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 Davidson, however he warns that Mesolithic post
holes, flint scatters etc. may be concealed along the route. The entire
route would need to be surveyed for magnetic anomalies and phosphate concentrations,
excavated and soil samples sieved (Parker Pearson, interview 11/3/99).
The Prehistoric Society takes a stronger stance, calculating that 13.5
ha. of ground in 'the most archaeologically sensitive land surface in
Europe' will be destroyed by the construction of tunnel and cuttings (Prehistoric
Society 1999: Appendix A). Modern groups to whom the area is sacred may
oppose disturbance from the cut and cover excavations. In addition to
the Prehistoric Society, concerns over the proposed scheme have been voiced
by the Wiltshire Archaeological Society, the Rambler's Association, Transport
2000 and the Druids (Fielden, interview 13/4/99). In any case, given the
sensitivity of the archaeological remains in the area a watching brief
on the tunnel construction would not be adequate: total surface collection,
shovel testing, and total area stripping should be seen as an acceptable
minimum for archaeological intervention.
A serious problem will develop at Longbarrow Cross-roads,
on the western boundary of the World Heritage site, as traffic increases
on the new dual carriageway. The A303 will undergo a 'grade separation'
from the A360, which it crosses here. A cluster of fifteen round barrows
are situated just to the northeast of the roundabout. They would be threatened
by slip roads or a flyover on the site of the present crossing, and the
junction should be moved as far as practicable to the west during construction
of the tunnel and its approaches, to enable future improvements to take
place without threat to the World Heritage site (Davidson interview 15/3/99).
The archaeology of Longbarrow Cross-roads is complex, including hut circles
and fields as well as a cemetery. The site appears to have been an important
node in the regional settlement pattern. The cost of, and time required
to excavate this area has not been taken in