Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T02:46:16.467Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Responses to Geoffrey Wainwright's report ‘The Stonehenge we deserve’, Antiquity 74 (2000): 334–42

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Ian Baxter ,
Christopher Chippindale ,
Kate Fielden ,
Wayland Kennet  and
Elizabeth Young
Ian Baxter
Affiliation:
Lucy Cavendish College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0BU, England
Christopher Chippindale
Affiliation:
Cambridge University Museum of Archaeology & Anthropology, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, England
Kate Fielden
Affiliation:
1 The Old Smithy, Alton Priors, Marlborough SN8 4JX, England
Wayland Kennet
Affiliation:
100 Bayswater Road, London W2 3HJ, England
Elizabeth Young
Affiliation:
100 Bayswater Road, London W2 3HJ, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In June this year, we published Geoffrey Wainwright's paper on ‘The Stonehenge we deserve'. This paper aimed to provide a review of progress towards sorting out the many problems of management, presentation and conservation of this World Heritage site and its landscape. As readers of ANTIQUITY are well aware, the fortunes of Stonehenge are intimately linked with politics, money and public opinion, and the long saga of possible solutions to make the site a better place for the future rest on these changing variables. Dr Wainwright outlined past strategies and the hope of future solutions as they were early this year. Already things have changed and the invited responses which we publish here discuss the recent changes of plan for Stonehenge. Baxter & Chippindale review the difficulties of the ‘current’ scheme and its incompatibility with visitor numbers. Fielden exposes the incompatibility of the A303 proposals for Stonehenge with legislation and planning; and Kennet & Young raise the problems of the various Plans and politics.

We sent these responses to Dr Wainwright for his current view of the situation.

Type
Reports
Information
Antiquity , Volume 74 , Issue 286 , December 2000 , pp. 944 - 951
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blandford, C. & Associates. 2000. Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan. London: English Heritage.Google Scholar
Cserge. 1998 (revised). Valuing Different Road Options for the A303 (The Stonehenge Study). Universities of London and East Anglia: Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment.Google Scholar
Halcrow, . 1994. A303 Amesbury-Berwick Down Tunnel Options-planning and design considerations. Highways Agency.Google Scholar
Halcrow, . 1998. Review of English Heritage 2km Tunnel and Comparative Options. Highways Agency.Google Scholar
ICOMOS UK. 2000. Position statement on Stonehenge at February 2000. Unpublished fax from Whitbourn, P. to Part, D. & Fielden, K., Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society.Google Scholar
POST. 1997. Tunnel Vision? The future role of tunnels in transport infrastructure. London: Parliamentary Office of Science & Technology.Google Scholar
PPG 16. 1990. Planning Policy Guidance: archaeology and planning. London: Department of the Environment.Google Scholar
PPG 15. 1994. Planning Policy Guidance: planning and the historic environment. London: Department of the Environment and Department of National Heritage.Google Scholar
Wainwright, G.J. 1996. Stonehenge saved? Antiquity 70: 9–12.Google Scholar
Wainwright, G.J. 2000. The Stonehenge we deserve, Antiquity 74: 334–42.Google Scholar
UNESCO. 1972. Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.Google Scholar