This is a follow-up to the article on so-called "psychic vandalism" that was published in the Spring Equinox issue of The Right Times, the magazine of The Friends of the Rollright Stones. At the time I wrote that it seemed to me that it had to be patently obvious to people that physical damage of any sort was A Bad Thing, and that I would be preaching to the converted. In the case of the readers of The Right Times, I think I probably would be, however some of the events that have transpired since then simply beggar belief. They have annoyed me sufficiently to make me feel it is necessary to explain exactly what happens, in both scientific and layman's terms, what happens to the physical fabric of a site when it is damaged in the ways that self-proclaimed pagans and newagers (pronounced, rather unkindly, as in "sewage") frequently seem to do.

First, a bit of background.

There are two main varieties of site frequented by pagans and others of that ilk. These are stone circles or other forms of standing stones and tombs of one sort or another, although iron age hill forts and chalk figures are also popular. These sites are generally between, to make an extremely crude approximation, 3000 and 6500 years old, dating from the Neolithic and Bronze Age. A great many of the more well-known ones are listed under the Ancient Sites and Monuments Act and are therefore protected by law. Most of them come under the responsibility of English Heritage or the National Trust. Some of the remainder are owned privately.

We cannot be sure why these sites were built in the way that they were, although we know that many show astronomical alignments. The sites that are not tombs might have been for religious rites, or might have been meeting places.These sites are prehistoric. That means that they were created and in use in a time that came before the start of documentation. In other words, there are no written records from that time telling us what they were for, how they were built, or giving us answers to any of the other many questions that plague us in regards to these places. It is far beyond the scope of this article to speculate on these matters, and there are a number of places on the internet that approach the issues from a scholarly viewpoint(there is a good list of links at http://www.stonepages.com/stones/Scotland/Inglese/ArcSites.html, or work your way round the Stones Web Ring) as well as archaeological texts that offer ideas (The Oxford Illustrated Prehistory of Europe, edited by Currant Bun Liffe...oops! Sorry, I mean Barry Cunliffe [OUP, 1994, ISBN 0 19 814385 0], has a chapter on this period).

What we can be sure of is that these places were obviously of great importance to the people who built them, and probably had great ritual significance, even if that ritual was concerned with the marketplace rather than religion. In many instances the builders have evidently gone to great effort to erect structures that have, in a surprising number of cases, stood the test of time and remained in situ for us to admire and stand before in awe, thousands of years later. But they will not be around in another couple of thousand years, perhaps not even in a couple of hundred, if they continue to be subjected to the abuse which it has been my horror to witness in recent times.

I must state, for the record, that I am pagan, if you had not guessed already, and in principle I am not opposed to the use of sites, sacred or otherwise. I am opposed to the sort of thoughtless trampling and ritual shenanigans that I have often seen, and heard justified. I have heard damage to sites justified as being part of the great cycle of death and rebirth, and my arguing against use that causes damage has earned me accusations of arrogance and placing myself in a position to say that people may not use these sites and that people may not have any effect on them whatsoever. This is not true. I am against causing unnecessary damage, and so much of the damage is unnecessary. Some might say that all damage should be avoided, and I would acgree, but there are certain things such as a degree of soil erosion that can only be managed, rather than totally prevented, if access is to be permitted.

There are a number of things that are commonplace at sites when I visit them:

• Candlewax
• Joss stick remains
• Charcoal incense block remains and incense debris
• Dead nightlights
• Coins and other objects inserted in erosion holes
• Fire remains
• Buried crystals
• Chalked symbols
• Feathers
• Herbage (eg flowers)
• Food
• Seeds or nuts

Less commonly, I also find ritual objects such as knives, jewellery and poppets, and other types of offering such as tobacco (generally Golden Virginia, for some reason). The thing I found recently that horrified me so greatly was a stone that had been chipped to provide a souveneir for a tourist, or perhaps an item for a magical altar. I am not even going to consider the idea that any one with due reverence or respect would think of justifying such an act.

Let us consider the above items in turn.

