Representation by Dr Christopher Chippindale
- Date submitted
- 6 January 2019
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Christopher Chippindale BA PhD MIFA FSA Reader Emeritus in Archaeology, University of Cambridge Contribution offered to the Stonehenge A303 inquiry January 2019
In 1983 I published Stonehenge complete, the first full study of historic Stonehenge – that is, not of the prehistoric place, but of its understanding since it was rediscovered almost 800 years ago. It remains the definitive study.
The past, our known history benefits us in the present by showing what before was got right and what wrong. With it, we can avoid repeating mistakes.
The current A303 proposal is bad, as it makes two major errors, both proven by history.
Mistake 1: a narrow definition of Stonehenge, as essentially the famous stone setting Visitors today look first to the central standing stones, the things Stonehenge is world-famous for. That stone setting is just 35 metres across. They overlook the fainter, other, less astonishing traces around it. After four centuries of field research, Stonehenge is understood as not just those stones, but now rightly seen as an extensive landscape, going out a matter of kilometres to include other remarkable, rare, extraordinary – even unique ancient places.
This was recognized when Government successfully nominated the Stonehenge World Heritage Site as that extended area, not just those central stones.
The length of the tunnel is fixed by respect for the central stones alone, defined so the A303 will not be visible from that spot point. This definition of Stonehenge is wrong.
Mistake 2: a false hope that a minimal-cost approach will in the future be seen as correct The fame of Stonehenge continues to grow, as it has for decades and centuries, and so has the number of visitors. Even before its new visitor centre opened in 2013, numbers were climbing fast: from 1,010,000 in 2010 up to 1,582,500 in 2017. Alongside that growing interest and respect, expectations also strongly grow that the highest standard of care will be given and sufficient public money provided. Tunnels are expensive, so the plan evidently has been designed not primarily to protect Stonehenge but to minimize the tunnel length and so reduce its cost. Even if Government is content with this balance, we can be sure of what the public view will move towards before many years have passed: too little respect, not enough care, no generosity of vision. A bad mistake – just as were the visitor provision installed in 1969–1971: cheapskate, corner-cutting, mean-spirited. And rightly that came to be seen as a national disgrace within only some 15 years.
For these proven reasons from history, the present scheme should not be approved.