Protecting and Managing the Stonchenge: Challenges and Prospects - Essay Example

?Protecting and Managing the Stonehenge: Challenges and Prospects Introduction The two most remarkable, historically awe-inspiring ancient pillars inBritain are Stonehenge and Avebury. Stonehenge is a deeply cherished and excessively visited heritage site in the province of Wiltshire, England. Stonehenge was included in UNESCO’s World Heritage List in 1986 (Blain & Wallis, 2007, p. 47). Archaeologists believe that the Stonehenge is a place of worship, spherical and proportioned, encircling and sheltering its holy interior. It is located on a high plain, desolate, barren, and exposed. Many remarked that the site was inappropriate or badly chosen. The Stonehenge would have appeared grander and more striking on a high landscape, but it was built on a lower ground and on an irregular terrain. This made it difficult for the builders to level out the ring of lintel stones. But the site must have been chosen for a very important reason—for measuring the earth (Heath & Michell, 2006, pp. 104-105). The site of Stonehenge connects extensively with other locations in a recognised patterning over Britain. Stonehenge was neglected by 1500 BC. Nowadays, almost all of the bluestones are missing. The construction of roads and other human activities made the stones weak. Sooner or later, Stonehenge became an unremarkable pile of boulders and rocks. The monument was further damaged by visitors who took stones from the site (Heath & Michell, 2006, p. 105). The British government finally decided to intervene in 1922 (Blain & Wallis, 2007, p. 47). It started the restoration of Stonehenge. Eventually, Stonehenge became one of the most visited and famous tourist destinations in England. But visitors remained a serious threat to the survival of the monument. Thus, greater effort should be exerted to save Stonehenge. Similar to Stonehenge, Avebury is a haven, the centre of widespread, glorified scenery. Ancient paths throughout southern England all meet in Avebury. The area surrounding Avebury was sanctified land, dedicated to the provisions of officers and priests who arrange and manage regular events, rituals, and festivals. At the centre of it was the ceremonial area, isolated from the material world by a cavernous canal and a surrounding wall of chalk and mud (Heath & Michell, 2006, p. 70). Two important geographical attributes are observed in Avebury. First is its location not distant from the middle of the central position of southern England, the direct route between its two edges at Cornwall’s Land’s End and on the coastline of East Anglia. This is also the pilgrimage path through the western provinces and of the ancient Icknield Way via the eastern provinces. The second attribute of the position of Avebury is as follows (Heath & Michell, 2006, p. 70): Through its central enclosure runs the line of latitude that marks one seventh part of the earth’s meridian, or circumference through the poles, starting at the equator. In other words, Avebury is at latitude 360/7 degrees. Hence, the second geographical attribute of Avebury is of worldwide importance. It is the major spot in Britain. In 1986, Stonehenge and Avebury were included in the World Heritage Site (WHS) List for their marvellous prehistoric shrines. The Great Stones Way was an ambitious project that aims to connect the Stonehenge and Avebury through a walking trail. This effort attracted more tourists to Britain’s prehistoric sites. The Most Important Convention/Legislation/Framework to Protect the Site In 1978, a roped footpath was added to Stonehenge. Visitors are prohibited to go beyond this roped footpath. This contributes to the effort of preserving the ancient pillars. Hundreds of thousands of people visit the monument every year. Unfortunately, the Avenue has almost disappeared from plain sight. Rather, a public road crosses a route to Salisbury Plain (Smith, 2009, p. 220). Vehicles bring pollution to the area. Modern buildings and infrastructures, crowds, and commotions all ruin the enigmatic ambience of Stonehenge. Therefore, preserving Stonehenge is a difficult mission. At present, Stonehenge is cared for by English Heritage. This organisation tries to protect and enhance the vicinity surrounding Stonehenge. But In spite of its popularity, Baxter and Chippindale (2006 as cited in Smith, 2009, p. 220) remark (as cited in Smith, 2009, p. 220): Stonehenge is relatively well understood in historical and environmental terms, but the multi-layered contexts within which the cultural tourist as stakeholder exists, at a World Heritage Site managed in a sustainable fashion, are only at the early stages of study. In 2005, the English Heritage even called Stonehenge a ‘national disgrace’ (Waterton, 2010, p. 222). The major difficulty in protecting Stonehenge is the conflict of interests and competing opinions about its physical management. Moreover, heavy traffic and overcrowding bring about visual disturbance, noise, and pollution. A tunnel would perfectly resolve this problem. The local committee turned down the suggested land train from the main facility to the site (Smith, 2009, p. 220). The experts working on the protection and preservation of Stonehenge are disappointed with the different effects on the site. Millar (2006 as cited in Smith, 2009, p. 220) observes that a particular dilemma for Stonehenge is the fact that it was marked as a prehistoric site on the WHS List. If it were classified as a ‘cultural landscape’ it would have received greater protection