How Much Longer Must This Utter Travesty Continue?
July 29, 2010 - 3:03 am
No one could be more interested than me in the recent developments at Stonehenge. Well, it’s perfectly possible, I suppose, that someone else ‘out there’ might be even more fascinated with the ruins than I am, but I base my blunt statement on the simple fact that I’ve been running Eternal Idol for over 5 years. On that time, over 300 original posts have appeared here, along with something like 3,300 comments and contributions, along with countless links, photos, diagrams, graphics, news reports, accounts of meetings and so on.
Over the weekend, I noted that some comments went up here to the effect that Eternal Idol is the world’s foremost site as far as Stonehenge is concerned, and this may be true. Certainly, I know of no other like it, and if I did, I would of course be more than happy to link to this other site and announce its existence to the Four Winds. From the very start, Eternal Idol, along with its study of Stonehenge, Silbury Hill and our ancestors has been a labour of love, with others choosing to contribute freely and for the benefit of all. All of which set me to thinking…
Last week, there was a flurry of press reports from numerous sources concerning “Hillside Henge”, all of which have been posted here as links. There was great excitement all round, but precious little detail, and what detail there is proved to be somewhat confusing, rather than illuminating. For example, on the BBC link, we learned of a new henge “made of wood and aligned with Stonehenge itself…”
How? By virtue of the fact that you can draw a straight line connecting the two? As for this structure being made of wood, how do we know this? Thankfully, Mike Pitts wrote a sober and informative piece for the BBC, going into what I presume is very interesting detail for the layman, but the mere existence of Mike Pitts’ piece begs the question of why the BBC didn’t include what he had to say in a more informative original announcement?
More amazing still, we learn from the Independent’s Archaeology Correspondent that this new structure was “almost certainly some kind of Neolithic temple” and that it “appears to have been a circle of massive timber obelisks, constructed more than 4,200 years ago.” Where do I begin?
I’m far from convinced that Stonehenge itself was a temple as we understand the word today, and I’ve written about this before. How we know that “Hillside Henge” was “almost certainly some kind of Neolithic temple” is beyond me, while I’m equally baffled as far as the dates are concerned, because as far as I’m aware, we have no way of knowing how precisely how old this structure is.
As for the existence of timber “obelisks”, I’m at a loss. To be sure, it’s an exciting new addition to the lexicon of the Stonehenge landscape, but as I understand it, an obelisk is “a tall, narrow, four-sided, tapering monument which ends in a pyramid-like shape at the top.” How can anyone reasonably conjecture the existence of multiple structures like this, which as far as I’m aware are unprecedented in Neolithic features?
There’s a mention of Hillside Henge, Stonehenge and Coneybury being ‘roughly aligned’, but apart from the simple observation that Hillside Henge lies to the northwest of Stonehenge, there is otherwise not the faintest sign of interest in this compass direction. I personally think this is extremely odd, on account of the many features that lie to the northwest of Stonehenge, while it is the direction in which the sun sets on Midsummer’s Day and it also marks the approximate home of the bluestones, regardless of how they ultimately found their way to Stonehenge.
Even more bizarre is the fact that yet another large wooden henge or temple with a curious feature at its centre lies ‘somewhere to the northwest of Stonehenge’, but this latest ‘most exciting discovery in 50 years or so’ has not even been reported! Its existence is well-known in certain archaeological circles and has been for some time, but for a multitude of truly fascinating reasons, no press release has been issued and it’ll probably be quietly forgotten until such time as it suits someone to release news of this latest discovery.
So, it might well be that if you’re reading this, then you have a genuine interest in the landscape of Stonehenge and are following the advice given by Mike Pitts on page 299 of Hengeworld – “Perhaps now, having read this far, you feel like having a go at working it (the mystery of Stonehenge) out for yourself. I recommend you do. There is something quite special about deep contemplation of our ancestors….” However, if you’re a member of the public and you’re having a serious stab at studying Stonehenge, then you might as well forget it because there’s something huge ‘out there’ that you don’t know about and won’t know about, either, so you can’t include it in your calculations. Ah well, you read the new new Henge here first, while you’ve also read about yet another huge and unrecorded prehistoric feature here first, but I’ll write more about this last one in a separate post as soon as I get a chance.
Otherwise, as far as the current “New Henge” or “Hillside Henge” is concerned, I’m mystified by how little detail has gone into the official reports, while it strikes me that the aforementioned contribution by Mike Pitts on the BBC is a welcome addition as far as those with a genuine interest in the monument are concerned. The other reports strike me as simply a means of cashing in on the universal interest in Stonehenge, which further perpetuates my belief that the monument is far more of a ‘cash cow’ than a real site deserving of respect, study and veneration.
You’ll find other links to “Hillside Henge” on this site, sent in by enthusiasts, but they pretty much repeat the information in the original press releases. There’s some confusion about the precise location of Hillside Henge, which may have been intended from the start, but for those many people with a genuine interest in the place, I have to wonder why it’s left to Alex Down to visit the site and take measurements and photographs, to Juris Ozols in Minnesota to produce further contributions and graphics, and for me to write it all up and publish it. While I’m on the subject of contributors, I’m extremely grateful to my friend Lee Smeaton – a metal detectorist of all people, but as good a friend of our heritage as you could wish to meet – for taking the time and trouble to send in the enhanced photos (below), that may throw some further light on Hillside Henge.
Hillside Henge aside for now, why is it that Eternal Idol is regarded by some as the foremost site on Stonehenge, when by rights, there should be other contenders fiercely contesting this title?
