense of community 2001). Against the background of the right-wing and identity; ongoing companionship and Thatcher government, a rich culture of protest bonds with others; the variety and chal- emerged in 1980s Britain with focuses including lenge of conversation, cooperation and anti-fascism, nuclear disarmament, the Miners’ competition. (Jasper 1997: 220 quoted in Strike of 1984‒5, and – most relevantly – the Della Porta & Diani 2006: 14.) 1985 Battle of the Beanfield (Byrne 1997; Joyce 2002). The study of protest movements within political In this still-controversial episode, science and sociology took off in the 1970s, to Police violently attacked a convoy of New Age a considerable extent as a reaction to the emer- Travellers intent on reaching , site gence of protest movements around the world of the Stonehenge Free Festival every summer in 1968 and their impacts (Jakobsen & Listhaug since 1974 that attracted tens of thousands of 2014). The established repertoire of protest prac- visitors. With the stones declared out of bounds tices such as petitions, demonstrations, occupa- for the protection of the archaeological remains, tions, sit-ins, boycotts, blocking traffic, wildcat a few hundred people in a ‘Peace Convoy’ at- strikes, and withholding of rent or tax has a long tempted to breach the exclusion zone. Diverted and entangled history (see Della Porta & Diani into a field, the travellers’ vehicles were smashed 2006: 166). and burned by police who violently attacked the Early studies of protest behaviour such as occupants including pregnant women and par- those by Barnes and Kaase et al. (1979) and ents carrying children (Worthington 2005). others regarded protest as an elite-challenging The enduring resentment around the clo- behaviour characteristic of democratic, prosper- sure of Stonehenge during the summer solstice ous societies. They traced connections between was likely a contributing factor to the bad feel- participation in protests (broadly defined but ing towards English Heritage within the Pagan focused on non-violent tactics) and characteris- community, and thus the adversarial attitudes tics including higher levels of education, strong of many of the protestors at Seahenge. The civic values, and broadly left-wing politics. Seahenge protest itself drew inspiration and Interestingly, while these studies recognised the

190 presence of violent and criminal fringes in many and the emergence of new value frameworks. protest movements, they found them to be nu- This included a strong correlation with emanci- merically so insignificant as to fall within mar- patory views and the ‘postmaterialist values’ of gins of error in survey-based studies (Jakobsen autonomy, equality, and free expression identi- & Listhaug 2014: 215‒6). fied by Ronald Inglehart (e.g. Inglehart 1979; Participation in protests has been considered Jakobsen & Listhaug 2014). These and later as a series of escalating thresholds from the least studies have generally regarded participation in to the most extreme. The first threshold incor- non-violent protest as a positive on both indi- porates activities such as signing petitions and vidual and collective scales, as a process of self- taking part in formal demonstrations; the second empowerment that strengthens democratic pro- sees a move to more direct-action techniques cesses. An important step in this development such as boycotts, while remaining within the was the general move away from a deprivation law. The third threshold crosses into illegality theory-based model of individual motivation while remaining non-violent, as with obstructive towards one grounded in rational actor theory: occupations of buildings and wildcat strikes; ‘Grievance and greed are secondary factors for a the final threshold is the realm of interpersonal political action theory that sees activism as aris- violence and property destruction (Dalton 1988, ing from a person’s skills and capacity to under- cited in Della Porta & Diani 2006: 170). stand and manage the environment’ (Jakobsen & This sliding scale offers comparative insights Listhaug 2014: 216). into the three case studies: the Mithraeum exca- From the start, studies of protest as political vations remained largely within the first thresh- action have noted the importance of the media in old, characterised by letter-writing and political amplifying arguments, and in some cases serving lobbying, with a small element of non-violent as the primary intermediary between the protes- direct action amongst those – including journal- tors and those they hope to influence (e.g. Lipsky ists – who illegally entered the site to view and 1965; Della Porta & Diani 2006). Interestingly, photograph the remains. The ‘Save the Rose’ this is generally the case whether the media are protests again started with campaigning and pe- sympathetic or hostile to the protestors. In the titioning to the point – as with the Mithraeum – case of the Mithraeum the role of the media was that politicians became directly involved. In