One short tunnel supporter, who shall be nameless, says

“I fail to see how the pleasure taken since medieval times by walkers, riders, cab passengers, cyclists and early road travellers in crossing the Stonehenge landscape has anything to do with drivers’ views from the A303″.

Well Mr Pitts, you’re one on your own. Millions who travel on that road, including children who might be future archaeologists, are thrilled by their first sight of “the Turner View” of the stones, and as Dan Hicks has said:

“Some 1.3m people will pass through the Stonehenge gift shop this year, but perhaps ten times that number will witness the monument from a passing vehicle”. It’s the most democratic of monuments.”

The poverty of the short tunnel case is easily exposed by asking why bury a road? For the Highways Agency the answer is simple and strangely honest: it’s the cheapest way to build a road, which is Highways England’s sole purpose. But for so-called pro-heritage bodies and individuals the answer is far more shameful: it is to improve the landscape.

Improve? To what? And to when? And in accordance with whose vision? What right does English Heritage have to lobby to destroy a version of Stonehenge that is already overlaid with thousands of years of marks in favour of a single one with a single mark that never existed? Who said they should create a Capability Brown landscape? Who authorised the National Trust not to fight like tigers for this much loved vista and instead dream about its own self-important “vision” of a new place in which the stones are hidden from most people?

Capability Brown: The Stonehenge short tunnel: my final project!

Archives

June 2019
S M T W T F S
« May   Jul »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30  

Follow Us

Follow us on Twitter

Follow us on Facebook

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 10,141 other followers

Hi Nigel,

In the light of your article below, I Googled Mike Pitts’s quote and this led me to his original article dated 7th May 2019 (which I have copied and pasted below).

I know I am only a humble member of the public and Mr Pitts is an ‘expert’ but it seems that in this one short article he disputes the following:

* That thousands of passing motorists enjoy the view of Stonehenge as they drive by. * All four of the main points raised by the consortium of 22 archaeologists. * That Blick Mead has unusual preservation of artifacts (despite the abundance of carbon dates it has produced). * That Blick Mead has no evidence that it has been waterlogged since the early Mesolithic (despite that being the actual reason for the preservation of all the carbon dates). * Furthermore, in the magazine he edits, he also makes tasteless jokes about Romans decapitating Druids!

I say to him as an ordinary member of the public, “Sir, you are in a minority and really need a reality check”.

ENDS………………………

MIKE PITTS Quick thoughts on A303 written representations. May 7, 2019

Well, the Stonehenge A303 proposed works examination representations are now in and available online. Many of the 264 documents (perhaps most) are from Highways England. But there are many more, including from Historic England (579 pages), National Trust (286), Stonehenge Alliance (218), Blick Mead (149, an odd submission, consisting mostly of copies of other people’s correspondence, not all of which supports their case), CBA (89), English Heritage (54), and so on. Will anyone not paid to, read them all?

Brian Edwards thinks someone has 11 minutes to listen to two songs. His piece about the history of travelling to Stonehenge is excellent and well documented (if not with my own article in Landscapes in 2008!), but I fail to see how the pleasure taken since medieval times by walkers, riders, cab passengers, cyclists and early road travellers in crossing the Stonehenge landscape has anything to do with drivers’ views from the A303. Driving over King Barrow Ridge does not deliver the experience of Turner or Constable at the easel. If the A303 is put in a tunnel, the walking experience in the World Heritage Site would be nearer to that of most of the people quoted by Edwards than it’s been for generations.

If nothing else, at least this will have great record value for future generations. Sadly, despite my professional obligations, I won’t have time to read every word, though I hope over coming months I’ll see quite a bit of it. There is a lot of redundancy – people copying UNESCO statements, repeating themselves in their own submissions, copying images from Highways documents and so on… sorry, it’s the editor in me. Naturally in a project this complex there remain many issues of concern, and Historic England and the National Trust among others seem to have done a good job of picking these up. But from a quick flick through I wonder if I’m the only independent person not against every single aspect of the proposed project, real and imagined?

My own submission (14 pages) sticks to a single point: archaeological excavation is destructive, regardless of whether you are paid to do it by a shiny prestigious academic grant or by a great big horrible developer. This is fundamental to the debate, and something about which (to quote myself) there “has been considerable public misunderstanding … and not a little professional”. I address the four key points raised by the “22 committee” ­ – the “consortium of Stonehenge experts” – none of which points, I argue, stands up.

It is, for example, patently absurd (as one of the Blick Mead submissions states) to say that the latter site “is of similar archaeological importance” to Star Carr. We have to be honest about this. It’s just not that important (note I’m not saying it’s not important, just that it’s really not Star Carr). I make the point that the fuss about potential changes to the water table assumes something that has not been shown to be true, that is, that unusual preservation at the site is due to waterlogging. When I wrote that I was aware that Blick Mead submissions might prove me wrong, as research is (presumably) in progress to examine this proposition. But it’s not there yet: no evidence has yet been published either that the site has unusual preservation, or that it has been waterlogged since the early mesolithic.

________________________________


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: