From Mr Laurie Haynes
Sir: I recently attended the British Archaeological Awards biennial lecture, but was disappointed to
hear the Highways Agency described only as a developer when we are one of the largest financiers of
rescue archaeology in England. All of us are responsible for ensuring that our heritage is preserved
wherever possible and I take this aspect of my professional role very seriously.
My interest in history is long-standing. As a boy, I spent many enjoyable hours at the museum of my
home town, Scunthorpe. As an adult, I take pleasure in restoring a period house. History shaped where
we are today and our children have the task of shaping the future. It is up to us to ensure they
understand the value of the past.
My team and I carry out a sophisticated balancing act, working as far as possible to meet the needs of
industry, the economy, local communities, motorists, environmentalists, archaeologists, land owners
and many others, including the Department of Transport. Our remit is to manage and maintain the
trunk road and motorway network in a safe and environmentally acceptable manner. Archaeology is
one of many important factors that we take into account but we cannot consider it in isolation or take
decisions upon it lightly. Increased road safety, reduced environmental impact, value for money and
engineering feasibility often conflict.
With the strong emotions stirred by Newbury and Stonehenge, it may be easy to believe that the
Agency considers roads and only roads. But we are a public organisation, working for the public,
taking into account public views. Before construction begins, years of public consultation take place.
Assessments carried out by archaeologists determine sites of interest and our designers endeavour to
avoid important areas wherever possible. Environmental assessments are carried out throughout the
scheme preparation. These are always available to archaeologists and other interested groups, and the
appropriate national agency is always consulted. With many schemes, threats to archaeological sites
are ruled out from the start by selecting routes for public consultation which avoid conflicts. The A303
Sparkford-Ilchester improvement to the west of Stonehenge was realigned to avoid a potentially
important Romano-British site discovered by Agency consultants during preliminary survey work.
How many people realise this?
Implicit in the business of road construction is the possibility of damage to archaeological sites, but
the Agency is committed to minimising the impact of roads on the archaeological heritage of the
country. Where important sites cannot be avoided rescue archaeology to record sites or watching briefs
are used, to preserve artefacts and knowledge - 15 projects were carried out last year. Recent successes
include a remarkable find of Early Bronze Age artefacts along the route of the new Derby Southern
Bypass. Archaeologists believe these could have been lost forever had farming continued on this land.
Rescue archaeology work worth about UKP250,000 will be carried out where an important Mesolithic
site was discovered on the Newbury Bypass route. English Heritage is involved in the planning of this
rescue work. The route has been designed to follow the embankment of an old railway line affecting
the fringes of the 1643 Battle of Newbury site but avoiding the area of the main battleground.
Last year the Agency spent UKP795,000 on excavation and post-excavation work, excluding funding
for assessments. Was it well spent? Each individual will have their own answer, but we must look in
terms of our collective audience and value for tax-payers' money. If funding helps the Agency to
protect one nationally important site then surely that is money well spent.
Perhaps the Agency is guilty of not explaining its task to archaeologists. Maybe archaeologists could
take another look at the Agency in its entire context. Certainly, I will continue to listen to the
professional and public community. I will encourage my team to develop the expertise we have
accumulated and I hope that the community will come forward with constructive criticism and
suggestions so that we can work together in achieving our aims.
Yours faithfully,
From Dr Keith Sugden
Sir: As a former astrophysicist I was delighted to see an archaeologist taking an interest in the search
for extra-terrestrial intelligence (`Diggers at the final frontier',
February), but the article was illustrated by a well-known fake.
The woodcut of the medieval scholar peering through a hole in the celestial sphere to observe the
machinery of the heavens first appeared in Camille Flammarion's Astronomie Populaire,
published in 1851. It was revealed as a forgery in the 1950s when historians were unable to trace
Flammarion's source. The content of the woodcut does not correspond to medieval ideas as we now
understand them. Nobody ever believed in the machinery of the heavens and Cardinal de Cusa
certainly never wrote about it. Neither is the style of the woodcut 15th century. The whole thing is a
19th century fantasy.
Yours faithfully,
From Mr Kenneth Jermy
Sir: The sound mirrors described in your review of Mirrors by the Sea
(`Heath Robinson meets the Luftwaffe', November) remind
me of a WWI device for tracking Zeppelins, described by Commander Rawlinson in The Defence
of London.
A light, horizontal wooden beam, pivoted at the centre, had sound mirrors (on the lines of ear
trumpets) fitted, one at each end. Stethoscope-type tubes brought the sounds to the ears of specially
selected, blind listeners. The beam was turned until the sound in both ears was equally loud. A reading
at right-angles to the beam gave the direction for the anti-aircraft guns to fire.
Yours sincerely,
Return to the British Archaeology homepage
© Council for British Archaeology, 1996
Highways chief states his case
LAURIE HAYNES
Chief Executive
The Highways Agency
London SE1
Woodcut forgery
KEITH SUGDEN
London, E5
13 February
Sound mirrors
KENNETH JERMY
Churchdown, Glos
6 February