benefits. The Public Order Act of 1986 was perhaps the most important legislation to protect Stonehenge. This legislation was the immediate legal outcome of the conflicts at Stonehenge. It was intended to prevent processions of vehicles from coming to the site. Section 14 gives authority to disallow the conduct of processions publicly and section 39 gives authority to get rid of intruders or trespassers (English, 2002, p. 12). It enabled the creation of ‘exclusion zones’ surrounding the site. Eventually, Stonehenge moved into a period of midsummer barriers: “once a year, at the approach of the Summer Solstice [Stonehenge] becomes a gulag. The arc lights go up, the razor wire unrolls, and police and security men patrol with their dogs. For a brief moment the physical force that sustains the power of the ruling classes visibly flexes its muscles” (Bender, 1998, p. 114). The Public Order Act of 1986 included exclusion mandates, racial discrimination, congregations and processions, public order violations, and other prohibitions (Bender, 1998, p. 114). Generally, it is a reaction to intrusion or trespass. Section 39 of the legislation was endorsed purposely to grant law enforcers new authority to handle visitors. It officially made trespass a crime. The Home Office had to release a memo in 1987 advising the police to exercise the Act cautiously in order to prevent any violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (English, 2002, p. 12). But a serious fight between the police and the huge number of solstice devotees took place in that same year. Those who forced their way through the barbed wires encircling the Stonehenge were sometimes ‘violently’ dealt with by the police. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 expanded and strengthened the authority to put a stop to congregations like the Solstice at Stonehenge (English, 2002, pp. 12-13). Section 14A of the 1986 Act, as revised by the Act of 1994, states that a Chief Constable could submit an application to the District Council for an exclusion mandate, if s/he convincingly thinks a gathering is planned to be held on a territory to which the public is prohibited from; it is possible to occur without the consent of the property-owner; and may lead to “serious disruption to the life of the community, or... where the land, or a building or monument on it, is of historical, architectural, archaeological or scientific importance, in significant damage to the land, building or monument” (Feldman, 2009, p. 448). The District Council could afterwards, with the authorisation from the Secretary of State, release such a mandate, which functions to forbid a gathering held on territory to which the public is prohibited from, and occurs without consent from the property-owner (Feldman, 2009, p. 448). Mandates were created under the 1986 Act to control or limit gatherings near Stonehenge. The 1986 Act poses two interconnected dilemmas. First is the degree to which access to the site for sacred rituals is restricted at the summer solstice. Second is the degree to which sacred rituals in the area is restricted. With regard to the first dilemma, even though Stonehenge was nationally acquired in 1918, that does not imply that the general public is free to use the site without any restrictions. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act of 1979 listed Stonehenge as an ancient monument, which forms a constitutional rule within which English Heritage should operate (Heyns, Edge, & Viljoen, 2002, p. 373). Even though there were claims that Stonehenge has been inappropriately added to this system, this exclusion would lessen the obligations on English Heritage to make Stonehenge publicly open. As stated in the Act, English Heritage has the obligation to protect and manage Stonehenge, and should open it to the public. But the Secretary of State has created policies regulating access. The 1997 Stonehenge Regulations disallow several acts, most importantly “without reasonable excuse entering or being upon any part of the site of the monument to which access is at any time restricted by barrier or prohibited by notice” (Heyns et al., 2002, p. 373). With regard to the second dilemma, as another way to access Stonehenge, devotees have tried to gather in the surrounding areas of the site. From 1985 to 1995 this was made illegal. Nevertheless, revisions were conducted by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994 (English, 2012, p. 13). McKay, who views these efforts as an attempt to totally prohibit dissident groups and Free Festivals, argues (Heyns et al., 2002, p. 373): ... parts of the Act seem more slanted towards ending the ongoing struggle around the biggest and best-known free festival in Britain, the Stonehenge Free, first held in 1984. As I’ve explained, sections... deal with mass trespass, and include the power to ban trespassory assemblies that are deemed potentially to damage important historical or archaeological monuments—like Stonehenge. Surely this curious situation is a worrying development—nationwide legislation to deal with a peculiarly specific and local event, one that has been successfully prohibited with existing laws for over a decade anyway? Therefore, the 1986 Act was the most important legislation to protect the Stonehenge because through the controversies it generated it was able to raise the key issues that have to be resolved in order to successfully protect the Stonehenge. Trespassers are usually one of the main factors causing continuous damage to the monument so the government must deal