www.stonehenge-druids.org

Interview - Emma Restal Orr

Questions by Frank

 28-10-2009


Yes indeed, both my beliefs and my religious practice are based upon the recognition and experience of spirit in all of nature. This I would call animism. The 'spirit' is shared in that each part of - or individual entity within - nature is integral to the whole. What we mean by 'spirit' is always interesting to discuss and debate, but here I assume your meaning to be simply a term for the essence that holds purpose, experience, consciousness, memory: what in Druidry I call the song.

 


Typical, yes, widespread, but not definitively Druidic. In other words, there are Druids whose worldview and beliefs are not animistic. There are also some for whom any metaphysical perception is not a relevant part of their faith, their religious practice instead being based upon reverence for individual and apparently fairly transcendent (super-natural) gods and the discarnate souls of their ancestors.

 


I think considering evidence is complicated, because archaeological evidence can so often be interpreted in many different ways. More relevant to me is what I glean from the clues, archaeological and anthropological and so forth, that honouring the dead is fundamental to any functional society. What then, however, do we mean by 'honour', for this changes in time and place.

I would point out the importance of connectedness in Paganism and Druidry. For those who perceive the world as a fully integrated whole, a fundamentally interconnecting web of being, its micro- to macrocosmic ecosystems existing within and around each other, nature not so much infused with but living as 'shared spirit', time is no more a separating factor than any other apparent boundary. As human beings, we are a part of nature's perpetual creativity, dependent upon every breath and footstep that went before or elsewhere. When someone dies, their changed state affects the whole, and continues to do so. It is essential then that we maintain good relationships with the dead. This means honourable relationship.

Again, what honour meant to our ancestors we have little idea. I believe the animistic, integrated worldview, based on connectedness, was fundamental to human societies, and only really broken up by the spread of Abrahamic monotheistic transcendental religions and the mechanistic science of our relatively recent past (17th century Europe). Those of us who maintain the old view, I think, are likely to share a perspective with our ancestors who saw the world similarly, based upon that view of how nature works.


Because we are the dead. I'm aware that is poetic, but it is hard to explain without using poetry. Any dishonour to my ancestors is felt as dishonour to myself. Equally, to dishonour me is to dishonour my ancestors. We are connected.

 


What a huge question, yet only perhaps so if I were to try and be inclusive, embracing many ideas of what honour could be.

With regard to human remains, in Honouring the Ancient Dead (HAD) any issue is taken to the network of advisors and volunteers as a whole, feedback requested and all input woven together to find out just what a path of honour might entail. Our basic premise then is that consultation is essential. As a resident of the north Cotswolds, I would defer to those living in North Wales to make decisions about ancestral remains disinterred from North Wales. I am aware that values and priorities differ.

 

For myself, I would say that human remains should not be disinterred unless unavoidable, and where they are they should be reburied as soon as is possible, and as close to the original site as is secure and possible. But I myself don't place a great deal of value on the information gleaned from scientific research on my ancestors' remains. I acknowledge that others do, and they have as much right to contribute an opinion and be heard as I do. Decisions about what constitutes honour, then, should be made collectively by all those who have a genuine interest in the human remains in question.

 

In your experience how aware are the different groups (archaeologist/antiquarians, government, museums, the public) of our concern about the fate of our ancestors and their dignity?

 

The issue is certainly well known now amongst those in the fields of heritage, museums and archaeologist. In part this is due to the work of HAD and CoBDO, but also it must be recognised that there is now a very broad and rising movement within the fields of humanities, such as sociology and anthropology, who are questioning how scientific views claim custody of human remains, and where this is to the detriment of others' interests, values and beliefs.

 

It is my firm belief that, even if Pagan and Druidic organisations stopped working for a change in attitudes towards the ancient dead, the current of change would continue, and it would not take long before a different attitude would prevail. We are a part of the movement of change, not all of it, not even leading it, and where we acknowledge that as true we can find mutual learning, support and fuel.


Some parts of the heritage sector are nervous of Pagans, notably English Heritage and the National Trust, these being organisations whose attitude towards human remains is based upon scientific research. Their community accountability and engagement are still very poor compared with many locally funded museums. However, I think they have been scared by CoBDO's aggressive stance, which has laid down gagging orders on individual museum staff, and disabled any community interaction or discussion about human remains. It is critical that this be positively addressed.

 


No more than is true for a living human being. To the animist, the ancestors are still persons, people, individuals who are part of our community, our tribe. When we perceive human remains as things, objects, without spirit or inherent purpose, without experience or vibrancy of connection, then as things they can be used. It is not honourable to use a person. A functional adult will make relationships, not use other people. As an animist, I do not see the difference between how we use a living or a dead person. We should not.

