[continued from previous message]

In short I have scientifically defined a space, which is the material expression, as I see it, of the state of scientific knowledge and/or its translation into a "sacred space" within which there would have been rigid rules for the creation of other
features such as the many burial mounds and their groupings, not to mention a rationalle behind the creation of the Greater Cursus.
The important issue here is that there is only one published precedence, that I'm aware of, which comes anywhere close to the method that I employed, and this was published after I had already identified the main principle. Contact with the author of
that publication, who is a well known archaeologist, has not materialised into any exchange of dialogue at present.
As a result, and bearing in mind that the extent of the area I defined is even greater, at 6.1 km diameter, than even the longer preferred stated length of tunnel by some campaigners, raises the issue of the "precautionary principle"(http://www.
precautionaryprinciple.eu/). I have therefore put my publishing strategy on temporary hold while I am considering as to whether, when, how, and to what depth I should publish out of the original sequence to cover this more urgent issue.
I do have a personal view. As a landscape professional much of my work revolved around advising the planning function on the environmental impact of development proposals, which included representing the local authorities that I worked for, and included
major roadwork proposals. I have no fears, therefore, as regards the seriousness of consideration and appropriate actions resulting therefrom, as to safeguarding whatever features were likely to be affected by such proposals. Nevertheless, this proposal
is clearly unique in many significant ways. As such I had come to the conclusion that there should be no disturbance either above ground or below ground, within the extent of the "sacred space" that I have identified.

I am not inclined to join any campaigning group. I believe that I should put my views of potential impact of future studies/discoveries which might be irreversibly damaged by premature development by way of the current tunnel proposal. The question of
how long one should wait before building a tunnel, whatever its length, arises. The answer, I suppose, depends on whether one is convinced that this is the only option available.
I have decided now that I will publish out of my original sequence, but not yet the other parameters. Whether or not the method I employed is received with any scientific credibility and which might influence the detail of the proposal, remains to be
seen.

Richard

[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge (Score: 1) by Andy B on Sunday, 08 March 2015
(User Info | Send a Message)
Thanks Richard, good point, the attribution isn't always clear on images vs text. I have added a note to the effect that the campaign is not connected with yourself. We'll look forward to seeing what you have to publish.
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge (Score: 1) by jonm on Thursday, 26 February 2015
(User Info | Send a Message)
"All archaeology in the construction zones would be destroyed and the A303 would become the largest ever human intervention in an area fashioned and revered by over a hundred generations of our ancestors."

Almost all areas in Britain have been fashioned, to some extent or other, by over a hundred generations.

Other than to a minority of people in recent generations, the 'reverence' angle is not known to be true: Starting about four centuries back, wealthy people took an interest in this particular monument's purpose. This past-time became very popular.

No significant discoveries have been made about this 'start-up' monument's purpose and many professional archaeologists have gone into print declaring that no discovery of this type is likely. So the claim that there is anything left worth protecting
appears to be dismissed by the experts.

There may be a few problems with the key selling points of this petition.

[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge (Score: 1) by tripleransom on Thursday, 26 February 2015
(User Info | Send a Message)
i see we Americans are not the only ones to destroy our heritage in the name of "progress".
I have visited Stonehenge twice and each time it was one of the highlights of my trip to England. The first time was in the late 1960's when the site was still relatively undisturbed. I took a train from London, then a coach and finally walked from the
nearest town. I eventually arrived late in the afternoon. At that time, I was able to walk in among the great stones and look down over the Salisbury Plain. I was quite alone there and it was an incredible experience which still gives me goosebumps even
after all these years.
By my second visit 10 years later, the roadway and carpark were already intrusive enough to lessen the experience. I shudder to think what this new roadway "improvement" will do to the ambience of this incredibly impressive site.
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Wednesday, 25 February 2015
Please don''t spoil this neolithic wonder!
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Wednesday, 25 February 2015
Please leave Stonehenge alone. If there has to be road widening do it sensitively with a tunnel long enough to protect the stones.
If it all about cost that is simply ridiculous.
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Tuesday, 24 February 2015
Please do not damage Stonehenge any more. It is one of the most important sites in the world. It's a house hold name and should not be turned into an eye sore. The noise from the cars is already a huge problem. It looks like you are trying to destroy one
of the world’s most sacred sites. Would you do this to a church?!
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge (Score: 1) by arthurthegnome on Tuesday, 24 February 2015
(User Info | Send a Message)
I'm going to make myself unpopular by saying that, there's probably enough grass verge to widen the road and that I'm against a tunnel because I believe the best view of the stones is from the A303 and all the redevelopment is just to increase English
Heritage's profits. Heritage have already ruined the ambience of the stones by restricting access and charging admission (under the excuse that they would get worn away by people touching them, even though there was free access 1000s of years and far
worse was done by local farmers and the MOD). Best compromise, leave the road as it is and let the rest of us enjoy something for free, there isn't much in these monetarist era.
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Tuesday, 24 February 2015
I'm furious about this, put your tunnel elsewhere other than where you are planning. Earth Geometrix.
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Let Stonehege be (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Tuesday, 24 February 2015
I've not had the opportunity to visit this famous site and will be greatly saddened if it's harmed in any way during the construction of a road.
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge (Score: 1) by Goedog on Tuesday, 24 February 2015
(User Info | Send a Message)
I was appalled about the proposal for a tunnel at Stonehenge from the time I first heard of the idea, because of the immense destruction the engineering works would cause.