with them appropriately. Managing the Stonehenge Without a doubt, Stonehenge is controversial as a disputed monument. The disputed Stonehenge of heritage management is one of the most popular ancient monuments in the world. Because it is delicate, ancient, ageless, and exceptional, it is barricaded and publicly accessible. In order to protect it, it should be kept away from any human contact. Obviously there have been attempts to modify this extensively criticised point of view, the Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan—currently known as the Stonehenge Project—for instance. The Stonehenge will remain a restricted site, enclosed by barricades and highways, until actual changes are initiated. The Stonehenge Project will try to save this ancient monument from the destructive forces of the contemporary period and provide regal scenery for it. Highways will be demolished or tunnelled. New first-rate visitor facilities will be constructed and there will be an easier entrance through the Stonehenge World Heritage Site area. But the challenge of managing the Stonehenge does not simply end here. Stonehenge would not need any rigorous protection if it were not for the people who visit the site to experience its grandeur. Generally, the monument is strong. Stonehenge has not remained ‘sacred’ throughout its existence, but this does not appear to have ruined it, or its charm. The related scenery of Stonehenge is much more delicate. This landscape is intersected by a highway which has the outcome of taking visitors intentionally, or not, directly to Stonehenge. Managing these visitors, while trying to protect the most important ancient monument of Britain, is a continuing challenge. The management of Stonehenge and its landscape represents a proof as to how the British nation protects its heritage. The World Heritage Convention requires the thorough management and protection of the sites included in the WHS List and the development of management policies and activities which will guarantee their continued existence for future generations (Blain & Wallis, 2007, p. 109). For that reason, the British government has vital obligation for what takes place within the site, but performs that in collaboration with other organisations. English Heritage is tasked to take care of the stones and the area around them (Wainwright, 2000, p. 334). It becomes apparent that several government agencies, residents, property-owners, and constitutional bureaus have interests and obligations which must affect the management of Stonehenge. However, the issue of conflicting interests is, perhaps, natural in environmental management every time there are numerous groups and/or individuals involved. This is significantly evident in the management of heritage sites. This is the case with the management of Stonehenge, which is characterised mainly by the effect of visitors and preserving the monument for future generations, and its title as a World Heritage Site. Probably because of the importance given to Stonehenge nowadays, and the clashes between the numerous and diverse stakeholders, the management of the monument has been assumed by outside organisations, depriving the local community of the opportunity to take part in and influence decision making (Hodder, 2010, p. 868). Given the resources required, this process is definitely suitable and could be regarded an uncomplicated solution to the difficulty of conserving the monument and its ensuring its survival. Nevertheless, it is burdened with dilemmas with regard to the proper management of this site, how to improve this environment, its appreciation and appearance, and how to manage visitors and meet the demands of different stakeholders. As a result, the solution to protecting the site has raised numerous issues and conflicts. Certainly, the illustration of the Stonehenge has been quite overrated that sightseers, looking forward to a fantastical experience, usually find it displeasing. The Stonehenge is crammed between the A303 and A344, the latter cutting off the monument from the Avenue identifying the real entryway, the former being the major, very rowdy path to the southwest of England (Blain & Wallis, 2007, p. 110). The car park can be seen in nearly all corners of the Stonehenge scenery, overwhelming and usually blocking the visibility of the site. Enclosures surround the area, restricting access. Barricaded, swarmed by a huge number of visitors, criss-crossed by two excessively used highways, the actual Stonehenge is radically different from the famous and breathtaking images shown in guidebooks. The presented visitor proposals have been driven largely by the severity of the problem, with a long and intricate history of discussion and preparation until now (Wainwright, 2000, p. 334). The actual ‘plans’ illustrated to show roads and perspectives, which emphasised certain attributes, function indirectly to encourage or discourage presentation of issues and problems. The current status of Stonehenge involves development of its management plan, currently called The Stonehenge Project, wherein it was stated (Blain & Wallis, 2007, p. 110): The Stonehenge Project is designed to improve the setting and interpretation of Stonehenge. It will remove the sights and sounds of the roads and traffic from the area near the Stones, recreate chalk downland from arable farmland and transform the visitor experience with better access to the landscape and a new world class visitor centre. The current discussions have focused on the necessity of creating proper scenery