In the British Isles alone there are 2087 species of lichen (as listed by the British Lichen Society), of which 26 are endangered enough to be on the Red List (a list of the protected species may be found at http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/cpsu/endlich.html). A lichen is any species of the group Lichenes, and consists of a specific fungus and a specific algae living together symbiotically (the proposition that this is so was first made by Beatrix Potter!). Lichens are extremely sensitive, and have been used as indicators of atmospheric pollution. To clear up a common misconception, lichens do not eat the rock. You will not be helping to preserve the stones by removing the lichen (yes, I have heard that argument used). Lichens also grow very slowly, at a rate in the order of fractions of an inch in a year, so any damage done to an organism can take decades or centuries for it to repair. A very nice man called Dr Karl-Erik Renhorn from the Lichen Interest Group told me: " Crustose lichens (the ones growing so tightly appressed to the substrate -mostly rock- that they can´t be removed)are the slowest growers, about 0,5- 2 mm/yr radial increase.... once the abundant lichen cover of an ancient monument has been removed, we are mostly in for centuries of waiting before it comes back to that state." [Personal communication, 1999]

Apart from being unsightly, candlewax on stones will smother and kill lichen, if the thermal shock of hot wax landing on it doesn't do so immediately. Picking the candlewax off can cause even more damage, by causing traumatic injury to the organism, for instance by peeling it off the rock. It is therefore not acceptable to light candles on a site and leave them on stones where the hot wax can drip all over them. Other forms of organism such as algae and slime moulds (a favourite of Roger Penrose), as well as certain forms of fungus and moulds (yes, moulds have an intrinsic value as well), are found on rocks that are inside chamber tombs, so there is no excuse for that sort of behaviour there either. Candlewax dripped onto the grass at a site can be mistaken for food by animals, just as plastic bags can, and while not necessarily toxic, can cause problems if a piece of wax is swallowed that is comparatively large with respect to the animal. Candles sold for use outdoors are a particular problem, especially those used to repel insects, for these can be toxic if ingested.

Joss stick remains may not seem particularly harmful, but if no one came along to pick them up they would soon mount up and one could practically build a small house with them. Of course, incense in general is a problem, because the smoke, particularly resinous smoke, leaves traces behind and forms a coating on rocks if used within a chamber tomb. As with anything burning, there is the matter of incident heat to consider. A lit incense block will do no good at all to the stone on which it is left to burn, even if a layer of sand is put down first. The heat can cause chemical changes in the rock, making it more susceptible to weathering, although we shall look at this when we look at fire specifically. There are levels of damage of which one may not be aware, even if one goes to the trouble of clearing up afterwards.

Dead nightlights have some of the same problems associated with them that candles in general do, although there is also the matter of the metal container that holds the wax. I have seen people go to a chamber tomb, light one of these nightlights, meditate for not more than a few minutes, and then walk away to let it burn. People will do this and then ask why one is removing the dead remains of other nightlights, so it is obvious that not all of them intend to come back later and pick up the remains. I am given to understand that the purpose behind this is that leaving the candle to burn out completes a spell of some kind, but I must ask why it is necessary to do such a short and simple thing at a prehistoric monument.

Objects inserted into erosion holes are a particular irritant for me. The act of forcing the coin (or other object - I have pulled out nails and screws before now) into the chosen hole can damage the rock itself. Rocks with holes are almost invariably limestone, which is in and of itself one of the most prone to weathering.

I will just diverge for a moment to explain weathering, as it is very important.

All rocks weather. If a child ever asks you why the sea is salty, you may tell them that it is as a result of weathering. Rainfall impacts upon rocks and dissolves them away, slowly, over time, and rivers carry the minerals thus accumulated down to the sea. Mineral water contains minerals because rainwater has dissolved them out of rocks. Rain, because of an equilibrium process with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, is slightly acidic.

The primary weathering process for limestone comprises the following:

which is the process whereby rain becomes acidic and:

which is the process which leads to dissolution of rock. If large amounts of carbon dioxide are available, such as if burning is occuring, then the reaction will proceed more rapidly. The effects of one fire may well be insignificant, but over a period of time, other changes in the rock can contribute to this effect. Limestone is usually pockmarked and fluted, which is why people can stick stones in it. This is because the density of the limestone is not uniform, and the weathering process can occur only where the carbonic acid in the rainwater can get at the rock.

It is for this reason that the removal of lichens and the forcing of objects into rocks is a problem. Any damage to the surface of the rock, even slight damage, and certainly that caused by chipping bits off, increases the surface area of rock exposed to the etching effects of rainwater. Metal objects may also release acidic by-products as they corrode, increasing the weathering effects. As well as this, they have a tendency to expand, and may well cause pressure damage if wedged in tightly. Removal of these objects, if not done carefully, can increase the damage.