I’ve spoken before with admiration about the Stonehenge Riverside Project and this admiration remains. They been excavating in the Stonehenge landscape for years, allowing visitors to watch the excavations and providing open days where anyone is free to question the archaeologists and wander around the sites. The SRP has come up with a host of fascinating discoveries in recent times, but while their website isn’t bad, it’s hardly up to date and brimful with information. Mike Parker Pearson has given talks on Stonehenge and he’s taken part in documentaries, all of which were informative and intriguing, but the blunt fact remains that while the people in charge of the SRP are a mine of experienced information, there’s not a lot of this on the internet, which is to my mind a very great shame.
Before I move on, I should point out (again) another major shortcoming in British archaeology. I’ve spoken to many senior archaeologists over the years who specialise in the study of Stonehenge (and Silbury Hill) and I’ve been fascinated to learn what they have to say in private conversations. However, these men have to be exceedingly careful with their public pronouncements because there’s a great deal of professional envy and resentment ‘out there’, from others who go over their printed words with a fine toothcomb, ready to pounce on any syllable deemed to be unprofessional, speculative or populist. Now, you might think that I’ve done exactly the same thing with what I’ve said about Hillside Henge, but while I was admittedly startled by Prof Gaffney’s announcement that “This (Hillside Henge) is probably the first major ceremonial monument that has been found in the past 50 years or so”, because the recent discovery of Bluestonehenge seems to have slipped his memory, I’m more disappointed by officialdom’s fleeting and inaccurate coverage of this new discovery.
The next contender for the person or organisation who should have the best Stonehenge site on the internet is Wessex Archaeology, not least because they use a stylised trilithon as their company logo in an obvious attempt to cash in on Stonehenge’s global reputation; where do I begin?
Apart from using a stylised Stonehenge trilithon, Wessex Archaeology undertook the Stonehenge A303 Test Pit Project in 2002 and I should know, because I worked on it. Archaeologists employed by Wessex Archaeology discovered the world-famous Amesbury Archer or King of Stonehenge and again, I should know because I was one of the first to see the remains and artefacts close up, while I was also involved in the many broadcasts made about this discovery, as I was one half of the laughably-termed Media and Communications Department.
Archaeologists employed by Wessex Archaeology excavated the Boscombe Bowmen or ‘Builders of Stonehenge’, another discovery I was intimately involved with throughout, while archaeologists employed by Wessex Archaeology have been present at numerous other Stonehenge-related discoveries over the years. Yet another was the laser-scanning of Stonehenge, carried out in 2003 by Wessex Archaeology and Archaeoptics, but I think it’s fair to say that the Stonehenge expertise gathered at Wessex Archaeology is not proportionately represented on their website. One might find this mildy surprising, when one also considers the size of their IT Department, the existence of a Media & Communications Department, their self-proclaimed status as an Educational Charity and the fact that the Chief Executive of Wessex Archaeology, Ms Sue Davies, was recently elected Vice Chairperson of the United Kingdom National Commission for UNESCO.
Stonehenge is of course a UNESCO World Heritage site, situated not only in the United Kingdom, but also a mere stone’s throw away from the majestic offices of Wessex Archaeology. Chief Executives and Heads of Department at Wessex Archaeology are paid far better than I am, they have a lot more free time on their hands than I do, they have better access to Stonehenge, related projects and related experts than I do and they have vastly superior computer technology, yet their website is hardly a cornucopia of information as far as Stonehenge is concerned. And as the icing on the cake, as it were, the staff at Wessex have been banned from accessing Eternal Idol from their workplace, while anyone found attempting to do so faces some pretty unforgiving questioning.
I’ll have far more to say about Wessex Archaeology and Stonehenge as the year progresses, but I will simply leave you to ponder why this institution isn’t aiming to be the first stop for Stonehenge information on the internet. Mystifying though this situation is, it seems positively straightforward in comparison with the current status of English Heritage, as far as Stonehenge is concerned.
If Wessex Archaeology are well-connected and comfortably off in terms of Stonehenge connections, then English Heritage, as the current custodians of the ruins, are faced with what is self-evidently an embarrassment of riches. And yet, when we glance at their website, which most reasonable people might expect to be the last word in instantly accessible and comprehensible information on Stonehenge, we find very little indeed.
When I type “Stonehenge English Heritage” into Google, I get this result for the homepage, and while there are some tabs, which I’ll come to shortly, the rest of the page is dominated by ticket prices and exhortations to spend money in the visitors’ shop, buying membership and so on. The spirit of Mammon is alive and well here, but what happens when we turn to Explore Stonehenge and the Interactive Map?
Now, it may well be that I’ve missed something amidst this veritable treasure-trove of up-to-date information on Stonehenge, as maintained up its custodians, but I’d be grateful to anyone who can point out updates on:
Hillside Henge, “probably the first major ceremonial monument that has been found in the past 50 years or so.”
Bluestonehenge, “one of the most important prehistoric finds in decades.”
Professors Wainwright and Darvill’s 2008 excavation at Stonehenge, the first since 1964 and the subject of a BBC Timewatch special, in conjunction with the Smithsonian Museum. Good Lord – there IS a page on this!
The filming of an episode of Dr Who, one of the most famous, popular and successful sci-fi series of all time, at Stonehenge.
The discovery that Stonehenge was a royal cemetery.
The news that the 56 Aubrey Holes may once have held bluestones.
The removal of the Ancestors from Aubrey Hole 7.
The subsequent Druid picket of Stonehenge.
The Amesbury Archer or The King of Stonehenge.
The Boscombe Bowmen or The Builders of Stonehenge.
