Charmed Circle: Stonehenge, Contemporary Paganism, and Alternative Archaeology

• Published in: Numen Vol. 59; no. 2-3; pp. 138 - 155
• Main Author: Cusack, Carole M
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Netherlands Brill 2012
• Subjects: Antiquarianism; Archaeological paradigms; Archaeological research; Archaeological sites; Archaeology; Bronze Age; Druidism; Druidry; Druids; England; Europe; folklore; General subjects. History of religions. Religious anthropology; History and sciences of religions; Metal Ages; New religious movements and sects; North West Europe; Numen; Paganism; Popular culture; Prehistoric religions; Prehistory and protohistory; Religious practice; Religious rituals; Ritual; Spiritual belief systems; Stonehenge; Studies in religion; United Kingdom; Neopaganisme; Historiography; Religious practices; folklore; Secularization; Religion-Science; Neo-Druidism; archaeology; Druidry; Stonehenge
• ISSN: 0029-5973; 1568-5276; 0029-5973
• DOI: 10.1163/156852712X630752

Abstract The impressive stone circle Stonehenge is understood by academic archaeologists to be a site of ritual significance to the prehistoric inhabitants of Wiltshire. It is constructed on cosmological principles based on a solar alignment, reflecting "a distinctive idea of time, which revolved around the cyclical movements of sun, moon, and stars across the heavens, as indicators of the passing seasons" (Fagan 1998:160). This article sketches mainstream archaeological interpretations of Stonehenge, then contrasts them with the popular narrative of its Druidic origin and purpose, which emerged in the seventeenth century. Modern Druids have negotiated the right to perform rituals at Stonehenge with English Heritage, the custodial body with responsibility for the monument, and Druidry has been recognised as a religion in the United Kingdom in 2010 (Beckford 2010). Modern Druidry, an "invented tradition," conflicts with academic archaeology in its claims regarding Stonehenge (Chippindale 1986:38-58). Postmodern archaeological theories, which privilege "popular folk archaeology" (Holtorf 2005b:11), are more open to vernacular interpretations of artifacts and sites. These perspectives are broadly compatible with the deregulated religio-spiritual marketplace of the twenty-first century, which is characterized by a plethora of new religions and a pluralistic model of religious truth.1