British Archaeology, no 8, October 1995: Comment

Stonehenge is one of the archaeological wonders of the world. In recognition of its global cultural importance, it has been included on UNESCO's list of World Heritage Sites. Some would claim that, with its surroundings, Stonehenge forms Britain's most impressive prehistoric landscape.

Yet Stonehenge is a site that the Government seems perversely willing to damage, in its determination to drive a new six-lane highway through the prehistoric landscape.

For several years, Stonehenge has been one of the world's most dismal archaeological experiences. The stones are beset by visitor erosion, access to them is heavily restricted, site facilities are inadequate, and the site stands incongruously wedged in the angle between two main roads.

The continuing existence of these problems is no fault of English Heritage's chairman, Jocelyn Stevens, who has worked with perseverence to define solutions and reconcile different interests. Following widespread consultation and much work, English Heritage (which cares for the stones) and the National Trust (which owns and manages the surrounding landscape) have crystallised a scheme that would close and grass over one of the two roads near the stones (the A344), and reunify the entire Stonehenge landscape in a huge `archaeological park'. Under this scheme anyone would be able to walk at will amongst the stones and other nearby monuments, which include field systems, barrow groups and the astonishing cursus.

However, this visionary scheme has for some time been thwarted by the Government's plans to upgrade the A303 - the second of the two roads near the stones - into a six-lane highway. The story of the Government's plans for the road makes sorry reading, but a recent, bitter twist in the story means the whole thing can bear some repeating.

In 1993, the Department of Transport put forward two possible routes for the upgraded A303, one on the line of the existing road, and the other swinging to the south. The Prehistoric Society, the CBA, English Heritage and the National Trust looked hard at these proposals, and counselled against both. We argued that a new highway slicing through one of the world's richest archaeological landscapes would be intolerably destructive.

We also argued that it would be inconsistent with the UK's responsibilities as a signatory of the World Heritage Convention. When Stonehenge was included on the World Heritage list in 1987, the Government undertook `to take appropriate legal, scientific, technical, administrative and financial measures' necessary to protect, conserve, present and rehabilitate it. That, we argued, would hardly be the consequence of building the new road.

For a time last year, the Government seemed to be listening. In July 1994, transport minister Steven Norris was understood to say that the two existing route proposals would be withdrawn. Signs of progress followed. It was reported that the Highways Agency, English Heritage and the National Trust would go into conclave to identify a mutually acceptable solution, and not emerge until they had found it. Also it was announced (at the 1994 Conservative Party conference) that a Department of National Heritage minister would take responsibility for coordinating progress.

However, the Department of Transport celebrated the first anniversary of this announcement by reneging on last year's undertakings. Last month, the Highways Agency abandoned its pledge to find agreement with English Heritage by unilaterally publishing proposals for a new route for the A303 running to the north - which would, like the others, be archaeologically damaging - and by reinstating the two previously-rejected routes.

If these three options go to public inquiry, it is likely that one of them will be built. The odds at roadline inquiries are heavily stacked in favour of the Department of Transport, which convenes them.

If the Government cannot get its heritage priorities right at Stonehenge, it becomes a question whether it can do so anywhere - whether, indeed, the UK should be party to an international conservation agreement that it appears unwilling to uphold. As the millenium nears, how do we wish to measure civilising progress? By doing justice to a unique complex of human creations laid down over 5,000 years, or by a scheme for widening a road?

Dr Peter Addyman is the immediate past-President of the CBA

Question: what's the first thing archaeologists do, when sent to work on a site they've not worked on before? Answer: they read up on all previous work at the site, of course! Otherwise, how would they know what to expect when they wheel on their remote-sensing equipment, or dig their spades and trowels into the earth?

Or do they? The evidence of abysmal subscription numbers to the British Archaeological Bibliography (or BAB) suggests, on the contrary, that few archaeologists in Britain are reading adequately about their subject. Alternatively, if they are reading, they are certainly not doing so efficiently. The quality of archaeological work in Britain must be severely impaired as a result.

How can I make such claims? Because BAB aims to be the only comprehensive, fully indexed source of information on British archaeology, containing brief details of every book, every site report, every journal or magazine article - in short, every word that is published anywhere about archaeology in Britain (including Ireland). By comparison with reading BAB, any other method of gathering information on little-known sites or subjects - such as word of mouth, conferences and seminars, personal collections of reference books, or scans of archaeological publications in the local library<196> must be a hopelessly inadequate alternative.

Archaeological unit managers usually defend their decision not to subscribe to BAB on grounds of cost. Yet this argument does not stand up. An annual subscription to BAB, which is published twice a year, costs UKP99.00 for institutions and UKP45.00 for individuals (with a concessionary rate of UKP19.00) - about the same, in other words, as a single return train fare to visit a library at a moderately-distant town.

A few years ago, BAB sold about 500 copies a year. Even that wasn't really good enough, but now the figure is down to fewer than 300. Of these, only about 60 go to individuals, many of whom are students (because they get it so cheaply). Most of the rest go to libraries - about half of which are abroad! And what of the people who, above all others, ought to be reading it - the several hundred archaeological contracting units in Britain, County Archaeologists and Sites and Monuments Record Officers and staff? Of this huge group, fewer than five subscribe to BAB. There are still some archaeologists who seem not even to have heard of it.

With the vast growth in archaeological publication over the past 20 years, one could argue that a subscription to BAB is now a professional obligation. BAB is, at present, funded and run by a consortium of major national organisations in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but it is possible some of them might start to question their support, if archaeologists continue not to take advantage of the service they are providing.

Dr Mike Heyworth, Deputy Director of the CBA, is a former Senior Bibliographer at BAB

Subscription cheques should be sent c/o the CBA, which manages the project on behalf of the consortium. Back copies are available, including copies of BAB's forerunner, British Archaeological Abstracts. BAB is a non-profit-making organisation. All subscription revenues are ploughed back into BAB itself.