I could go on and on and on, but you’d be better of simply scrolling through Eternal Idol to find everything that’s not featured there. Druid links with Stonehenge, Aborigines performing dances at Stonehenge, Pytheas of Massilia, Stonehedge, Stonehump….you name it, it can’t be found.
What of the appearance of The Ancestor at Stonehenge? Perhaps I’m looking in the wrong place, so let’s have a look at the Summer Solstice 2010 tab. Well, that’s odd – no mention of The Ancestor, no pictures, no reference to the extensive media coverage, no mention of this unique cultural event, no mention of the first time a giant’s appeared at Stonehenge since Geoffrey of Monmouth described the monument being built by such creatures…nothing.
This complete absence of competition for Eternal Idol can’t be put down to a lack of funding – Stonehenge receives something like 1,000,000 visitors a year at around six pounds a head, so when you add sales from the shop, parking and God only knows what else into the pot, there should be more than enough to pay for someone to post a few updates every few days. But apparently not.
As you’ll see on the Explore Stonehenge page, there is a list of handsome credits, which I’ll reproduce here “This interactive map was funded by the New Opportunity Fund and created by Oxford ArchDigital in April 2004. The project was led by Isabelle Bedu, the Stonehenge World Heritage Site Coordinator, in collaboration with the English Heritage web team and the Wiltshire County Council project Window On Wiltshire. A huge thank you to Helen Shalders, Kate Turnbull, Fiona Ryan, Graham Sear, Margaret Cook, Vuk Trifkovic, Tom Goskar, Damian Grady, Helena Cave-Penney, Amanda Chadburn and all the others involved in the project.”
Well, Tom Goskar was a former colleague of mine at Wessex Archaeology and I understand that he’s now occupying the dizzy heights of management, but while I’ve long lost touch with him, it looks from the above as if 2004 was the last time he made any serious attempt to put original information about Stonehenge into the public domain, although I’m always prepared to learn otherwise.
As for Amanda Chadburn, she holds some senior position within English Heritage, but you’re welcome to look this lady up for yourselves. I heard her name mentioned recently in Alex Down’s report on the recent Stonehenge and Avebury Seminar at Devizes, in which he wrote:
“Amanda Chadburn welcomed us, and introduced the seminar, and explained that the two different sites are actually just one WHS – that was news to me – with the large gap of Salisbury Plain and Pewsey Vale in between. She explained that it’s proposed that an Archaeological Research Group be set up for the whole WHS, and asked for ideas to help frame its terms of reference. I’ve sent mine, and I bet that the readership here has a whole lot more.”
Well, I’ve had what I flatter myself is a brilliant idea, Amanda – why don’t you, and all those others who currently occupy well-paid and stratospheric positions in the world of Stonehenge archaeology, start pulling your fingers out and start making more than a token effort to show an interest in Stonehenge? If you want suggestions to help frame terms of reference for an Archaeological research Group for the Stonehenge World Heritage site, might it not be big help if all concerned updated their websites more than just the once every few years? The IFA’s rules and regulations aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on, but somewhere among all the dross is a real gem, which is worth reproducing here:
“The fuller understanding of our past provided by archaeology is part of society’s common heritage and it should be available to everyone. Because of this, and because the historic environment is an irreplaceable resource, archaeologists both corporately and individually have a responsibility to help preserve the historic environment, to use it economically in their work, to conduct their studies in such a way that reliable information may be acquired, and to disseminate the results of their studies.”
Around four and a half thousand years ago, our ancestors embarked on an unimaginable labour, dragging vast quantities of stone many miles across rough terrain to a site their ancestors before them had chosen to venerate many millennia before. Using nothing more than mauls and their bare hands, they fashioned these rough stones and erected them into a monument that is regarded as a true Wonder of the World, a now-crumbling set of ruins that draws visitors from around the planet to stare in open-mouthed admiration, awe and bafflement.
However, their descendants – those tasked by society to investigate, record, safeguard and disseminate the information pertaining to this Wonder of the World – simply find it beyond their abilities to create an official and accessible repository of knowledge on the internet worthy of the name, let alone update it in a meaningful fashion; as for a visitors centre – forget it. All this despite enjoying facilities, benefits and a standard of living incomprehensible to those long dead men and women whose remains are now scattered throughout the landscape, in museums and university laboratories.
So, I ask again “How much longer must this utter travesty continue?”
28 Responses to “How Much Longer Must This Utter Travesty Continue?”
Dennis, I have to whole-heartedly agree with you regarding the complementary websites you mentioned. I say “complementary” because, honestly, that’s all they really are compared to EI where Stonehenge news and information is concerned. I regularly check all of them out, hoping for updates or details and enlightenment on SH-related stories and discoveries, but I’m afraid that all I’ve come away with is the conviction that I’m insane. Remember, the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting the results to be different? That’s me.
Perhaps the people whose jobs include maintaining those websites don’t share your level of interest, fascination, passion and determination to leave no stone unturned (oh, really bad pun) and no theory or idea unconsidered–all things for which I am truly grateful.
I must say that over the past few years you’ve offered some tantalizing tidbits about things which you have yet to elaborate upon as promised (not a complaint, by the way, as I understand how busy you are despite the backlog of material the size of Silbury piling up). I’m patient enough to wait for you to get to these when time allows, but your mention of “yet another large wooden henge or temple with a curious feature at its centre lies “somewhere to the northwest of Stonehenge”, but this latest “most exciting discovery in 50 years or so” has not even been reported” is *way* too tantalizing. Surely there must be more to say about it than that?
