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’ timber circle 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,