for Stonehenge and the area of the World Heritage Site, which major groups believe is of paramount significance, and evaluating this against the demands of an efficient transportation process. Until now, a primary dilemma has been in building ‘cooperation’ between heritage organisations, different government agencies, and other pertinent groups/individuals (Boniface, 1995, p. 46). Over time, plans have changed from transferring the interfering A303 to a subway; revising this, after intense disapprovals, to a plain tunnel; disallowing the plain tunnel plan due to needed resources; and proposing several workable plans— every single one of which drew in their own dispute. Several heritage and conservation groups, such as the Pagan-led ASLan, ICOMOS-UK, and the National Trust have rejected all proposals (Blain & Wallis, 2007, p. 111). The management of Stonehenge at present is inadequate, with numerous issues and uncertainties about how the tourism efforts will unfold. The purpose of this later discussion has been to demonstrate the perspective for the site and its importance as a cultural tourism spot, the interaction between visitors and the larger stakeholders, and the purposes of the management for the improvement of the site. It can be observed that choices and plans about the future of Stonehenge have various implications, the most important being those of tourists or visitors. Many visitor assessments have been performed by different groups, and visitor feedback on the site’s sanitation and cleanliness, its services, plans for development, accuracy of findings and others can be measured (Hampton, 2005, p. 737). Opinions are identified about developments that visitors may prefer, and definitely these will be considered in the planning of visitor facilities. Nevertheless, the integral function that visitors serve before, at present, and in the future remains poorly recognised. Very little is actually recognised about the dynamic and intricate interaction between the site and the visitor, or the interactions between the management and the managed. Images and actualities have dominated Stonehenge as a site thus far and will probably remain that way. As argued by Fairlough and colleagues (2008), Stonehenge is reasonably understood within the environmental and historical fields, but the complex perspectives of the cultural sightseer as stakeholder and sustainable management of heritage sites are still at the early phases of study. The Impact of the Site on Local Community People working at Stonehenge are members of the local community but the effect of the site on the local economy is negligible. Stonehenge is not positioned at the centre of Amesbury—a municipality in Wiltshire, England—thus tourists will not traverse the local community. Tourists usually do not prefer to stay in the vicinity because they are usually going somewhere else (Worthington, 2004, p. 235). Tourists may go to Amesbury to buy gas, and other necessities. When the newly built visitor centre has been actualised the tourists’ experience will be lengthened and improved, and, as a result, may bring about further effects on the local community. On the other hand, one of the communities with a cultural concern for Stonehenge is the rapidly enlarging British Pagan group, which has gained ‘managed open access Solstice celebrations at Stonehenge’ (Worthington, 2004, p. 235). International tourists may have an emotionally or psychologically distinct reaction to Stonehenge than either sightseers or local communities who view this site as representational of their national identity. In fact, a prevailing idea in heritage discourse is that physical or geographical closeness to Stonehenge or other heritage sites relate to cultural connections, whilst geographical expanse is believed to lessen cultural attachment. Hence, the notion of ‘local communities’ has a tendency to be given primary importance in outreach programmes (Hodder, 2010, p. 864). In general, the consultation exposed a disagreement between the opinions of local communities, which were largely interested in easing traffic jamming and somewhat displeased and offended by the intrusion of a ‘privileged’ group of visitors (Hodder, 2010, pp. 864-865). But the impact of the site on local community is more evident in the case of Avebury because it is located at the centre of a rural community, whilst Stonehenge is more remote from communities. Generally, the impact of Avebury and Stonehenge as World Heritage sites on local communities can be important. These heritage sites usually get additional financial support for preservation, management, and improvement. It can result in a considerable growth in the site’s reputation and value globally and locally. This may promote tourism if the site is well developed and advertised. Local communities may gain a stronger sense of pride and honour, which can reinforce local identity and unity (Hampton, 2005, p. 738). The dilemma is that the number of sightseers can aggravate the difficulties of site management. Local communities may sense a feeling of estrangement from the site or being ‘disowned’, particularly if it becomes an international tourism destination (Muir, 1986, p. 138). Issues of empowerment, involvement, and ownership rights become integral to the management of Stonehenge, particularly because it is a cultural setting, where local communities are a fundamental element of the site. Apparently, the Stonehenge has to be managed rigorously and perceptively so as to take full advantage of the benefits of being listed as a