As we recently observed, people are fully entitled to see Stonehenge as their temple. However, while such claims are harmless in themselves they have also been responsible for some unwelcome effects. For isn’t it clear that a wish to avoid offending people of a spiritual nature has led to a reluctance to say that no, access by tens of thousands of revellers at Summer Solstice is unseemly and damaging and really must end?
It seems to us there’s an easy and equitable solution that balances tourism, spirituality and conservation in a proper manner:
1. No more thousands of tipsy revellers standing on the stones. (It’s recent, not traditional, it carries a risk of damage to both the monument and the revellers and brings shame on our country – and it simply shouldn’t happen as English Heritage knows full well.)
2. Spiritual people yes. Of course. But in limited numbers, selected by ballot from the membership of well established pagan organisations.
3. Other people (whether non-spiritual or spiritual but without demonstrable group affiliations), yes of course and also in limited numbers, selected by ballot from those who apply.
So how many in total? That’s entirely EH’s affair, depending purely on how many they think can be safely and sensibly admitted without imposing a risk of damage or broadcasting an image to the world that we don’t treat Stonehenge as it should be treated. It’s certainly time they decided what they could cope with rather than unsuccessfully trying to cope with many times more than they can!
So let’s SHARE Stonehenge, it’s the obvious thing to do. But not abuse it, which is also obvious.
If spiritual people agree to that and people in general agree to that (following a consultation) then English Heritage could surely have a mandate to make radical changes to what happens at Stonehenge as soon as next year?
How about it?
The Heritage Journal 
26 comments
Comments feed for this article
07/05/2011 at 07:53
Meg
Absurd to be absolutely honest. I agree people who are drunk/disrespectful of others do not seem to be demonstrating genuine spirituality but paganism is not a defined and organised religion. For each person it’s their own spiritual connection. Heritage people worried your cash cow will be damaged? Give it back to the people it should be used not photographed from afar.
07/05/2011 at 09:15
heritageaction
Hi Meg,
You say “Give it back to the people“.
Could you expand upon that? Are you saying it should just be handed over unconditionally? If not, what safeguards or rules would you recommend?
You also ask: “Heritage people worried your cash cow will be damaged?”
Yes, absolutely!
07/05/2011 at 13:23
stonehenger
E/h are an international disgrace who have NO idea how to access Stonehenge to the wider public ,the currant problem was entirely created by them and the unreasonable restrictions they claim are down to heath and safety(sic).
I would remind you e/h make about 6m a year and Spend half of that amount paying themselves!! CLAIMING to be protecting these stones.
As for this divide and rule waffle, its really simple, there would be PLENTY of access for “every one” IF we can get rid of the thieves that have control of Stonehenge at the moment. Not throwing people out at 8am on the morning of the longest day of the year and extending the access throughout the day is the obvious solution to over crowding. However e/h’s solution is to restrict access further and exasperate the problem??
07/05/2011 at 15:01
Alwen
Personally I don’t agree with most of that (and calling EH thieves for trying to protect the place is hardly sensible is it?)
Extending the hours isn’t going to solve the overcrowding, only reducing the numbers can do that – and it should have happened years ago. Let EH ask the opinion and take notice of the millions they look after Stonehenge for, not just the thirty thousand that turn up.
07/05/2011 at 15:31
kevin warner
Hi All
Having been involved in the RTG (Summer Solstice Round Table Group) for 7 years the words ” Free and Open Access To All ” are the IMPORTANT ones and so far at the RTG we have not found a way of Changing this ( Those groups of people who would like it changed must remember there are just as many groups of people druid, pagan, travellers, ravers, ect who argue All means All and stand by it ) and ” Free and Open Access To All ” is what E.H. have to abide by at this present time.
Kev
07/05/2011 at 16:35
Nigel
Hi Kev,
Can you tell us how EH are bound by the concept of “Free and Open Access To All ” ? Is it something arising from the original gifting of Stonehenge? Or an agreement between EH and certain parties? Or a legal right?
