Back to list A303 Stonehenge

Representation by Prof. M. Parker Pearson

Date submitted
3 January 2019
Submitted by
Members of the public/businesses
  1. The proposed work will damage the WHS, especially beyond the western portal to the western boundary of the WHS where a substantial area would be rendered archaeologically ‘sterile’. This will destroy a major block of land within the WHS and degrade its OUV, and is contrary to the recommendations of UNESCO and other international and national parties.
  2. East of the eastern portal, the impact of the works may be deleterious to the continued preservation of deposits, especially those with preserved organic remains, within the internationally important prehistoric site of Blick Mead. Long-term evaluation of the proposal’s impact on these archaeological remains (notably on changing groundwater levels and contamination by road runoff) is required before an informed decision can be made.
  3. West of the western portal, the above-ground works would cut through a zone of internationally important archaeological deposits that may be related to the one or more stages in the construction and use of Stonehenge. a) Some of these remains are likely to be indicative of large-scale settlement. Dating of human burials and artefacts recovered during initial evaluation of this zone indicates broad contemporaneity with the third of Stonehenge’s five construction stages. This may even be the site of the settlement occupied by the builders of this third stage. Although these prehistoric remains have been disturbed by ploughing and agricultural activity, the fine-grained spatial distribution of artefacts and ecofacts surviving within ploughsoil (in addition to features surviving below the base of the ploughsoil) provides important evidence of the character and internal layout of activity and settlement within this zone. b) The road line would cut through the densest concentration in Britain of remains of Neolithic long barrows (burial mounds from c.3800-3300 BC) known in Britain. This is located in an area of less than 4sq km between Stonehenge and the western edge of the WHS. Dating to before Stonehenge, the long barrows’ distribution may have a bearing on why Stonehenge was located where it is. One possible explanation of this concentration may be the presence of deep natural solution shafts in this area. One such deep solution hole was discovered during initial evaluation. Such shafts were significant in prehistory: a man-made shaft (the Wilsford shaft) containing Neolithic material is located just south of the proposed road line. Important remains relating to the period before Stonehenge and potentially to its choice of location, would be destroyed by the proposed work. Archaeological remains, consisting of probably hundreds of thousands of artefacts and probably more than 100 prehistoric features, represent the remnants of a palimpsest of prehistoric activity which was especially dense west of the western portal. These remains must not be destroyed. Mitigation by archaeological excavation is not the answer. Archaeological excavation in advance of development – preservation by record – is never 100% (with, for example, hundreds of thousands of finds lost from unsampled topsoil). Today’s excavation methods will soon become out-dated, so future generations will regret this destructive intrusion which leaves no opportunity to return in the future with new questions and new methods to reinvestigate this part of the WHS. The proposal should be rejected.