Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T03:24:35.993Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What future for Stonehenge?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Christopher Chippindale
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Like many researchers since, William Stukeley in the mid-eighteenth century wondered why the site of Stonehenge had been selected for the Britons' most sublime temple. It was chosen, he decided, according to the ancient notion of placing temples 'in clean and distinct areas, distant from profane buildings and traffic' (Stukeley, 1740, 11) (Pl. xxiia). Two hundred years on, Stonehenge is set about with traffic, busy main roads running past on both north and south sides, and profane buildings have appeared—the Larkhill military complex on the northern skyline, and the Stonehenge car-park and visitors' facilities close by on the north-west.

For several centuries now, Stonehenge has been among the most visited of British ancient monuments. Records of tourist day-trips from Salisbury via Old Sarum (still a favourite outing) go back more than 400 years (Folkerzheimer, 1562), and Stukeley (1740, 5) talked of its 'infinite number of daily visitants'.

Type
Articles
Information
Antiquity , Volume 57 , Issue 221 , November 1983 , pp. 172 - 180
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

For years the squalid state of Stonehenge, Europe's premier prehistoric monument, has been a disgrace. Its improvement will require the urgent attention of the new commission which will take over the care of ancient monuments within the next year. Here Christopher Chippindale explains how the present mess came about, reminds us of some earlier perils Stonehenge has survived and summarizes some recent ideas as to what should be done. Mr Chippindale, now a research student in the Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, has been working for some time on the recent history of Stonehenge.

References

ANCIENT MONUMENTS BOARD FOR ENGLAND, 1962. Report for 1961 (London).Google Scholar
ANCIENT MONUMENTS BOARD FOR ENGLAND, 1977. Report for 7976. (London).Google Scholar
ANTROBUS, E. 1894. Letter to Commissioner of Works in Public Record Office (PRO) Work/14 213.Google Scholar
ATKINSON, R.J.C. 1960. Stonehenge (Harmondsworth).Google Scholar
ATKINSON, R.J.C. 1978. Letter, quoted in Antiquity, LII, 178.Google Scholar
ATKINSON, R.J.C. 1979. Appendix II to Stonehenge (1979 reprint).Google Scholar
AUBREY, J. 1685. Monumenta Britannica, quoted in LONG, W. Stonehenge and its barrows (Devizes, 1876). 35 Google Scholar
BINNEY, M. 1977. Stonehenge under siege, Country Life, 8 September.Google Scholar
BROWNE, H. 1833. An illustration of Stonehenge and Abury. ., 2nd ed. (Salisbury).Google Scholar
CHIPPINDALE, C. 1978. The enclosure of Stonehenge, Wilts. Arch. Nat. Hist. Mag., LXX-LXXI, 109—23.Google Scholar
CHIPPINDALE, C. 1983a. Stonehenge Complete (London).Google Scholar
CHIPPINDALE, C. 1983b. Stonehenge, General Pitt-Rivers, and the first Ancient Monuments Act, Archaeological Review from Cambridge, II, 59—65.Google Scholar
CRAWFORD, O.G.S. 1929. Letter in PRO WORK/14 489.Google Scholar
CUTFORTH, R. 1970. Stonehenge at midsummer, Antiquity, XLIV, 305—7.Google Scholar
DYER, J. 1978. Letter, quoted in Antiquity, LII, 178.Google Scholar
FOLKERZHEIMER, H. 1562. Letter to Josiah Simler, in (ed.) ROBINSON, H. The Zurich letters (second series) . . . (London, 1845), letter 39.Google Scholar
FOWLES, J. & BRUKOFF, B. 1980. The enigma of Stonehenge (London).Google Scholar
GOWLAND, W. 1902. Recent excavations at Stonehenge, Archaeologia, LXVIII, 38—119.Google Scholar
HAMILTON, M. 1978. Letter, The Times, 21 June.Google Scholar
HARPER, G.C. 1899. The Exeter road (London).Google Scholar
HUTCHINSON, H.G. 1914. The life of Sir John Lubbock, II (London).Google Scholar
JONES, I. & WEBB, J. 1655. The most notable antiquity of Great Britain, vulgarly called Stone-heng . . . (London).Google Scholar
KEILLER, A. 1927—9. Letters in PRO WORK/14 489.Google Scholar
LE GALLIENNE, R. 1900. Travels in England (London).Google Scholar
MANASSEH, L. & PARTNERS, 1978. Snowdon summit (Cheltenham).Google Scholar
OFFICE OF WORKS, . 1919—20. Correspondence in PRO work/ 14 488.Google Scholar
OFFICE OF WORKS, 1929. Memorandum from Chief Architect in PRO work/ 14 489.Google Scholar
OFFICE OF WORKS, 1933a, Memorandum in PRO WORK/14 838.Google Scholar
OFFICE OF WORKS, 1933b. Minutes after visit to Stonehenge in PRO WORK/14 837.Google Scholar
OFFICE OF WORKS, 1934. Memorandum in PRO WORK/14 840.Google Scholar
OFFICE OF WORKS, 1935. Memoranda in PRO work/ 14 840.Google Scholar
PEERS, C.R. 1919. Memorandum in PRO WORK/14 485.Google Scholar
PEPYS, S. 1668. Diary, 11 June, in (ed.) LATHAM, R. and MATTHEWS, W.., The diary of Samuel Pepys, IX (London, 1976), 229.Google Scholar
PITT-RIVERS, A. 1893. Report on Stonehenge in PRO WORK/14 213.Google Scholar
PUGH, R.B..(ed.). 1947. Calendar of Antrobus deeds before 1625 (Devizes).Google Scholar
STONEHENGE WORKING PARTY, . 1979. Report to Department of the Environment (unpublished).Google Scholar
STUKELEY, W. 1740. Stonehenge (London).Google Scholar
>The Times. 1886. Editorial. 18 August.The+Times.+1886.+Editorial.+18+August.>Google Scholar
‘VACATION RAMBLER’, 1871. Stonehenge, The Times, 14 September.Google Scholar
WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, 1886. Report of deputation to examine into the present state of the stones at Stonehenge, Wilts. Arch. Nat. Hist. Mag. XXIII, 102—7.Google Scholar
WOOD, J. 1747. Choir Gaure . . . (London).Google Scholar