Whichever it is I doubt they are bound to uphold it come what may. Isn’t their primary duty (imposed by statute, UNESCO and international conventions) to PROTECT Stonehenge? It has been demonstrated they can’t be certain they can do that, the numbers are simply far too high so I personally don’t think they are obliged to or ought to continue to take risks with such an iconic monument merely because a proportion of thirty thousand people are maintaing they have a right to “free and open access”. What about the millions of other stakeholders that look to EH to protect their monument?
08/05/2011 at 08:18
stonehenger
Two reasons for the use of the word “thieves”.
1, Changing the law to make what was ILLEGAL for e/h to do, Legal, ie taking possession of Stonehenge from national Trust.
2. Having the cheek to pay themselves 3m “for maintenance and caretaking duty’s when any auditing of this money will show the misappropriation of these moneys is NOT justified.
E/h is obliged under the Law to show NO favor to ANY group or persons.
So Its no surprise e/h would like further changes to the law that protects our access, however that law, like the the one that USED protects gifts to the national Trust is under attack.
As for damage to Stonehenge and its environs, any study will show that e/h have done major damage to the landscape as did the church and governments before them, it seems its the PUBLIC that CARE for Stonehenge and e/h who unreasonably profit from that desire.
08/05/2011 at 09:30
Alwen
Come off it. Thieves break the law, EH hasn’t. And EH staff are in receipt of public sector salaries not Stonehenge gate receipts.
“E/h is obliged under the Law to show NO favor to ANY group or persons.”
Not strictly true. EH are perfectly entitled to refuse entry to people that misbehave and climb on the stones for instance. In fact they have a duty to do that! So if anything they should be criticised for NOT being more selective.
In any case, the proposal is not to discriminate against anyone but to radically reduce the numbers. For very good reasons. You really shouldn’t personalise the issue in terms of old resentments and accusations against EH. It’s Stonehenge that matters.
08/05/2011 at 09:41
Mary Barker
Meg wrote, “Give it back to the people it should be used not photographed from afar.”
There is no evidence it ever belonged to the people, it may have been as much out of bounds to the ‘people’ when it was first conceived/constructed as it is now. The argument is not about free access or even restricted access; it is about controlled access, managed in the most suitable way to meet the 21st century needs of all those who visit the monument, their safety and the monument’s long term conservation; English Heritage, and by default we the British public, are patently failing in that respect.
08/05/2011 at 10:55
stonehenger
Mary, I never said it belonged to the People.
Alwen, Actually It IS “Strictly” true, and its not ME who seems to be discriminating! its this pathetic proposal thats designed to remove the right of certain LAW ABIDING members of the Public.
This proposal actually confirms my and many others fears for Stonehenge in the future public access.
The overcrowding is a DIRECT result of e/h’s restricted access, extending the access throughout the day would resolve the problem.
Please Note I will not be turned into a tourist in my own country and im not the only one with that veiw.
08/05/2011 at 10:59
stonehenger
sorry mary i misread the comment.
http://sacredgrovewesternisles.co.uk/#/stonehenge-proposal/4543116419
08/05/2011 at 11:02
stonehenger
This is a real and Genuine proposal http://sacredgrovewesternisles.co.uk/#/stonehenge-proposal/4543116419
08/05/2011 at 11:08
stonehenger
E/H reply to the Stonehenge Proposal was to say NO to any discussion regarding extending access?
I suggest that if they Genuinely communicated with the people during there Fake consultations, they would NOT now have the problem they CLAIM to be worried about.
E/H are CAUSING the problems.
08/05/2011 at 11:34
Nigel
Stonehenger, it’s not exactly surprising that EH said “no” to extending the period of access as a means of reducing overcrowding. It patently wouldn’t work and the fact the document you linked to doesn’t explain how on earth it possibly could serves to emphasize the fact.
I suggest you come up with a viable means to ensure many thousands don’t crowd into the circle thereby making it impossible for EH and the stewards to prevent hundreds standing and dancing on the stones (like we have) and they’ll be duty-bound (literally) to listen.
08/05/2011 at 13:18
stonehenger
lol, the document i linked to was ASKING for “Discussion” with eh regarding a resolution.