Dr Dan,
Your suggestions sound great, they really do, but I fear that you’ve overlooked a few matters in your understandable and commendable haste to inject some reason and logic into the proceedings. First things first, there has to be a visitors’ centre in the first place, but judging from the pantomime/gravy train of recent times, I just can’t see it happening anything soon. The Stonehenge Visitors Centre is fast becoming Britain’s answer to El Dorado i.e. a fabled, glittering metropolis, stuffed to the gills with indescribable treasures – many people are sure that it exists or that it’s about to be found, but it remains tantalisingly out of reach.
So, assuming that a Visitors’ Centre miraculously appears somewhere within 50 miles of Stonehenge over the course of the next century, what will it look like? What will it contain? Who will run it?
As to what it’ll look like, your guess or worst nightmare is as good as mine, I suspect. The recent contenders have been abysmal, but when it next comes up for tender, I’m sure that some creative genius will put in an even lower bid and come up with some dysfunctional monstrosity that makes its previous incarnations pale into insignificance. That’s been the pattern so far, so I see no good reason why it should change; if anyone’s got good reason to suspect otherwise i.e. that some building Britain can be truly proud of will grace the Plain, then I’d love to hear about it.
While I’m on the subject of what this hypothetical structure might look like (shades of Hillside Henge, here!) there’s the minor matter of The Ancestor. As you’ll see if you scroll back down the page, this fantastic creation captivated everyone who saw it at the Summer Solstice and it continues to draw great interest from the local media and from local people. I understand that Sotheby’s and others are coming down from London to evaluate the Stonehenge Giant, but there’s so much interest in him that I could honestly write about nothing else here for months.
It might sound like a completely insane idea, but it vaguely occurred to me – months and months ago – that English Heritage could do far worse than to buy the Ancestor and place next to wherever the hypothetical Visitors’ Centre is going to be situated. It’s an established fact that more and more people want to see him for a variety of reasons, while he’s a far more inspired creation than any previous suggestions for a VC. What am I doing? Making positive suggestions about how to keep visitors to Stonehenge happy? No, this won’t do at all….
What will this VC contain? At a guess, a load of expensive tat, that leaves no one any the wiser for having perused it. I’ve read all manner of suggestions, including a reconstruction of Stonehenge, a planetarium and so on, but it’s not going to happen. It’ll be the Party Line and approved merchandise at fifteen quid a throw, while I categorically guarantee there’ll be no room anywhere for anything about Pytheas of Massilia, Stonehenge’s musical legacy, Prof Gerald Hawkins, the possibility of a ‘lost city’ nearby, The Ruin, The Sentinel, a royal cemetery, laser scanning, Inigo Jones, missing stones, the Spoils of Annwn or any of the myriad, truly fascinating ‘possibilities’ attached to Stonehenge.
There’s also the unavoidable issue of how so many pagans revere Stonehenge. As has been observed before on these pages, there are as many pagan belief systems as there are pagans, while many of these visitors to Stonehenge are just along for the ride, the equation being “Stonehenge is world famous, therefore if I am pictured at or associated with Stonehenge, then I too will become world famous.” A bit like a Neolithic version of Big Brother, but even more tedious.
Nonetheless, something else I’ve written about at great length on these pages is what I’m 100% certain is a firm Druid link to the building of Stonehenge and I’ve still not finished what I have to say. Whether I’m right or wrong, or whether the pagans are just along for the ride or not, it is simply a part of Stonehenge’s ongoing story to recognise that it has an incredibly potent allure for people the world over, while I know from personal experience that many pagans genuinely revere the place. Unlike the authorities, they do not see the ruins as a cash cow and they have a lot to say about the monument – however, it’ll be a cold day in Hell when modern pagans are represented at a Stonehenge VC, regardless of how many paying visitors are interested to learn more.
As for who will run this marvellous place, my guess is that a pitch went in a long time ago. My guess is that it was a pitch from someone with an archaeological profile, who has to date a clean sheet, and who can be trusted to toe the party line. I would be truly astonished if any of this ever became public knowledge, especially before the hypothetical VC becomes a reality, because any such details will be either confidential or will be hidden away in the small print.
Changing the subject entirely, of course, I can’t be all seeing or all knowing, so if anyone ‘out there’ can point me towards what must have been a flurry of press releases and publicity on the subject, I’d love to see the announcements of Ms Sue Davies, OBE, Chief Executive for Wessex Archaeology, being appointed Vice Chairperson for UNESCO in the United Kingdom, as mentioned in my post. Modesty is of course a highly praiseworthy virtue, but I’m sure this appointment would have deserved more recognition that just a line or two in the link provided. Ms Davies OBE and I long went our separate ways, but I’m sure when we take into consideration her astonishing dual capacity as Chief Executive for Wessex Archaeology and Vice Chairperson for UNESCO in the United Kingdom, not to mention Wessex’s brief as an educational charity and the company’s long association with Stonehenge, then we can all look forward to the Dawning of A New Golden Age for the dissemination of information on this Wonder of the World.
It wouldn’t surprise me if they built a six foot fence round the whole lot – to stop people seeing it for free as they pass by. I have a big issue paying to see great monuments that should be free for all.
Something else I forgot to mention – Eternal Idol allows for discussions, even if I can’t make them happen in real time. I’m not aware of any other ‘complimentary site’, as Aynslie so generously puts it, that has this facility. Over the years, it has been a privilege and a pleasure for me to either take part in or else observe civilised and informed exchanges on Stonehenge and other matters, so this is something else I’m proud to have hosted.
Dennis, I heard on Tuesday that a long tradition at Avebury, that of the Arch Druid climbing Silbury Hill to meditate before ceremony, has now been stopped by English Heritage as it is considered too dangerous up there, apparently.
