res
from the eastern portal. King Barrow Ridge forms the eastern boundary
of the landscape visible from Stonehenge itself. The Avenue, a prehistoric
feature further to the east, is cut by the present A303 about 50 metres
beyond the start of the proposed eastern cutting. Wainwright reports the
eastern portal will be visible from the outskirts of Amesbury, and the
western portal from the Longbarrow Cross-roads, on the western boundary
of the World Heritage site. Having said this, the relative shallowness
of a cut-and-cover tunnel would mean that the down-grade at the portals
might actually be less than for a bored tunnel, if the latter were constructed
on level ground.
The permanent impact of the approach cuttings on the landscape
within the World Heritage site is a major disadvantage of the proposed
tunnel. While the cut-and-cover tunnel would enable visitors to roam in
the vicinity of Stonehenge, the cuttings would create uncrossable barriers
along other sections of the site.
(d) Damage or destruction of archaeological sites. Five
scheduled ancient monuments and another eleven known sites fall wholly
or partly within the construction zone of the tunnel and approach cuttings
(Master plan 1998: 5). All have been damaged and only three are extant
(see figure 4 and table 1). But if these are monuments which are considered
to be of national importance, it is still questionable whether their destruction
can be recommended (Bewley, interview 13/4/99). No-one knows how many
unknown sites will be discovered during excavations for the cut and cover
tunnel. The Longbarrow Cross-roads area includes many known sites. The
distribution of known sites implies there are fewer sites within the Stonehenge
Bowl than outside it and therefore the proposed route of the cut-and-cover
tunnel itself is likely to damage or destroy relatively few unknown sites
(Wainwright, interview 24/2/99); a view supported by Mike Parker Pearson
(Parker Pearson, interview 11/3/99). However, arguments to the effect
that this low density of known sites is a consequence of its perceived
sanctity in prehistoric times should caution against a cavalier attitude
(Fielden, interview 13/4/99). Denser archaeological material may be found
in Stonehenge Bottom, while the concentration of Neolithic pits (including
'special' deposits) on King Barrow Ridge indicates that important prehistoric
remains will almost certainly be encountered in advance of tunnel construction.
Moreover, the proposed tunnel route comes close to concentrations of later
Neolithic flintwork identified by the Stonehenge Environs Project at the
Diamond and West of Stonehenge (Richards 1990). These might conceivably
be associated with subsoil features.
Wainwright considers the loss of known sites 'worth the
price' when set against the gain to the site as a whole, and its 450 known
sites. The recent editorial in Antiquity similarly described the 16 sites
threatened with damage or destruction as 'minor' (Anon 1998: 731). Brian
Davidson agrees with these assessments but points out evidence for a large
Mesolithic structure dating to c. 7000 BP has been found immediately to
the north of the stone circle; other Mesolithic sites may be uncovered
during road construction (Davidson interview 15/3/99).
A public exhibition organised by English Heritage and the
Highways Agency to promote (discussion of) the Master Plan states 'An
archaeological watching brief would take place during road construction'.
Where sites cannot be avoided, 'excavations would take place which would
provide a detailed record of the site and make a contribution to our understanding
of the past'. The apparent scarcity of sites within the Stonehenge Bowl
supports the hypothesis that it was a "sacred" or "ancestral" area during
the period from the Mid Neolithic to the early Bronze Age, when the stone
circle was used for its original purpose. Parker Pearson considers construction
of the tunnel would provide a useful transect of the "ancestral zone"
around the stone circle, to test whether few other contemporaneous sites
were constructed. Like David