As for your claim to be puzzled regarding extending access resolving the crowding issue, its very simple, the currant focus is solely on the sunrise.
The proposal suggests 4 focuses therefore giving people more choice. This would allow many to attend during the day or evening as suits.
As for “It patently wouldn’t work”??? I agree that e/h are patently unable to make it work, however when they start actually doing their job properly and genuinely seek the cooperation of the public, it patently Will!
08/05/2011 at 15:38
Nigel
The problem with your suggestion is that extending the period of access is very likely to increase the overall number of people turning up and no protection organisation is going to risk that happening and nor should they.
In any case, more time and/or more focuses still wouldn’t solve the central problem of many thousands crowding into the circle at certain times such that it has become impossible for EH and the stewards to prevent hundreds standing and dancing on the stones. EH is quite right not to countenance anything other than a clear solution to that.
08/05/2011 at 23:45
stonhenger
“it has become impossible for EH and the stewards to prevent hundreds standing and dancing on the stones.”
This allegation is untrue and is typical of allegations made by people who read news papers.
The one or two who do climb on the stones get arrested and thrown out!
Not only do they get thrown out “the Public” make it VERY plain to them climbing on the stones is AGAINST the wishes of the people.
As for the overall attendance going up, if Stonehenge is open all day of Course it will!
However it would also give a reason for those who spend their entire visit inside the circle overnight to vacate for a morning ceremony. And at the moment thats reason they refuse to move, ie e/h refuse to extend access or even talk about it. To suggest that those who sit in the circle are somehow criminals or disruptive is disingenuous and FAR from the so called truth put out by e/h.
09/05/2011 at 05:48
heritageaction
“The one or two who do climb on the stones get arrested and thrown out!”
……….
Only one or two climb on the stones?! Come off it! The Round Table minutes are visible you know! As are dozens of Youtube videos showing a very different reality. Here are just three from 2008, 2009 and 2010 respectively –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvCPY_LbWlQ (at 56 seconds)
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=750_1245654455 (9 seconds)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10362888 (22 seconds)
“Not only do they get thrown out “the Public” make it VERY plain to them climbing on the stones is AGAINST the wishes of the people”
…….
Once again there are scores of videos that tell a very different story. Listen to the cheering here –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L0GA78wgOo (2 minutes 5 seconds).
09/05/2011 at 11:20
tonehenger
dear me, the SINGULAR person diving off the stone was cheered for getting off it, and as for the other clips they show people standing on a Fallen stone that oddly enough e/h USED to cover with a tarpaulin and LET people stand on?
Your claim “hundreds” are standing on the stones is countered by your own video clips and the fact its NOT true, can be seen.
As for the r/t minutes, there are NONE, the r/t doesn’t do minutes.
There have also been MANY complaints to e/h about the wild allegations made at r/t aimed at the public
I hope you noted how relaxed the events were in your clips and that suggesting things are out of control is deceitful as is your intention to dispossess the public of the right of access.
09/05/2011 at 13:22
heritageaction
“was cheered for getting off it”
That’s not how most people would see it (to put it politely!) Here it is again, just in case anyone should be in the slightest doubt! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L0GA78wgOo (2 minutes 5 seconds).
We really don’t have anything to prove here. As we said, there are scores of videos people can look at showing large numbers of people standing on the stones (as do all the ones we have posted). People can certainly decide for themselves the truth of the matter.
As to this: “As for the r/t minutes, there are NONE”
… we’d have to disagree!
Click to access Notes%20from%20RTG%2004%20Jun%2009%20FINAL%2010%20Jun%2009.pdf
09/05/2011 at 13:33
kevin warner
Hi Nigel and All,
I have a few links here that I am sure you will find very informative to the currant debate about the Stonehenge Summer Solstice access.
Two historic Vision Workshops took place in April 2008 and October 2009, which will significantly change the Stonehenge Summer Solstice experience within the next ten years, although everyone’s hands are tied to some extent until the date the visitor centre build with start and be completed.