So here is a fine example of how, under the ‘careless’ governance of EH, DCMS and HM Government and the rough hands of entertainment archaeology, another great prehistoric experience has become impossible now and for future generations.
In modern times, the archaeologists have virtually destroyed Silbury Hill; the damage was not done 100 years ago. So many tunnels were dug, badly shored and hardly backfilled by a BBC sponsored dig that even recent emergency engineering has not saved it for the people.
Now that doesn’t make the news, only here on Eternal Idol where the truth dare be told. But imagine if pagans had done a fraction of that damage? We would be banned forever and the whole mess would be held up as an example of why we should never again be trusted!
That Government is ill suited to run and protect such sites, is as obvious from the continuing lack of a New Stonehenge Visitor Centre.
Archaeology would be ok if it were governed, monitored and made properly accountable, and if perhaps there really were some great benefit resulting from this field of study that we could all share in but no, mostly it is a calamity and a farce.
Where is the great publicly available archive of discovery? As you point out Dennis, it does not exist. The Royal Society sends its elite into our landscape to suck it dry, yet once given the permission to start a dig, regularly fails to deliver into the public domain any more than a summary of the findings and perhaps, if we are lucky, a short TV programme.
I’m sick of hearing about how sensitive Archaeologists are towards our ancestors and the people who revere them. Its easy to hide behind the ‘value to science’ argument but this masks deep seated dismissal and prejudice against the Druid religion, which goes under the PC radar perhaps because we are white, and perhaps because the CofE is enthroned on APABE.
We now know about the Amesbury Archer and many other examples of where our cherished ancestors have been treated with much less than the respect that they should command.
It is time, right now for a change, and I personally would like to see DCMS give up its hold of the UNESCO World Heritage sites in Wiltshire. Who could do better? ANYBODY. Maybe even the Druids!
I don’t see it as my role to stick up for English Heritage, but I wonder if we’re being a little hard on this institution? At first sight, it appears no, we’re not: I searched for “English Heritage mission statement” on Google and found a reference to a non-existent document that dates back to 2001, according to the file name, but certainly isn’t available for viewing now. Even by the corporate standards of “mission statements”, that’s pretty poor.
But look on their website, and two strong strands are discernible: their primary role appears to be to protect our heritage (naturally enough, I suppose) … and then it’s to help us (the English public) to discover that heritage. And, within the constraints of limited funds, I guess that’s exactly what EH does. While we here on EI have a pretty encyclopaedic knowledge of Stonehenge and its environs, most of the general public (and I’m guessing >99% of them) simply want to “discover” the site and learn a little bit about it. Which they can very easily do, through guidebooks and those audio thingies (anyone here actually used the SH device?)
And if they want to learn more, EH does actually provide a lot of extra facilities: simply take a look at their Discover link, and I think you’ll be impressed by the facilities they have available. It’s true they don’t have a database solely dedicated to Stonehenge, but it appears as though that’s what Amanda Chadburn is initiating. And of course, a lot of what we think of as belonging to Stonehenge (like Bluestonehenge, for instance) is not actually in their care.
I’m not trying to defend EH too hard – there’s a lot wrong, especially with some of their display facilities. (As an aside, I sent them what was of course a scintillatingly brilliant idea to help display to visitors vanished historic buildings more convincingly superimposed on their remaining walls and foundations, rather than those terrible “artists’s impressions.” I called it TimePort. I got a nice letter back, and then absolutely nothing. Perhaps it wasn’t so scintillating …) However, what with Government interference, and within limited means, it seems to me that they do a reasonable job. But if readers here disagree, perhaps we should write and let them know why. Weight of numbers may achieve something where a lone voice doesn’t.
Alex, if nothing else, you are what even a Welshman such as myself would immediately describe as an English gentleman. It is typical of you to take this approach and it’s very praiseworthy, but I must completely disagree. We all have our own ‘cultures’ and I’ve long since sunk comfortably into mine, working on EI and contributing as I do. However, I’ve also worked at Wessex Archaeology in what I described as their ‘laughably termed’ Media & Communications Dept, so I know full well the salaries these people are on and how much time they have on their hands, while exactly the same goes for the lazy slobs at English Heritage.
You can send in the longest essay you choose, but nothing will eradicate the simple fact that they are awash with hard cash as a result of the vast income they receive from Stonehenge, yet no one there has the will or inclination to lift a solitary finger to update their website. The Interactive Map was put in place in 2004, along with all the cosy credits I mentioned earlier, yet six years down the line, the casual interested visitor would be none the wiser about developments there. If that isn’t truly shameful and disgraceful, I don’t know what it, not least because at the something like 30 million pounds must have been handed over at the gate between then and now, a lot less than has been contributed to Eternal Idol, the world’s premiere site for original information on Stonehenge…thanks to YOU and many others.
Alex,
If by protecting Stonehenge you refer to locking out the public on all but the four occasions per year when we may actually experience Stonehenge freely and they surround us with enough force to suppress a small civil war, then yes, they do a great job.
Where are all those Police and private militia when the blokes with shovels turn up and start turning over the turf? Clearly if you want to do serious and irreparable damage to the landscape, all you need to do is apply for a permit from DCMS and you can destroy at leisure.
I came to this website two years ago, mistaking it for the Riverside project simply because Eternal Idol was where the information from the digs was surfacing. I wanted to ask how it was that the scientists thought it ok to remove my beloved ancestors from right under our pagan noses and not even have the decency to offer to return them.