Fire. There is a simple adage - fire and stones do not mix. Hannibal used fire and water to crack immense boulders to enable his elephants to pass over the alps. The simple fact is that fire can cause immense damage to sites. Clay in the soil will bake and harden, preventing the free growth of plants. Stones crack and break as water in the intersitial spaces (the gaps in between particles of rock) and the stone itself expands in the heat. Chemical changes occur, making the rock more friable, more fragile. Heated limestone has the consistency of granulated sugar, and the structure of any stone never recovers after fire has damaged it. This is above and beyond the damage done to the lichens, which alone will ensure that the rock is more prone to weathering in future. A fire lit on stone and followed by a brief shower can, and probably will, spell disaster. Even removing turf, in itself an illegal act, in order to light a fire on the soil below, will scar a site and change its character. I had the misfortune to visit a site and find the remains of seven fires. I can only imagine they were all used for the same ritual, as surely any sensible person would at least have the common decency to use an area previously scarred. No, I take that back. Any sensible person would have the decency not to use a fire at all.

At the Rollright Stones there has been evidence of people lighting fires on the stones themselves, and while the people responsible have put down sand and/or earth (there has been more than one incident) there have still been scorch marks, dead lichen, and increased friability of the stone where the fires were lit. There is also evidence that someone has been using one of the stones as an alter, with builders sand having been found on the top, presumably to protect the stone from incense blocks or something similar. It has not helped. The stone underneath is still showing signs of interstitial water loss.

Next up on the list we have buried crystals. Oh boy. I have a fair few of those sitting at home on my shelf. Quite the collection. There are, as far as I can ascertain, a couple of reasons why people bury crystals at sites. One of those reasons is as a thankyou to the Guardian spirits, as a votive offering, presumably to give back something if the perpetrator feels that he or she has been gifted something by the site. The other reason is to somehow retune the site energetics, either to "heal" the site or to change it in order to further some end. At sites with eroded limestone megaliths, it is also quite common for the crystals to be poked into erosion holes.

Offerings to the Spirits of Place should not be permanent things. What would a Guardian Spirit do with such a thing? Use it as a mirror? Keep it on the windowledge where the sun can shine through it? What use would such beings have for a small piece of silicate rock, particularly when that pice of rock was probably strip mined out of some distant land by five year olds trapped in the misery of slave labour? We will come back to the issue of thankyous in a minute, but suffice for now to say that this really is inappropriate. Placing the crystal within a hole in the rock can cause damage, and the soil at any site should not be disturbed because it is both illegal and disrespectful.

The arrogance of the attitude that sticking a lump of pretty rock somewhere on a site will somehow "heal" it is somewhat bemusing. Also, the attitude that it is any one person's right to change a site to fit their own particular purpose is a self-centred conceit that should not be tolerated. Claims of instruction by a "Higher Authority" are something that I have always looked upon with a great deal of skepticism, generally because all the "Higher Authorities" I know have much better ways of doing things than burying rose quartz under dolmens and singing to dolphins. There are people, both of the regular kind and the more metaphysical, who look after these places. Both energetic changes (dealt with in the previous article) and physical remnants will be removed. It is pointless (even the quartz, heh), as well as being arrogant and disrespectful.

Now we come to chalked symbols. People have heard me rant on this topic before. Symbols marked on stones are not "acts of creativity", they are graffiti, pure and simple. The act of chalking them there can damage the stone surface, and the lichens (delicate little things). Is it strictly necessary to chalk umpteen pentagrams all over the place? What are they supposed to do? Is your technique so bad that you actually have to have them there in front of you? Chalked symbols will not increase the harmonic resonance of the ritual, they will not protect you from things from the Dungeon Dimensions. They might do significant harm to the site, and you can be sure that angry site Guardians will be a lot more scary than anything that might turn up because you failed to chalk up pentagram number 13 on the cap stone.

People also leave feathers. This seems to be a very druid thing to do, and I'm not sure exactly what this action is supposed to represent. Spirits of Place have about as much use for feathers as they do for quartz crystals, particularly when it is just a bunch of pigeon feathers that have been picked up from the roadside. Feathers last a long time. They don't decompose very readily. They are bascially another form of litter, and we all know what the Countryside Code says about litter. I have seen (and had words with) someone trying to poke feathers into the holes at the Whispering Knights. By now I'm sure you will be able to work out how this could cause damage and why that is a bad thing.

