Stonehenge and Brexit: a rap on the knuckles for archaeologists

Richardson, L-J and Booth, T 2017 Response to ‘Brexit, Archaeology and Heritage: Reflections and Agendas’. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 27(1): Art. 25, pp. 1–5

Thanks to Tony for drawing my attention to this article.  Very interesting indeed.  This needs to be read in the context of some of my recent posts:

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2019/08/parker-pearson-unification-and.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2019/04/stonehenge-was-built-by-immigrants.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-yamnaya-peace-loving-travellers.html

Mike Parker Pearson was in my view very foolish to get into all this nonsense about isolation, unification and Brexit in his 2012 book and in some carefully-planned subsequent statements:

"They're the people who bring Britain out of the Stone Age. Up until then, the people of Britain had cut themselves off from the continent - 'Neolithic Brexit'. This is the moment when Britain re-joins the continent after 1,000 years of isolation - most of the rest of Europe was well out of the Stone Age by this point."

"All the architectural influences for Stonehenge can be found in previous monuments and buildings within Britain, with origins in Wales and Scotland. In fact, Britain’s Neolithic people were isolated from the rest of Europe for centuries. Britain may have become unified but there was no interest in interacting with people across the Channel. Stonehenge appears to have been the last gasp of this Stone Age culture, which was isolated from Europe and from the new technologies of metal tools and the wheel."

Why did he say these things?  Well, he likes to think about prehistoric features in the context of grand and sweeping "political" scenarios which are, of course, nonsensical.  He was also, of course, thinking just as much about media coverage as about communications with archaeologists.  And therein lies the nub.  You sow seeds in the media at your peril, for there is no knowing where it will all lead.  I am not suggesting that MPP has knowingly spread neo-Nazi ideas -- which seem to be based on the idea that our great heritage sites are somehow reflections or manifestations of racial purity and racial supremacy going back at least as far as the Neolithis --but he really should be more careful.

Anyway, it now seems that the recent research has shown that Stonehenge was NOT built by a "British" or Aryan super-race.  I saw this comment in some of the related correspondence:  "More importantly and beneficial is the breaking of the link between the Neolithic and various far right claims of national identity. Various very unsavoury groups like to claim a racial purity back to the builders of the monuments........"

This is the article:

Richardson, L-J and Booth, T 2017 Response to ‘Brexit, Archaeology and Heritage: Reflections and Agendas’. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 27(1): Art. 25, pp. 1–5, 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/pia-545

https://pia-journal.co.uk/articles/10.5334/pia-545/galley/754/download/

Quotes:

"The .... data collated from Twitter emphasise the misunderstandings associated with DNA testing amongst non-specialist publics, as well as the personal and group meanings of ethnicity and associated identity. There are also numerous associations that can be found in this dataset between neo-Nazi ideas of northern European ‘whiteness’, and the location of very specific geographic origins that can be found in archaeological work with ancient DNA. Overwhelmingly, as these data will demonstrate, the complicated association between present ethnic identity and ancient DNA is misunderstood, over-simplified, and frequently used to fit into nationalist narratives and support ideas of white supremacy." 

"It has long been argued that archaeological public engagement needs to adjust, adapt and evolve according to the prevailing social and political winds, and the post-Brexit vote backlash against experts is a clarion call for professional archaeologists to promote them- selves as public intellectuals and engage with difficult societal issues. This feeds directly into the theme of ‘intuitive knowledge’ which is perceived to have driven some of the arguments around Brexit and may lie at the heart of new nationalisms and post-Brexit heritage. Two ‘intuitive tenets’ related to these issues are pervasive in the public consciousness: that ancestry and heritage are fundamentally linked, and that British biology and nationhood were simultaneously forged in the Early Medieval period. Analyses of  both modern and ancient DNA are now undermining these biologically determinist notions of nationhood and heritage. "

And later:  

".........in general terms, modern British white Europeans are not directly descended from the people that originally built Stonehenge, and in a biologically determinist model of heritage, Stonehenge would not be British heritage."

"Archaeologists perhaps need to consider how they can effectively and aggressively ground the new social narratives that are created as a result of work on archaeological genetics within local and national archaeologies, starting from the point that these discoveries are published both within the academic sphere and in popular media. Since open access academic publications are becoming increasingly common, it is not unusual for popular media to interpret the findings of an academic research paper after publication, and this can lead to misleading information being taken out of context."

Those final comments represent a real rap over the knuckles for archaeologists, who can be so keen to grab spectacular headlines that they are prepared to twist (and even manufacture) evidence in order to achieve their objectives.  The point about the increasing public mistrust of "experts" is important too.  It means that if respect is to be recovered, there is a greater need now for good research and sound science -- both of which are sadly lacking in the archaeological work that has taken up so much of our time on this blog.

Post-processualism probably has something to do with it -- involving a drift away from observation, data collection and parsimonious explanations towards rambling narratives and wild fantasies.  Archaeology needs to rediscover its integrity and stay out of politics.