Responses to Geoffrey Wainwright's report ‘The Stonehenge we deserve’, Antiquity 74 (2000): 334-42

Ian Baxter, Christopher Chippindale, Kate Fielden, Wayland Kennet, Elizabeth Young

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

In June this year, we published Geoffrey Wainwright's paper on ‘The Stonehenge we deserve'. This paper aimed to provide a review of progress towards sorting out the many problems of management, presentation and conservation of this World Heritage site and its landscape. As readers of ANTIQUITY are well aware, the fortunes of Stonehenge are intimately linked with politics, money and public opinion, and the long saga of possible solutions to make the site a better place for the future rest on these changing variables. Dr Wainwright outlined past strategies and the hope of future solutions as they were early this year. Already things have changed and the invited responses which we publish here discuss the recent changes of plan for Stonehenge. Baxter & Chippindale review the difficulties of the ‘current’ scheme and its incompatibility with visitor numbers. Fielden exposes the incompatibility of the A303 proposals for Stonehenge with legislation and planning; and Kennet & Young raise the problems of the various Plans and politics. We sent these responses to Dr Wainwright for his current view of the situation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)944-951
Number of pages8
JournalAntiquity
Volume74
Issue number286
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2000

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Archaeology
  • Arts and Humanities(all)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Responses to Geoffrey Wainwright's report ‘The Stonehenge we deserve’, Antiquity 74 (2000): 334-42'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this