Of all the Druids involved at Stonehenge, I was probably the most pro collaboration with the authorities and in favour of archaeology. I led Druid blessings of the early digs by W & D, and Riverside projects and still believe that we should research in this way our ancient past. Yet my trust in the institutions has been deeply shaken.
For one thing, they assume that anyone who simply disagrees with them on any point is either a religious fanatic or trying to stop the advance of science or is claiming a greater ownership over our heritage than anyone else. So as a result they offer no dialogue and no compromise lest the 200 year ‘free for all’ enjoyed by antiquaries gets some reasonable boundaries set.
Every science has some boundaries except it seems, theirs. Medicine, for example, has long since stopped dissecting living poor people, convicts etc. Even in the waging of war there are limits to what is legal and ethical. Yet no-one dare challenge a British archaeologist. They occupy a permanent place at the right hand of God and their wishes, it seems, are beyond any human contestation.
We are all interested in what is beneath our feet. But after the dig is over and the glory TV shoot has been long forgotten, what happens to the human beings who’s remains were disturbed, the oh so valuable information that was collected?
Good question.
Good points, Frank and Dennis, and well made. And without wanting to defend EH any more, I think we may be conflating the problems of other organisations, like the MoD for example, and archaeologists in general and Wessex Archaeology in particular, with EH who, according to that Simon Jenkins article, have a pretty thankless job trying to coordinate them all.
I still think that the EH information on the website, while lightweight, is nicely presented, and while it may not be completely up to date, it presents a good overview of the ritual landscape through time (try it!) Yes, it could be updated (though I’m not so convinced about the significance of Dr Who filming for just one example) but it gives the information that will satisfy 99% of visitors. The rest have a universe of museums, books and web resources to draw upon. Quangos, like governments, have to make tough decisions about where to devote resources: like motor tax, for example, no revenue stream is ever ring-fenced for use by its source.
But I’m already taking too defensive a view, which I said I wouldn’t do. We all have our individual viewpoints – thank goodness for that! – and it’s individual views which make this such a valuable site. We all know EH isn’t perfect, and all I can do is suggest that if there’s any aspect of their operations that enrages you, then let them know about it. Enough input from the knowledgeable people here should have some effect, at least.
A non-controversial postscript to the EH discussion: Mike Pitts reminded me, in an article of his that I came across today, that EH were responsible for the indispensable “Stonehenge in its Landscape” (1995) which completely transformed our access to information about Stonehenge. After the inexcusable lack of reporting by earlier archaeologists (no names, no pack drill), SIIL rectified the situation as far as was possible with a beautiful piece of data synthesis that organized and collated the highly scattered available data into chapters covering a time sequence of all the different parts of the monument, and the finds discovered in the landscape. Don’t underestimate the amount of work in this book – it’s massive, and a resource that will be drawn on heavily for decades. For that alone, I think EH deserve a lot of credit. And now, maybe, it’s time for accumulating some more credit again!
If I were doomed to spend the rest of my life marooned on a desert island and could only have three books to keep me company, they would be the Bible, SIIL, and Gone With The Wind.
Juris
SIIL – yes, it’s great, but I could tell a few horror stories about this particular volume and I have every intention of doing so, as & when it suits me, not before.
As you point out, it came out in 1995, so let’s go by the one million visitors a year to Stonehenge ‘rough yardstick’. Yes, I know that the amount of paying visitors is and always has been less than this, while I also know that the entrance fees have changed over the years as well, but if we discount the money made from the memento shop and food shop, as well as the fees charged for filming there, we’ll have a very rough figure to play with.
Let’s call it fifteen years since SIIL came out, so let’s imagine that in that time, one million visitors a year have paid a fiver to get in. That’s five million pounds a year, multiplied by fifteen, which gives us seventy-five million pounds. If anyone’s seriously telling me that one barely adequate website (dotted with exhortations to part with more cash) along with a barely adequate description of Stonehenge that doesn’t include any of the major discoveries mentioned above constitutes a fair reflection of the revenue the monument’s generated and the worldwide interest in the place, then I’d say that you have a far more charitable view of the powers that be than I do.
Me? I think it’s an absolute bloody disgrace and a shameful way to treat the memory of the people who built Stonehenge, Stonehenge itself and the millions of people worldwide who are fascinated by the place. As long as the visitors are being bussed in and are forking out, then this seems to be all that matters, while the same principle applies to other institutions who profit from the place. Look at the last link in my post, written by Simon Jenkins, and you’ll see that I’m not the person that thinks Stonehenge is a cash cow. It wouldn’t be quite so bad if there were some instantly accessible repository of information on Stonehenge (other than Eternal Idol), but the blunt truth is that no one can be bothered to create such a thing. I’ve not finished with this matter, not by a long chalk, but I’ll write about it again as soon as I can.
Dennis,
So far this weekend I’ve only read through the first year of EI, but one thing has become quite clear to me in doing so. You know all of those organizations that haven’t updated their SH web sites and haven’t put money toward better and more recent education for the visiting public? I think They’ve figured out that they don’t have to. After all, why should they put all the time and effort and cost into something that you’re already doing for them?
Have you gone back and read through your own work? It’s practically encyclopedic on an Encyclopedia Britannica scale!
Side note here: To anyone reading EI who hasn’t read through the first few years of entries–It’s entirely worth your time to do so. There’s so much incredible information and details of discoveries and theories that never ever got the chance to be discussed the way things are now. Believe me, Dennis has not regurgitated everything he’s written in the past in more recent works, so there are months and months of early material that is just as provocative (but not commented on or discussed) as anything written more recently. I encourage people to go back, read, think, and comment in the space provided or bring something into the present for discussion topics now.