I will deal with the last few items on the list altogether, as they come under the same general set of principles of votive offerings, apart from when used to decorate a ritual space.

It seems common in summer months for visitors to sites to pick flowers from around the site and leave it within the perceived "sacred area". At the Rollrights this generally involves picking bundles of cow parsley and buttercups and leaving them on the stones, in holes in the stones, or in the centre of the circle itself. Apart from the fact that the plant matter immediately dies and starts to rot, which isn't very pleasant, why should dead plants on the stones be any better or more pleasing to the site than live ones growing happily alongside, feeding the insects and contributing to the ecosystem?

Imported hothouse flowers also make an appearance, particularly when the wildflowers are not in bloom. The environmental impact of these flowers is on the negative side to say the least. Forced blooms, housed in massive greenhouse spaces that might as well be a concrete jungle, using up luxurious quantities of energy and water, and then shipped over the world using the fastest transport possible in refrigerated containers in order to reach the shop fresh and marketable. Is that really the sort of thing that a Land Spirit would appreciate?

While a few crumbs and a couple of drops of wine may well be appropriate as offerings, as they have barely any impact (if it really is a few crumbs and a couple of drops of wine), half a picnic is not an ideal thing to leave sitting around at a site. Food takes time to decompose, and just because a thing is edible, it does not mean it is suitable fare for wildlife. Just as a dog will eat sufficient chocolate to poison itself if given the opportunity, and hedgehogs will eat bread and milk despite having a severe lactose intolerance, birds and other creatures will probably scavenge anything you leave out, whether it will make them ill or not. Decomposing food is also rather unpleasant and certainly does not contribute anything pleasant to the atmosphere of a site. Seeds and nuts can be a real problem if they are put into erosion holes and then sprout. Some plants can exert considerable hydraulic pressure with their roots - have you seen trees and weeds creating cracks in concrete?

The main question to ask yourself when making an offering is, "what would be the impact if everyone who came here did this thing?" It has been suggested that having compost heaps at sites to deal with the vast amounts of organic matter that are left there would be a good idea, but it would be a far better one for people to start considering more carefully the things they do and leave at sites. Remember the old saying "take nothing but photographs, leave nothing but footprints". Many people would prefer if you did your best to avoid the footprints as well. Soil erosion, as anyone who has visited the Rollright Stones in the past year will know, is a big problem.

I support the ASLaN Charter.

I will make a few brief comments on what to do if you find damage at a site.

Things wedged into stones

If the object is readily accessible and not firmly wedged in, take it out, being careful not to scratch the surface of the rock or cause any more damage. If it is firmly wedged in, then contact the site owners, if there are any, or English Heritage and let them know. If the object is a long way down a hole but loosely confined, then a piece of blue tac on the end of a long thin rod is useful. I have also found that chewing gum, pressed on the end of a rod and then heated carefully in a flame, shaped so that it will not come off or contact the sides of the cavity on insertion, is very good at picking out heavier objects, but extreme care must be taken not to touch the stone with the gum. Coins can be tricky, and may require some manipulation in situ before they can be extracted.

Chalk marks

Unfortunately, removal of the chalk can also cause damage. Try sloshing some water over the chalk and rubbing lightly in the direction of the water flow with the fingers - but only lightly. This should help the natural process of removal by rain. If the lichen has been damaged, there is nothing to do but rant and wail and gnash one's teeth, because only the lichen can fix that.

Chipped bits, Candle wax, Fire damage

CONTACT ENGLISH HERITAGE OR THE SITE OWNER. I have given the contact details for English Heritage below. They will also be able to tell you if the site is privately owned. Lichen can be encouraged to grow on a chipped face by such delights as stale milk, thin porridge and rice water, but there is very little else that can be done. A large, intact chip stands a chance of being reattached if it is found in time. Candle wax has to be removed exceptionally carefully to avoid damaging the lichen. Fire damage is always irreparable, save for the possibility of reattaching the parts of a split stone. This and chipped stones are the most profoundly distressing examples of damage it has been my displeasure to witness.

Food, feathers, crystals, etc

Anything else should be removed. It is my habit to carry a plastic bag with me when I visit sites, to take away all the rubbish that other people leave behind. Quite frequently one just isn't enough.

Click to see full image (53K)