If there has to be a tunnel, then it needs to be deep bored for a much longer distance to keep well clear of Stonehenge and the surrounding countrysite.

Martin Hughes
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Tuesday, 24 February 2015
Hi Mike here,

Author of Stonehenge, Stone Circles and Stone Age Numbers

I feel Stonehenge deserves the best of solutions and new lights and noise are not what is required

Mike Green
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge (Score: 1) by Britishfootpaths on Tuesday, 24 February 2015
(User Info | Send a Message)
We write walking guide books for Americans to explore the English countryside on your world renown path and B&B system.

Please reconsider any plans for construction of a short tunnel at Stonehenge.

Our thousands of followers will thank you for retaining the good views of this ancient sight.

Thank you.
FrednDonna Austin
British Footpaths
Britishfootpaths.org
9521 45th Ave NE Seattle, WA 98115 USA
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge (Score: 1) by golux on Tuesday, 24 February 2015
(User Info | Send a Message)
This plan to build a tunnel is intended to improve and protect the appearance of Stonehenge and its surroundings. I don't think your "thousands of followers" will prefer to see a busy trunk road running past the stones, as is the case at present. Why on
earth are you objecting to a tunnel which will only improve the "good views of this ancent sight" (sic)?
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge (Score: 1) by golux on Monday, 23 February 2015
(User Info | Send a Message)
It is my understanding that ground-breaking (in the literal sense) construction work is usually preceded by an archaeological survey and access is allowed for archaeologists to examine anything of interest before the ground is disturbed. Anything of
interest that turns up during construction is similarly offered for archaeological examination and in this way roadworks or house-building actually encourage archaeology. This is certainly the normal practice in the northeast of Scotland (in fact it is
mandatory, at least in some circumstances) so why do you say "All archaeology in the construction zones would be destroyed"?
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge (Score: 1) by Andy B on Monday, 23 February 2015
(User Info | Send a Message)
Well OK, by that argument you may as well excavate out the whole WHS, build houses on it and have the stones as a nice garden feature in the middle.
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge (Score: 1) by golux on Tuesday, 24 February 2015
(User Info | Send a Message)
I am not arguing, I am asking the question: why you say "All archaeology in the construction zones would be destroyed"? As I explained, I would expect this kind of construction work to discover and recover the archaeology, not destroy it. I have seen
instances of valuable archaeology being recovered by this process with my own eyes. If you have reasons to believe that the normal procedures to safeguard archaeology would not be followed then let's have them.
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge (Score: 1) by Andy B on Tuesday, 24 February 2015
(User Info | Send a Message)
I'm sure all the usual pre-development archaeology stuff would be done but that's not exactly the point, I'll rephrase: by that logic you may as well excavate out the whole WHS...
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge (Score: 1) by golux on Tuesday, 24 February 2015
(User Info | Send a Message)
I am simply pointing out that the statement above ("All archaeology in the construction zones would be destroyed") is not true. Some of the objections to the tunnel seem to me quite unfounded; now it seems that one of them is at best a silly exaggeration,
this makes the whole case look even weaker. Why you would think that my questioning one obvious flaw in the case is equivalent to advocating the wholesale destruction of the WHS, I don't know, - is this more wild hyperbole?

The argument over how to stop the A303 intruding on Stonehenge has been going on for as long as I can remember. Finally a solution is proposed which will hide the offending road and which seems to answer most of the objections. If the remaining objectors
are now reduced to such flimsy arguments as this then they are going to lose, and rightly so.
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Wednesday, 25 February 2015
The objectors' arguments are not flimsy, nor are they ignorant of visual concerns. Indeed they need to be resolved.
To remind you, the petition ends by stating: "If A303 widening at Stonehenge is felt to be essential it should be done by means of a deep bored tunnel at least 4.5km long. Anything shorter would cause irreparable damage to this landscape, in breach of
the World Heritage Convention." This is consistent with the National Trust's former position, which very sadly they have abandoned.
The World Heritage Site is upheld by the World Heritage Convention principally article 4 http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/ which asks for financial measures to be taken sufficient to undertake the necessary improvements for the WHS even if it
means an international appeal. If this Convention is breached due to permanent damage inflicted, then there will be a risk to the WHS status.
We also need to be aware that the recent Blick Mead discoveries are on the WHS boundary and might be vulnerable to more than just the tunnel. So the 4.5km reference might no longer be appropriate to properly safeguard the WHS.
True, archaeologists frequently rely on the opportunity afforded by development to piece together our past. But this is not the reason to build a short bored tunnel! It is short bored in order to save money and to restore only a portion of the Stonehenge
landscape, ignoring the Outstanding Universal Value of the whole.
No doubt you will be aware that ICOMOS-UK, advisor to UNESCO, has written to the Secretary of State for Transport, warning him of the risks to the WHS.
Ultimately you, NT, EH and government, need to decide whether it is worth risking the outstanding universal value of the WHS.
Speaking for myself, I share the frustrations about the reluctance to do the best for Stonehenge WHS. The delays have not been caused by the objectors. If only Government had done the right thing in the first place and built a long bored tunnel as
promised in 1994 instead of the distracting proposal in 2004 of a cut and cover that wasted huge resources, political energy and time, this conversation would not have been so prolonged and the costs would not have escalated to the extent that they have.
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Wednesday, 18 January 2017
Reading List for Andrew Jones, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department
for Transport), who turned down Wally's £7+ billion Deposited within Banks.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2016-03-01c.273.0&u=3440#c34175 https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2016-10-03.HL2027.h&u=3440#c34154

