t to pay for a four kilometre
deep bore tunnel but the money is not, of course, 'real' money in the
government's hands, merely a notional value to the public.
Maddison et al may have underestimated the value of Stonehenge
to foreign visitors, which they estimate at £10 million. No-one
has tried to calculate the income from foreign visitors' spending elsewhere
in the UK, if Stonehenge is one of the attractions leading them to visit
the country. Nor has the fact that foreign visitors often pay for accommodation
in the vicinity of Stonehenge been taken into account.
Calculating the heritage value lost by destruction of sites
on the route of the cut and cover tunnel. Further information is needed
to make a proper comparison of the two tunnel options. Although English
Heritage contends the cost of destroying sites on the route of the cut
and cover is justified, no attempt has been made to calculate the value
of the sites that will be destroyed and add that to the cost of constructing
a cut and cover tunnel (cf. Fielden 1998: 735, Stone n.d.: 6). In Wainwright's
opinion there is no way of quantifying the value of sites that will be
destroyed during construction of the cut-and-cover tunnel (Wainwright,
interview 24/2/99).The number of as yet undiscovered sites is unknown,
although some predictions are possible (see discussion of the cut and
cover tunnel's route in relation to the density of archaeological sites,
above). No figure has been quoted for the cost of archaeological surveys
and excavations along the line of the cut and cover tunnel. It is unknown
whether a sum is included in the quoted cost for constructing the cut-and-cover
tunnel. Most significantly, perhaps, no attempt has been made to cost
the damage to the value of the World Heritage site caused by constructing
the approach cuttings to the tunnel.
In the light of our deliberations, and in accord with the motion recently
passed by the Council of the Prehistoric Society (included here as Appendix
A), we submit the following proposals for consideration by the WAC Executive:
1. We applaud the efforts of English Heritage and the National
Trust in attempting to improve visitor access to Stonehenge, in seeking
to remove roads from the vicinity of the monument, and in seeking to provide
adequate visitor facilities;
2. We call on the UK government to commission an independent
assessment of the cost and benefits of a long-bored tunnel for the A303;
3. We call on English Heritage to present a full set of
drawings and representations of both the cut-and-cover and long-bored
tunnels (including their entrances and approach cuttings) to the public,
to enable a full and informed debate on the alternatives;
4. We appeal to English Heritage not to cause irreversible
damage to the environs of Stonehenge for the sake of a cheaper solution
to the problem of removing surface roads.
1: Archaeological sites in the Stonehenge area. From Richards 1990.
2: Options for Stonehenge road improvements - the original proposals.
From Tunnel Vision
3: Route currently proposed for cut-and-cover tunnel. From Master Plan.
4: Location of National Trust estate within the Stonehenge World Heritage
Site. From Madison et al. 1998. From Master Plan 1998.
5: Distribution of known archaeological sites within the World Heritage
site. From Master Plan 1998.
Known sites threatened by the cut and cover tunnel (Master Plan 1998:
Anon 1998 Editorial, Antiquity 72: 731-733;
Atkinson, R.J.C. 1956 Stonehenge. London: Hamish Hamilton.
Bender, B. 1998 Stonehenge: Making Space. London: Berg.
Bender, B. and Edmonds, M. 1992 De-romancing the stones. Guardian
Chippindale, C. 1983 What future for Stonehenge? Antiquity 57, 172-80.
Chippindale, C. 1986 Stoned Henge: events and issues at the summer solstice,
1985. World Archaeology 18, 38-58.
Cleal, R.M.J., Walker, K.E. and Montague, R. 1995 Stonehenge in its Landscape:
Twentieth-Century Excavations. London: English Heritage.
Fielden, K. 1998 Antiquity 72: 735-6;
Fowler, P. 1990 Stonehenge in a democratic society. In: C. Chippindale,
P. Devereux, P. Fowler, R. Jones and T. Seb