There are times when a person can choose, for himself or somebody in his care, to allow science to intervene, compromising dignity or religiou belief for another cause. But these are hard decisions, and where the individual cannot decide for themselves they are decisions that need to be made in consultation with all who are involved. I personally tend not to compromise dignity or religious belief for the sake of science, but I acknowledge that other people will choose otherwise.

 


Personally, I find display always unnecessary, undignified and offensive. There are occasions when we do view the dead, and this can be important, allowing a valuable spiritual connection, an opportunity to talk, to show respect, to sing old prayers and stories, and find healing. I mean this of the ancient and the newly dead. But a museum is not the place for this. Where human remains are on display in glass boxes, alongside other artefacts, as if they were simply other objects, more shards and bits of broken blades or jewellery, with uninformative labels, it is horrendous. Where whole skeletons or bog bodies are on display, they are usually in brightly lit glass cases, showing no respect for their status as human beings. I would not want the body of grandfather on display, so why should I condone the display of someone else's?

 

It is feasible and valuable perhaps to display replica bones, skeletons, or bog bodies, with good accompanying materials, and the educational element of a museum's purpose be fulfilled.

 

HAD would put forward the view that any decision about whether human remains should be on display should be made through consultation of all relevant parties. HAD's Guidance for the Display of Human Remains in Museums can be found on the website.

 


Personally, I do not favour archaeology except as a way of dealing with what is found in ground that has been disturbed by unavoidable development. However I recognise my view to be extreme and radical, and that to assert such a view is unhelpful in discussions. Your view is a good starting point. HAD would assert that full consultation is the answer, involving not just Pagans for whom the dead are sacred, but also the local community for whom the disinterred are within their duty of care.

 

There are plenty of examples of where human remains have been honoured: they are stories that do not reach the media. Archaeologists deeply moved by the excavation of human remains, who as quickly as is feasible study the remains, document carefully what has been found, and reinter them without fuss or publicity. This is fairly common practice.

 

Also, there are now a number of museums who are finding the funding and time to catalogue the human remains in their care, and put to consultation and review what might be done with them, and in particular the unprovenanced remains: these I call the 'faceless dead'. They are the majority of human remains disinterred during the early days of antiquarianism and archaeology, right up to the 1970s, where there is little or no useful documentation, no provenance, no dates or even information about who excavated the remains. Any scientific value of these bones is negligible as finds would have no context. Where museums and archaeological units are doing this work, reburial is usually on the cards as an option. If these bones are reburied, then we have witnessed honourable interaction. It is being done, and HAD is part of the work.

Where religious and community interests are dismissed as irrelevant, we see dishonour.

 


To be honest, HAD has not encountered the same opposition as CoBDO. And where we had good dialogue, where CoBDO got involved that dialogue has been compromised. I do not dismiss CoBDO, as an aggressive front line action, as having no place within this situation, however there are instances where it has made it very hard for anyone else to get involved. Doors have closed.

 


There are no valid arguments for people with community and religious interests to get involved in dialogue about human remains.

 


Pagan groups, in my experience, do not like to be associated with those who noisily and theatrically protest on behalf of the Pagan community. Many Pagans live lives in secular worlds where work colleagues and neighbours may not know their religious beliefs and practices, and that suits them fine. They are embarrassed when they hear comments that ridicule Pagans who appear in the media, in their daft robes with their worship of trees and bones, or protesting outside Stonehenge. Arthur Pendragon, warm hearted and wholly sincere though he certainly may be, is considered ridiculous by many in the secular world. My feeling is this is why Pagans want little to do with your work.

 

Paganism is also fundamentally anarchistic, which means Pagans hate it when anyone else claims to represent their views. Even if they agree with them, they don't want to be represented by anyone else. Then there is reality that Pagans get on with their own lives, and seldom support any campaigns or projects that they are not immediately involved with. This is common in human nature, in so much of society - ask anyone trying to garner support from their own community for a worthwhile cause! How do we get Pagans to get involved?!

 


Personally yes, unreservedly, I do. HAD is currently in discussion about it, but so far the feedback we have had is in support of your work.

I hope my words are of some help to those exploring these issues. I ask that readers remember the difference between what are my own views and what are those put forward by the collective network that is HAD, and if there is any doubt to contact me personally for clarification. HAD's website is worth exploring and any volunteers, whether simply those who go on our list of people who give feedback to issues, or those who are working on the ground making changes, are more than welcome to get in touch.

 

Blessings

Emma Restall Orr

October 2009

HAD - http://www.honour.org.uk

 

Read CoBDO Comment