The Workshop was made up of people from a wide range of backgrounds including English Heritage; National Trust; archaeologists; police; fire and other health and safety advisors; local councillors and residents, druids; pagans; musicians; bards; former-free-festival-goers’ and even ex-convoy members. For many, this was the first time they had met face-to-face and it was astounding the amount of common ground there was between such disparate groups of people. By the end of the meetings the different groups felt much more at ease with each other and the memories of what locals thought of as quote “the bad old days” were largely dismissed, which was throught to be very positive by those who would like the access to continue and improve over time.
FIRST VISION WORKSHOP RESULTS April 2008
Click to access Vision_Workshop_Results.pdf
Vision Workshop II Summary: 15th October 2009
Click to access Vision_workshop_15th_oct_09.pdf
Operational Planning Meeting Solstice Access:- Options for Consideration: 3rd December 2009
Click to access Solstice_Access-Options_for_Consideration_2009.pdf
FESTIVAL EYE VISION WORKSHOP REPORT SCANS
http://www.stonehenge.mercurymoon.co.uk/fe.html
09/05/2011 at 15:50
Nigel
Thanks Kevin. The one thing that stood out in those links was the way EH so comprehensively nailed the fact that increased access hours would mean increased risks of damage. That really ought to be that on that subject.
Not sure why you feel there can be no major change for ten years. That would mean another ten years of people holding beer cans jumping around on the stones. I sincerely hope not. The real truth is that vastly too many people turn up to enable EH to fulfill its duty of care and that problem can’t be solved by disparate groups coming together and finding common ground and loudly forgiving each other for what Mrs T. did before many of them were born. T’is blather! EH would do better admitting to everyone what has been evident to them for years – that irrespective of historic resentments there will always be some elements within huge crowds that can’t be prior-identified or controlled in the way Stonehenge deserves and it is not in Stonehenge’s interest to pretend otherwise.
People behave on organised visits and at Winter Solstice because there are rules and they can be enforced. Why should worse behaviour be tolerated in the Summer?
10/05/2011 at 11:10
stonehenger
E/H will be happy to confirm they do NOT do minutes at the r/t.
Operational Planning Meeting Solstice Access 2009?? its now 2011 and this years opmsa report highlights the insane ability of e/h to NOT understand the word “Reasonable” in the heath and safety advice they are obliged to refer to.
as for the winter access, its NOT organized by e/h and the main reason there is (generally) no problem is because there is plenty of room for the people attending throughout that short access period.
The summer solstice is organized by e/h and due to the restricted hours of access its overcrowded because e/h FAIL to understand they are OBLIGED to provide PROPER access.ITS THEIR JOB. However they do love to winge about heath and safety and what a nuisance the public are! , if they get their way e/h would close Stonehenge to to EVERYONE except Paying tourists.
And they would NOT getaway with that as it would plainly restart large protests AT Stonehenge. There are some who believe that is e/h’s intention as they would love to see a resumption of the brutality visited on pilgrims pre 2000.
10/05/2011 at 12:03
heritageaction
It looks now as if everything has been said that needs to be so we’ll leave it there. Good luck with your quest to get EH to be more “Reasonable” over health and safety and indeed to loosen up on their irritating monument protection duty. I’m sure they’ll note what you say.
In closing though, thanks for this –
“as for the winter access, its NOT organized by e/h and the main reason there is (generally) no problem is because there is plenty of room for the people attending throughout that short access period”.
By Jove you’ve finally got it!
05/08/2012 at 21:40
Paul Daly
There seems to be a clash of cultures here and nobody can see what to me seems as clear as day.A field for the folk who wish to celebrate solstice in a more bacchanalian way should be provided near not actually on the Stonehenge field. If this field were provided entertainments for the partying types would appear on their own free of charge,there are bands and stage providers all to willing to take on the challenge,and are indeed experienced at doing so. If the less reverential types actually had a place to be it would free up the Stonehenge field for the more spiritual contemplative types and thus prevent the alleged damage occurring. Most people would probably be satisfied to stay in the other field where they could celebrate solstice unmolested by police and security guards.
05/08/2012 at 23:00
Nigel
Yes sharing and rationing seem to be the way things ought to be moving.