Aynslie, Eternal Idol is and always has been a labour of love. From the very start, I decided that I would publish original information and material on Stonehenge purely as a way of ‘thinking out loud’, as a private journal, if you like. I decided that if anyone else wanted to comment or contribute, this would be a bonus, but I simply felt driven to trying to set up a quality, interactive Stonehenge site because even back then, I knew of the huge amount of material that wasn’t making it into the public domain.
With this in mind, I very much appreciate your kind words, believe me, as such positive observations are always going to be welcome. However, at the risk of being pedantic, I must differ with something you wrote, even though I suspect you were speaking in a rhetorical fashion.
You said “You know all of those organizations that haven’t updated their SH web sites and haven’t put money toward better and more recent education for the visiting public? I think They’ve figured out that they don’t have to. After all, why should they put all the time and effort and cost into something that you’re already doing for them?”
Believe me, I understand your point, but it’s perfectly clear that these organisations do have to provide far more information, because the IFA rules, under which these organisations and individuals supposedly operate, are unambiguous, while the paragraph below appears at the very start of their impressive ‘Code of Conduct’.
“The fuller understanding of our past provided by archaeology is part of society’s common heritage and it should be available to everyone. Because of this, and because the historic environment is an irreplaceable resource, archaeologists both corporately and individually have a responsibility to help preserve the historic environment, to use it economically in their work, to conduct their studies in such a way that reliable information may be acquired, and to disseminate the results of their studies.”
It seems unmistakably clear to me, but then again, as I wrote in the original post, this Code of Conduct isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on, because no one pays a blind bit of attention to it. It exists purely as window-dressing to impress and overawe the gullible, and to provide a facade of respectability for some practitioners who at best are negligent and who at worst regularly allow vandalism of sites and artefacts.
I’m aware that there is a huge volume of material relating to British archaeological discoveries, so I recognise that it would impracticable to provide easily-accessible material on every excavation carried out in Britain. However, I’ll just repeat that Stonehenge draws one million visitors a year – it is an internationally recognised Wonder of the World, it is unique and it is the Jewel in the Crown of Britain. It completely beggars belief that neither English Heritage nor Wessex Archaeology can find the time or resources to abide by IFA rules and make information on Stonehenge available to everyone.
I’ve barely scratched the surface of Stonehenge as far as these matters are concerned, while I haven’t even mentioned Silbury Hill and Avebury, either. Still, all good things to those who wait…
Dennis,
A few times you’ve referred to Stonehenge as “a broken jaw of a lost kingdom”. I think this is a beautiful description. You’ve always placed it in quotes and I was wondering what you are actually quoting from?
If this wasn’t already a couple years old, I’d have posted on the Stonehenge News page. I came across it quite by accident while looking up something on Ambrosius and couldn’t resist posting it here as an unfortunate piece of support for some of your EH laments:
As you may know, my background was as a qualified practical field archaeologist and, many years ago, a Practitioner Member of the IFA. So I’m interested that you’ve caught onto the IFA being a waste of space. The problem though is what to do about it, because it should not be a waste of space. They have a duty to be a bit more professional, but in this day and age I don’t think anybody in archaeology knows what the word ‘DUTY’ means. One does not wish to mud sling, but they certainly did fail me in my requests to them for help. It actually beggars belief that they promise all manner of help, provided you pay them for membership, then when you actually need help they throw a wobbly and run away refusing to do anything.
As for English Heritage, well, let me just tell you of one brief encounter with them, that will forever stick in my memory.
In 1994 I tried to establish NVQ’s in archaeology, being particularly concerned with the number of untrained student’s I’d had to train who were let loose on real archaeological sites, and with no experience.
I thought in a very naive sort of way, that it would be far better to train students first – possibly via computer programs etc, so in a non destructive environment to ensure they had a good idea of what to do before they got going. I also believed that archaeologists should have an opportunity to better their skills and employment prospects.
After all, who knows of a professional who is competent at surveying (edm or theodolite in my time), illustrating (site plans scale drawn etc), excavating (under rescue conditions snap decisions what to save and what not to, supervise mechanical diggers, decide when and if shoring needs to be sent for, what to excavate ‘slowly’ and when to go with speed and caution. Who can identify features, knows how to record them accurately … is that silty sand or a sandy silt?… etc) who can and often has to deal with members of public, understand and carry out geophysical survey etc etc, and for all that, be paid 5 pounds an hour?
Or has it now gone up to 5.60 an hour???
So you ask for a plumber and he turns up with a crew of untrained volunteers to your house; would you accept it? Nope, yet archaeologists, the hippy type, long haired cool variety are expected to behave like boy scouts on camp.
So, getting NVQ’s and professional recognition for the skills they have should be in theirs, and every one else’s best interest. Yet, when I put this proposal forward to English Heritage, they went into a state of shock, and responded “we cannot afford to take the risk that archaeologists are properly trained”.
You will note that archaeology is the only profession that does not give an NVQ for that occupation.
The whole darn thing is a b…. disgrace.
I don’t actually know who I’d give this title to, of 2 candidates in archaeology, but the state of archaeology today reminds me of a song title by my favourite Italian singer, translated meaning “The King of the Ignorants”.
Hi Dennis
I agree with a lot of the foregoing — and am also amazed by the manner in which remarkably little evidence re this new site has been blown up into a whirlwind of speculation, much of which has no basis in anything. But can I just blow a small trumpet here? Eternal Idol is not the only discussion site concentrating on Stonehenge. I also invite discussion on my blog:
http://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com
I come from a different background — in geomorphology, glaciology and geology — but in the end we all want the same thing — namely the truth about when and how Stonehenge was built, and what it was used for.