Complete History of Stonehenge Excavations

1611. King James I investigated Stonehenge "to see 'The stone which the builders refused.'"
King James Version, 1611

1616. Doctor William Harvey, Gilbert North, and Inigo Jones find horns of stags and oxen, coals, charcoals, batter-dashers, heads of arrows, pieces of rusted armour, rotten bones, thuribulum (censer) pottery, and a large nail.
Long, William, 1876, Stonehenge and its Barrows. The Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, Volume 16

1620. George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham, dug a large hole in the ground at the center of Stonehenge looking for buried treasure. (Diary)

1633-52. Inigo Jones conducted the first 'scientific' surveys of Stonehenge. Jones, I, and Webb, J, 1655, The most notable antiquity of Great Britain vulgarly called Stone-Heng on Salisbury plain. London: J Flesher for D Pakeman and L Chapman

1640. Sir Lawrence Washington, knight, owner of Stonehenge, fished around Bear's Stone (named after Washington's hound dog). Bear's Stone profile portrait a local 17th century attraction. (G-Diary)
The Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, Volumes 15-16

1652. Reverend Lawrence Washington, heir of Stonehenge, commissions Doctor Garry Denke to dig below Bear's Stone, reveals lion, calf (ox), face as a man, flying eagle, bear (dog), leopard, and hidden relics. Bear's Stone (96) renamed Hele 'to conceal,
cover, hide'. (G-Diary)

1653-6. Doctor Garry Denke auger cored below Hele Stone 'The stone which the builders rejected' on various occasions. Gold, silver, brass, iron, wood, bone, concrete discovered at 1-1/3 'yardsticks' (under flying eagle). Elizabeth Washington, heir of
Stonehenge.
Denke, G, 1699, G-Diary (German to English by Erodelphian Literary Society of Sigma Chi Fraternity). GDG, 1-666

1666. John Aubrey surveyed Stonehenge and made a 'Review'. Described the Avenue's prehistoric pits. (the 'Aubrey Holes' discovered by Hawley, not Aubrey).
Aubrey, J, 1693 (edited by J Fowles 1982), Monumenta Britannica. Sherborne, Dorset: Dorset Publishing Co

1716. Thomas Hayward, owner of Stonehenge, dug heads of oxen and other beasts. (Diary)

1721-4. William Stukeley surveyed and excavated Stonehenge and its field monuments. Surveyed the Avenue in 1721 extending beyond Stonehenge Bottom to King Barrow Ridge. Surveyed the Cursus in 1723 and excavated.
Stukeley, W, 1740, Stonehenge: a temple restor'd to the British druids. London: W Innys and R Manby

1757. Benjamin Franklin observes Bear's Stone (96) lion, calf (ox), face as a man, flying eagle, bear (dog), leopard, and Hele Stone 'hidden' relics below them. (Diary)

1798. Sir Richard Hoare and William Cunnington dug at Stonehenge under the fallen Slaughter Stone 95 and under fallen Stones 56 and 57.
The Ancient History of Wiltshire, Volume 1, 1812

1805-10. William Cunnington dug at Stonehenge on various occasions.
Cunnington, W, 1884, Guide to the stones of Stonehenge. Devizes: Bull Printer

1839. Captain Beamish excavated within Stonehenge. (Diary)

1874-7. Professor Flinders Petrie produced a plan of Stonehenge and numbered the stones.
Petrie, W M F, 1880, Stonehenge: plans, description, and theories. London: Edward Stanford

1877. Charles Darwin digs at Stonehenge to study 'Sink

Read the rest of this post...
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge (Score: 1) by GarryDenke on Wednesday, 18 January 2017
(User Info | Send a Message) https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-01-17a.828.0#g852.0 https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-01-17a.852.0

"Wally's £7billion+ Deposited within Banks"

Are you kidding? Bibi offered £1T. http://ijr.com/2015/03/262242-get-know-bibi/
We're negotiating Now.

"Dig", G-D
[ Reply to This ]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)