|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge and its Environs » Highways England Consultation - A303/Stonehenge |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
spencer 3071 posts |
Edited Jan 24, 2017, 11:47
Jan 24, 2017, 11:43
|
||
So, implicitly, there maybe other areas of ground disturbance in the environs soon. It would be nice to think that other means of arhaeological and ground surface analysis have already been deployed - remember there'll be the 'non public' lidar as well as that now in the public domain, for example - and this work us at least a followup: what odds? Stonehenge is a long way from being my personal favourite site, a cash cow honeypot imo now sadly... I remember the very early '60's and shall not return, but, nonetheless, there's the principle. Yes, I fear the done deal, the 'we understand what you're saying (but.....)'. I despise the devious and duplicitous, those who like their voice to be last, whatever argument may be proferred by others, however reasonable that may be. Anywhere. A case in point is probably going to be at this site.
|
|||
tjj 3606 posts |
Edited Jan 24, 2017, 12:47
Jan 24, 2017, 12:32
|
||
|
spencer wrote: So, implicitly, there maybe other areas of ground disturbance in the environs soon. It would be nice to think that other means of arhaeological and ground surface analysis have already been deployed - remember there'll be the 'non public' lidar as well as that now in the public domain, for example - and this work us at least a followup: what odds? Stonehenge is a long way from being my personal favourite site, a cash cow honeypot imo now sadly... I remember the very early '60's and shall not return, but, nonetheless, there's the principle. Yes, I fear the done deal, the 'we understand what you're saying (but.....)'. I despise the devious and duplicitous, those who like their voice to be last, whatever argument may be proferred by others, however reasonable that may be. Anywhere. A case in point is probably going to be at this site. I truly hope it's not a done deal - heaven knows there are enough well respected 'experts' and others others raising their voices against the tunnel. And a few sensible alternatives have been suggested such as making that section of the A303 one way with the proposed by-pass servicing the other direction. Off topic, I've been reading your recent posts with interest and a little puzzlement. Your final paragraph above suggests you are angry - "I despise the devious and the duplicitous ..." are you talking about the Government or Highways England - or something else.
|
|||
moss 2897 posts |
Jan 24, 2017, 12:36
|
||
|
spencer wrote: So, implicitly, there maybe other areas of ground disturbance in the environs soon. It would be nice to think that other means of arhaeological and ground surface analysis have already been deployed - remember there'll be the 'non public' lidar as well as that now in the public domain, for example - and this work us at least a followup: what odds? Stonehenge is a long way from being my personal favourite site, a cash cow honeypot imo now sadly... I remember the very early '60's and shall not return, but, nonetheless, there's the principle. Yes, I fear the done deal, the 'we understand what you're saying (but.....)'. I despise the devious and duplicitous, those who like their voice to be last, whatever argument may be proferred by others, however reasonable that may be. Anywhere. A case in point is probably going to be at this site. This has gone on so long that one loses interest, but my cynical nature says that a tunnel is an almost done deal just because it fulfils a need to spend money on a new road, creating jobs etc. But then I am no expert on roads, only know that wrecking the archaeological landscape round Stonehenge is a very worrying factor. Well do you believe the first quote? if so then probably they have a right to test the ground, though the photo is very puzzling..... Two quotes by Highway England; Highways England said it was "fact-finding work and not construction". A Highways England spokesman said: "We are undertaking geotechnical and archaeological surveys in and around the Stonehenge World Heritage Site.