Keep up the good work!
Hi Brian,
I’m pleased that a radical dissenter such as yourself agrees with me, while you are more than welcome to blow your own trumpet here, of course. I don’t know why I didn’t do it before, but I’ve posted a link to your site that should show up on the front page in a little while.
You’re absolutely right – we all want the same thing, which is the truth about when and how Stonehenge was built, and what it was used for. Differences of opinion are par for the course and to be expected, but how on Earth anyone with an interest in the place can form any kind of reasoned and informed opinion when so much information is kept under wraps by individuals and/or corporations with vested interests is beyond me.
I.F.A = Investigate F**k All, and on this subject, yet another matter is bubbling away in the background, so I hear.
Do you think someone was actually paying attention?
http://www.thetourismcompany.com/project.asp?type=2&projectid=1182
Amazing, absolutely amazing…thank you Aynslie, yet again, for providing the subject matter for another original post, coming soon….
Interesting link, and it did sound as if they’d recently read Eternal Idol! However, isn’t this more tourist-orientated, rather than historical? It could eventually lead to a better resource for the sort of stuff we enjoy though…..
Hi Aynslie, off topic, but I noticed you mentioned Ambrosious? Would that be Aurelianus? If so, I wonder if you had any good sources of information about him – other than Gildas and Geoffrey of Monmouth. It’s a subject that has piqued my interest in the last year or so, and although I know hard evidence is virtually non-existent, I want to read up as much as possible with a view of getting a better historical understanding of who he might have been, what he might have done, and where he might have operated from.
If you have anything that you feel might be of interest, I am happy for Dennis to pass on my email address…
Neil,
I myself am more interested in the fact that the name Ambrosius became attached to that of Merlin, so that’s actually the avenue I’m headed down at this time, rather than pursuing Ambrosius Aurelianus. As I frequently bump into the latter while in pursuit of the former, however, I’ll let you know if I hit upon a good source.
Dennis, I’d just like to say I agree with your “utter travesty” item, with regard to the lack of any consistent dissemination of information of new archaeological discoveries with respect to Stonehenge, Wiltshire, Wessex, or indeed, Britain.
I was at the May 22nd Devizes Seminar on “Researching the Stonehenge & Avebury World Heritage Site”, which Alex Down summarised so well for Eternal Idol.
Significantly, in summing up the Seminar for those present, Julian Richards did express dismay at the lack of any reliable Internet Source for new excavation & research findings.
As a former Information Librarian, I, like you, find it amazing that news of fresh archaeological discoveries are not shared democratically with an enthusiastic British public audience in a more consistent and objective manner.
Thank you very much indeed for this, Tony; I welcome all thoughts here, but I’m naturally very gratified to hear that a former Information Librarian such as your good self shares my view on this abysmal state of affairs.
Once again, I feel it’s worth pointing out that there’s at least one rock solid basis for being outraged by the ‘black hole’ at the centre of Stonehenge, and that’s the paragraph from the Code of Practise from the IFA, a lovingly-crafted piece of work that might as well have been written on the wind or on swiftly-flowing water:
“The fuller understanding of our past provided by archaeology is part of society’s common heritage and it should be available to everyone. Because of this, and because the historic environment is an irreplaceable resource, archaeologists both corporately and individually have a responsibility to help preserve the historic environment, to use it economically in their work, to conduct their studies in such a way that reliable information may be acquired, and to disseminate the results of their studies.”
It couldn’t possibly be clearer – it’s written in beautiful, simple English and there’s absolutely no mistaking the meaning, but it’s completely worthless of course, because no one pays a blind bit of attention to it. And it’s not as if we’re talking about some obscure plot of land in Britain that some die-hard obsessives are demanding be publicised, because this is Stonehenge.
The unique Stonehenge.
Stonehenge, a Wonder of the World, that attracts one million visitors a year.
A set of ruins that mesmerises people the world over.
No, this will have to be covered in a new post and I’ll do so as soon as I have time. Meanwhile, thank you very much indeed for writing in, Tony, and for sharing your views with the rest of us.
Just glimpsed this on Megalithic Portal forum (haven’t read it yet):
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=Forum&file=viewtopic&topic=4098&forum=1&start=0
Care to comment?
Probably the first thing that needs doing with Stonehenge is to sort out the visitors’ centre and local road network in such a way as to cheaply hide the road from the monument, minimise noise from it and not destroy any more archaeology.
The simplest way to do this is to dig a cutting along the existing route of the A303 from about half a mile before Stonehenge, to half a mile afterwards. Close the A344 that goes directly past it, and limit traffic on the minor road to the west of the monument. That forces a diversion of about a mile extra for traffic that would formerly use the A344 past Stonehenge, and gives the illusion of Stonehenge being out in open countryside with no major roads nearby (line the cutting with sound-dispersing concrete textures, plant trees on the top edges).
Close the existing visitors centre, and build another further away, possibly down in the valley of the Avon near Amesbury. This lets you build a big, modern visitors centre and run organised, guided trips out to the monument by bus, or allow visitors to walk there and join a talk at the monument if they wish (this is more or less the system the Newgrange complex is run on). It has the advantage of simplicity, it doesn’t cost all that much (compared to tunnelling the A303) and whilst some bright spark will no doubt try to do some spurious eco-friendly thing with the busses, the fact that you’re running a service that uses conventional road vehicles means that when the eco-woo thing breaks down, you just hire in conventional diesel coaches.
If you want to push the boat out a bit more, you could even build a series of replica Stonehenges at each stage in the historical sequence (this has the advantage of providing employment for JCB drivers every time the historical sequence is revised).