this formative and decisive throughout the contro- case, the holding of increasingly militant rallies versy. Without the spectacular press images of and meetings raised the threshold, so that by the the sculpted heads it is unlikely that the issue time the non-violent illegal action of blockading would have grown to the magnitude that it did, the site occurred it was not too much of a leap. and the print media remained the main forum for In both of these cases it is important to distin- discussion of the issue. At the Rose and again guish these thresholds within the movements: at at Seahenge the protestors showed themselves the Mithraeum only a tiny number climbed the adept and experienced at manipulating the me- walls and entered the site illegally, whereas at dia to their advantage, providing spectacles of the Rose a larger number of those directly in- speech and protest that played well to cameras. volved in the campaign were willing to break the Francis Pryor (2002: 257) remarked of the most law or at least make themselves party to it. The hard-core protestors at Seahenge that Seahenge campaign is another important case of scale and differentiation within the protest They had an extraordinary knack of turn- movement: the most hostile and belligerent pro- ing up whenever television news cameras testors who physically damaged the archaeologi- were present – indeed, it was almost as if cal workings and grappled with excavators and somebody was tipping them off, as they police were a tiny minority within a much larger rarely appeared when the media weren’t active, engaged but non-violent community. there. Studies of protest have often examined the values that underlie individuals’ willingness to Della Porta and Diani (2006: 180) identify the take part in non-conventional political engage- challenges for protestors to create consistently ments of these kinds, including changing values novel, newsworthy material without moving

191 to extremes that place them outside of public themes in all of the case studies is the relative sympathies, and note that: ‘Successful move- marginalization of the archaeologists: neither ments are often those that are able to develop the protagonists nor the antagonists. To a public controversies in such a way that they are more first energised by excitement at archaeological newsworthy by using symbols and images that discoveries and then galvanised by the threat of capture attention.’ At the Mithraeum, it was the their loss, the archaeologists at the Mithraeum spectacular sculptures that became the defining and the Rose proved disappointments as puta- image of the protest, while at Seahenge and the tive allies, and ultimately irrelevances in the Rose it was the protestors themselves. The ‘Save struggle against property, wealth, and political the Rose’ campaign recognised and used the ce- power. This reflects the financial and contrac- lebrity of their leadership to great effect, while at tual imperatives in commercial archaeology and Seahenge the images of wildly-dressed Pagans the compromises they force. As Ronayne (2008: standing and sitting within the timber circle or 124) notes, ‘People protesting against develop- confronting the archaeologists in the stark land- ments can view archaeologists as ‘the enemy’, scape created a powerful visual language. although many if not most field archaeologists are sympathetic to their struggles. Thus natural CONCLUSIONS allies are pitted against one another.’ At the Rose and again at Seahenge the English Heritage ar- The Wood Quay controversy in 1970s Dublin, chaeologists forced (however reluctantly) into cited at the opening of this paper, remains the the role of minor antagonists were opposed by largest and most impressive protest of an ar- the protestors not as representatives of archaeol- chaeological excavation. As Thomas Heffernan ogy, but of the state. Only at Seahenge do we see (1988: 3‒4) noted: a direct opposition to the work of the archaeolo- gists themselves, grounded in religious or spir- The “Save Wood Quay” forces surprised itual principles, and even then only on the part the corporation in some of the same ways of a small minority of the protestors. that the antiwar movement in America had To sum up the key findings of this paper and surprised the Johnson administration: they the common themes of the case studies examined grew fast and attracted a more varied mem- above, I will consider a few pertinent questions: bership than anyone would have expected; they were imaginative and original; they Q: What do the public want? were relentless. Before Wood Quay if one had heard that 20,000 people had marched A: To ‘save’ the archaeological herit- in the streets of Dublin, one would have age that they value. However, the precise assumed that it was a northern protest or meaning of ‘save’ varies from case to case, a religious event … A protest of that mag- and is consistently unclear - even to those nitude over a cultural cause was, as far as demanding it. anyone could remember, unprecedented. Q: What is the public’s expectation of Having looked in some depth at case studies of archaeology? protest at archaeological sites, I am inclined to be a little suspicious of Heffernan’s statement. A: In the public’s view, the role of the ar- Even if we accept – and it is by no means clear chaeologists ends with the uncovering of – that protests at archaeological sites are primar- the site. The protection and preservation of ily concerned with the archaeology, this does not the site as a visible, accessible heritage re- necessarily place the archaeologists at the fore- source is regarded as the natural and right front of the dispute. As archaeologists, it is nice role of the state. to think that our work matters, and as public ar- chaeologists it is gratifying to imagine ourselves Q: What sparks the protests? in possession of a lightning-rod of raw, radical public outrage. However, one of the consistent

192 A: When the public will to ‘save’ the ar- They need to understand us, but we also need chaeological heritage is suborned to the to understand them – there is a clear need and powers of private property and/or the state. great potential for further research into protest in public archaeology worldwide. Perhaps the most Q: Who wins? valuable insights might be gained from detailed interdisciplinary studies of ‘save’ movements as A: In most cases capital and state power political organisations working in specific plac- prevail, but in every case in this paper pro- es, times, and contexts. The life-stories of these test – amplified by sympathetic media – groups would provide fascinating insights for has proven its capacity to win concessions public archaeologists, detailing the movements’ and compromises, and in the longer term histories, internal politics and interpersonal dy- to effect changes to policy and practice. namics, their strategies and tactics, their suc- cesses and failures, and their individual and or- Q: Could a better public understanding of ganizational afterlives. It would be particularly the principles of rescue archaeology and interesting to examine cases like that of the Rose heritage management pre-empt and pre- Theatre, where an organization born in protest vent future conflicts like these? evolves into or gives rise to the more traditional form of heritage trust dedicated to the preserva- A: Honestly, I think it would make people tion of the site. As long as there are protests at even angrier. archaeological sites, they will continue to shape our world and remain a valuable source of in- But would this be a bad thing? I think not. The sights into public attitudes, interests and con- anger behind these protests was a righteous force cerns about heritage, and as public archaeolo- that helped to strengthen and politicise commu- gists we can benefit a great deal from their study. nities, and affected positive change to heritage practices. Participation in protest is positively ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS correlated with heightened political awareness and civic engagement. Protestors confronting an This paper was presented at the conference archaeological project are uniquely motivated to Living Communities and Their Archaeologies: educate themselves about archaeology, and as From the Middle East to the Nordic Countries at public archaeologists we do them a grave dis- the University of Helsinki in September 2019. I service if we fail to step up and support them in am grateful to the conference organisers for the this, even if we do not wholly share their goals invitation to deliver a keynote talk, and to the or tactics. conference delegates for the series of excellent The knowledge of archaeology that can em- papers and discussions. My thanks to Colleen power communities is not found in textbooks, Morgan, Joe Flatman, Lorna Richardson, Chris but rather in the understanding of archaeology Constable, and Chana Moshenska for their com- as economically and organisationally bound up ments on an earlier draft of this paper, along in the construction and development sector. with the editors and the two anonymous refer- This kind of public understanding of archae- ees. A version of this research was presented ology would be a component in a wider civic in an invited lecture at the University of Padua consciousness of urban and rural development, in April 2019, and I am grateful to Alexandra housing, infrastructure, public space, social and Chavarría Arnau and her students for this op- ecological stability, and the malign forces of portunity, and for their questions and comments. the state, capital and private ownership ranged The foundational ideas explored in this paper against them. One lesson of the Mithraeum, the are based on years of conversation with my col- Rose, and Seahenge is that if we want to drive league Tim Schadla-Hall, and with the students progressive change in our industry and beyond, on the MA Public Archaeology at UCL Institute we need an angry and well-informed public on of Archaeology. our side.