|
|||
|
spencer 3071 posts |
Jan 24, 2017, 16:04
|
||
A general principle, throughout life, longstanding, based on experience, personal and in general, eg the buildup to Iraq. I hope nobody is inclined to criticise. I've been around a while. It happens. In this instance chagrin about what, yes, I'm convinced is a done deal. It will happen. The flannelling is ongoing, the end result already determined by those who 'know better'. The last word of my piece was site..that is what Stonehenge is categorised on TMA as: a site. One of many. I, personally, prefer as I have said already, a lot of others to it. As for TMA it is, and I hope remains for a long time to come, a website, different word, different phenomenon. Battered and bruised though it undoubtedly is, it remains a hugely valuable public resource, and, for all I know, has been visited for the first time recently by people interested in the Ness Of Brodgar. Such a pity there is no overall website visit counter to ascertain this.. I am increasingly wondering about the quality of its current curation, eg in terms of it's structural content compared to the few other archaeological websites that I have cursorially visited. When was there a review of that content, and any ideas about improvement acted upon? Nothing and nobody's perfect as I've mentioned elsewhere, times change, advances made and could perhaps be adopted here, the hugely kind financial offices of Julian willing. I'm not going to go off looking at every site going and report back, what others do is up to them. Before anybody chips in, my opinion to which I'm entitled, and I shall not post on this topic again, and I can but hope that any response will be constructive, informative, good humoured and good tempered. Remember... if the current contributors want an increase in their number to apparent former levels - and why should they not? - then that is the way it has to be. Not everyone is a learned expert, and everyone was not one once..and the possesion of knowledge does not make a better person than the rest, but 'just' a more informed one. Information should be shared to others by the so possessed who remain mindful that the recipients are equal as people from the outset. As you said, Thelma, we're all born, we live, we die. Unless anyone knows to the contrary. This website is information. Long live information. It will outlast us. Ideally, so should here. That is why I want it archived. My view. That's it.
|
|||
|
tjj 3606 posts |
Edited Jan 24, 2017, 18:07
Jan 24, 2017, 17:53
|
||
|
Thank you Spencer, an articulate and well written response. It deserves a forum topic of its own to perhaps generate discussion. PS: For future reference my name is June - or alternatively just tjj.
|
|||
|
spencer 3071 posts |
Jan 24, 2017, 18:23
|
||
Aaagh, very sorry for mixup June..not at best today due to feverish illness. Back to docs again tomorrow, hi ho. I can be more articulate than that. Hope gist is got nonetheless...hope that it is also broadly agreed with. I prefer to be constructive about a hobby we should share our love of. Mike, by the way. Middle name Julian : )
|
|||
|
spencer 3071 posts |
Jan 24, 2017, 18:48
|
||
No
|
|||
|
tjj 3606 posts |
Edited Feb 05, 2017, 11:00
Feb 05, 2017, 10:59
|
||
|
Apologies for bumping this up again. I do so because it really is important even though it is hard to stay engaged in the debate. In some ways this links into my post 'Do museums have a future' - the Wiltshire Museum or the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society (WANHS) have weighed into the debate with a draft response. They are asking members to read and give their views. http://www.wiltshiremuseum.org.uk/news/index.php?Action=8&id=191&page=0 Draft Response - http://www.wiltshiremuseum.org.uk/uploads/library/13/294/WANHS_A303_draft.pdf I am not currently a member of the WANHS (though may join again) so as such can't comment but the above document is clear and well laid out. Worth reading.
|
|||
|
tjj 3606 posts |
Edited Feb 08, 2017, 09:50
Feb 08, 2017, 09:46
|
||
|
While people I greatly respect continue to fight the good fight with Highways England I find it hard to continue to engage in the discussions/debates and consultations. Have always been against building new roads based on the premise there far too many already - so a tunnel of any length seems an anathema to me (let the good earth sleep). While at a friend's house yesterday I picked up Tom Fort's book about the A303 with its iconic front cover - see article below ... https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/may/14/a303-highway-sun-fort-review "But the A303 has much history on its side – or to either side. Fort's account of succeeding attempts to explain Stonehenge are worth the detour, and I am inclined to agree with his suggestion that the real reason that nothing has been done about diverting the road away from the stones is not due to the intransigence of the various departments, but down to the fact that, deep down, we kind of like the arrangement of road and monument the way it is." Feeling this view is perhaps now redundant I didn't borrow the book as I originally intended. But this morning I read another viewpoint by Professor George Nash. This is a viewpoint I get ... please take a little minute to read it. https://heritageaction.wordpress.com/2017/02/08/the-stonehenge-tunnel-another-viewpoint/
|
|||
|
moss 2897 posts |
Feb 09, 2017, 15:08
|
||
|
Now whether you want to believe this or not. Note that Wikipedia has dropped the Daily Mail for being an unreliable source today....... but the Stonhenge news was on an alert this morning..... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4203156/Plans-tunnel-Stonehenge-dropped.html
|
| Pages: 21 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