193 REFERENCES Grimes, W. F. 1968. The Excavation of Roman and Mediaeval London. London: Routledge Apaydin, V. & Hassett, B. 2019. Should I stay and Kegan Paul. or should I go? Ideals and realities of ar- Hafsaas-Tsakos, H. 2011. Ethical implications chaeology in the conflict regions. Journal of of salvage archaeology and dam building: Community Archaeology & Heritage 6(1): The clash between archaeologists and local 36‒50. people in Dar al-Manasir, Sudan. Journal of Ascherson, N. 2004. Archaeology and the Social Archaeology 11(1): 49‒76. British media. In N. Merriman (ed.) Public Hawkes, J. 1951. The origin of the British Archaeology: 159‒72. London: Routledge. people: Archaeology and the Festival of Balter, M. 2000. Archaeologists and Rabbis Britain. Antiquity 25(97): 4‒8. clash over human remains. Science 287 Heffernan, T. F. 1988. Wood Quay. The Clash (5450): 34‒5. Over Dublin’s Viking Past. Austin: University Barnes, S. H., Kaase, M., Allerbeck, K. R., of Texas Press. Farah, B. G., Heunks, F., Inglehart, R., Holton, G. 1992. How to think about the ‘anti- Jennings, M. K., Klingemann, H-D., Marsh, science’ phenomenon. Public Understanding A. & Rosenmayer, L. (eds) 1979. Political of Science 1(1): 103‒28. Action. Mass Participation in Five Western Holtorf, C. 2007. Archaeology is a Brand! The Democracies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Meaning of Archaeology in Contemporary Bernbeck, R. & Pollock, S. 1996. Ayodhya, ar- Popular Culture. Walnut Creek, CA: Left chaeology, and identity. Current Anthropology Coast Press. 37(S1): S138‒S142. Inglehart, R. 1979. Political action: The im- Biddle, M. 1989. The Rose reviewed: A comedy pact of values, cognitive level, and social (?) of errors. Antiquity 63(241): 753‒60. background. In S. H. Barnes, M. Kaase, K. Blain, J. & Wallis, R. J. 2007. Sacred Sites, R. Allerbeck, B. G. Farah, F. Heunks, R. Contested Rites/Rights. Pagan Engagements Inglehart, M. K. Jennings, H-D. Klingemann, with Archaeological Monuments. Brighton: A. Marsh, & L. Rosenmayer (eds) Political Sussex Academic Press. Action. Mass Participation in Five Western Blakey, M. L. 2010. African Burial Ground Democracies: 343‒80. Beverly Hills, CA: Project: paradigm for cooperation? Museums Sage. International 62(1‒2): 61‒8. Jackson, S. 2017. A Mithraeum for a mod- Bowsher, J. 1998. The Rose Theatre. An ern city: Rebuilding the Temple of Mithras Archaeological Discovery. London: Museum in London. In J. Dixon, G. Verdiani & P. of London. Cornell (eds) Architecture, Archaeology and Bradley, J. 1984. Viking Dublin Exposed: The Contemporary City Planning: 51‒8. London: Wood Quay Saga. Dublin: O’Brien Press. Museum of London Archaeology. Byrne, P. 1997. Social Movements in Britain. Jakobsen, G. & Listhaug, O. 2014. Social change London: Routledge. and the politics of protest. In R. J. Dalton & C. Dalton, R. 1988. Citizen Politics in Western Welzel (eds) The Civic Culture Transformed. Democracies. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House. From Allegiant to Assertive Citizens: 213‒39. Della Porta, D. & Diani, M. 2006. Social Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Movements. An Introduction. Second Edition. Jasper, J. 1997. The Art of Moral Protest. Oxford: Blackwell. Culture, Biography, and Creativity in Social Gauchat, G. W. 2008. A test of three theo- Movements. Chicago: University of Chicago ries of anti-science attitudes. Sociological Press. Focus 41(4): 337‒57. Joyce, P. 2002. The Politics of Protest. Extra- Greenfield, J. & Gurr, A. 2004. The Rose Theatre, Parliamentary Politics in Britain Since 1970. London: The state of knowledge and what we Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. still need to know. Antiquity 78(300): 330‒40. Kuntz, M. 2012. Destruction of public and gov- ernmental experiments of GMO in Europe. GM Crops & Food 3(4): 258‒64.

194 Lees-Milne, J. 1992. People and Places. takeover and a reply from University College Country House Donors and the National Dublin. Public Archaeology 7(2): 114–31. Trust. London: John Murray. Shepherd, J. 1998. The Temple of Mithras, Lipsky, M. 1965. Protest and City Politics. London. Excavations by W.F. Grimes and A. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co. Williams at the Walbrook. London: English Lyon, J. 2007. The Temple of Mithras: Changing Heritage. heritage values in the City of London 1954– Skeates, R. 2000. Debating the Archaeological 2006. Conservation and Management of Heritage. London: Duckworth. Archaeological Sites 9(1): 5‒37. Steele, B. C. 2001. The knight’s crusade. The Milton, K. 2004. A changing sense of place: Advocate 11 December: 36–8; 40–5. Direct action and environmental protest in Taylor, R. 2014. Archaeology and Aboriginal the UK. In J. G. Carrier (ed.) Confronting protest: The influence of Rhys Jones’s Environments. Local Understanding in Tasmanian work on Australian historiog- a Globalizing World: 165‒82. Oxford: raphy. Australian Historical Studies 45(3): Altamira. 331‒49. Monaghan, R. 1997. Animal rights and violent Ucko, P. J. 1987. Academic Freedom protest. Terrorism and Political Violence and Apartheid. The Story of the World 9(4): 106‒16. Archaeological Congress. London: Moshenska, G. 2017. Archaeologists in popular Duckworth. culture. In G. Moshenska (ed.) Key Concepts Wainwright, G. J. 1989. Saving the in Public Archaeology: 151‒65. London: rose. Antiquity 63(240): 430‒5. UCL Press. Wallis, R. J. 2015. Paganism, archaeology and Orrell, J. & Gurr, A. 1989. What the Rose can folklore in twenty-first-century Britain: A case tell us. Antiquity 63(240): 421‒9. study of ‘The Stonehenge Ancestors’. Journal Parker Pearson, M. G., Moshenska, G. & for the Academic Study of Religion 28(2): Schadla-Hall, T. 2011. Resolving the human 129‒57. remains crisis in British archaeology. Papers Wallis, R. J. 2003. Shamans/Neo-shamans. from the Institute of Archaeology 21: 6‒10. Ecstasy, Alternative Archaeologies, and Phelan, P. 1996. Playing dead in stone, or, when Contemporary Pagans. London: Routledge. is a rose not a rose? In E. Diamond (ed.) Wallis, R. J. & Blain, J. 2011. From respect to Performance and Cultural Politics: 65‒88. reburial: Negotiating Pagan interest in prehis- London: Routledge. toric human remains in Britain, through the Pryor, F. 2002. Seahenge. A Quest for Life consultation. Public Archaeology and Death in . London: 10(1): 23‒45. HarperCollins. Watkins, J. 2000. Indigenous Archaeology. Pyburn, K. A. 2011. Engaged archaeol- American Indian Values and Scientific ogy: Whose community? Which public? Practice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & In K. Okamura & A. Matsuda (eds.) New Littlefield. Perspectives in Global Public Archaeology: Watson, C. 2005. Seahenge. An Archaeological 29‒42. New York: Springer. Conundrum. Swindon: English Heritage. Ronayne, M. 2008. The State we’re in on the eve Wood, C. 2002. The meaning of Seahenge. 3rd of World Archaeological Congress (WAC) Stone 43: 49‒54. 6: Archaeology in Ireland vs corporate Worthington, A. (ed.) 2005. The Battle of the Beanfield. Teignmouth: Enabler Publications.

195