World Heritage Site. Development Plans for the Site of Stonehenge The English Heritage article Stonehenge Plan presents a description of the synchronised and managed model of the implementation of the major components of the shutting down of A344, road developments, and the construction of the new visitor facility. To show their dedication to and support for the Stonehenge Plan, the major associates in the mission, including the English Heritage, released a common set of objectives (Wainwright, 2000, p. 334): constructing a new first-rate visitor facility; granting more access to the site, allowing visitors to wander all over the World Heritage Site; creating a healthier biodiversity throughout the environment; connecting Stonehenge, Avebury, and other nearby sites; and keeping the site free from noise, pollution, and damages. The key objective of the Stonehenge Plan is to get rid of the traffic jam and highways from inside and outside the site. Junction developments will value the significance of archaeology. Approval of the cut-and-cover tunnel from associates in the project and numerous archaeological organisations is dependent on the planning and implementation approach generating significant environmental benefits for the landscape of Stonehenge. These modifications are integral to the management of Stonehenge in the future and essential to the plans for access, visitor experience, and public awareness. In 2000, the English Heritage provided a summary of the development plans for the site of Stonehenge (Leslie & Sigala, 2012, p. 145): In the long term all farmland in the core zone would be restored to permanent grassland and all inappropriate structures and roads [the current visitor centre and the A344/A303] removed or screened to provide an improved landscape setting for the core of Stonehenge, the protection of the archaeology from ploughing, and an area carefully managed for open access on foot for visitors. The zone would be primarily managed for both archaeological, landscape and nature conservation, and for the access and enjoyment of the very large numbers of visitors... With a new high quality visitor centre outside the boundary of the World Heritage Site (WHS) as a starting point, visitors would gain access to the Stones and the heart of the WHS via primary access links, drop-off points, and ‘gateways’... Pedestrian access beyond the core to the wider, and more tranquil, and more fully presented and interpreted landscape and archaeological sites... would be possible. Therefore, sustainability is at the core of the presented development plans for Stonehenge: the effect of visitors on Stonehenge must be moderated against the provision to conserve the ancient and historic attributes of the site and the recognised archaeological spots enclosed within (Jones & Munday, 2001, p. 586). There is a provision for the enhancement of site experience. Principles 2 and 3 of the International Cultural Tourism Charter are most pertinent, declaring that “The relationship between Heritage Places and Tourism is dynamic and may involve conflicting values. It should be managed in a sustainable way for present and future generations”, and that “Conservation and Tourism Planning for Heritage Places should ensure that the Visitor Experience will be worthwhile, satisfying and enjoyable” (Leslie & Sigala, 2012, p. 145). However, there are numerous issues to take into account: the delicateness or vulnerability of the site, the effect of any form of transportation system within the site, the expectations of prospective visitors, the various narratives or experiences that have to be understood, the various technologies that may be employed, the eagerness of the visitors to explore the site, etc. The good news is that after a long and complicated process of discussion and consultations, the Stonehenge Plan is now an agenda for action. The crucial aspect of this plan was the decision to improve the transit system. The partnership between local officials, national organisations, government agencies, and the local communities unavoidably generated conflicts but was integral to the eventual success of the mission. All stakeholders and interest groups should now take advantage of this chance to finally protect and manage Stonehenge successfully. Coordinated efforts will definitely result in a dignified landscape for Stonehenge. Conclusions Stonehenge has been a contested heritage site due to the numerous stakeholders and interest groups involved in its preservation and management. Several efforts have been made to protect the Stonehenge, such as the Public Order Act of 1986, which is one of the most important legislations to outlaw trespassers from the heritage site. Subsequent management plans focus on the reduction of traffic jams within and near the site which cause too much pollution and noise. Subsequent efforts also place emphasis on the management of visitors in order to improve tourism experience at Stonehenge. These efforts benefit the local communities economically and culturally, but also create a feeling of alienation and resentment among the local people. References Bender, B. (1999) Stonehenge: Making Space. UK: Berg. Blain, J. & Wallis, R.J. (2007) Sacred Sites: Contested Rites/Rights. UK: Sussex Academic Press. Boniface, P. (1995) Managing Quality Cultural Tourism. London: Routledge. English, P. (2002) Disputing Stonehenge: Law and Access to a National Symbol, Entertainment Law, [online] Available at: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/eslj/issues/volume1/number2/english.pdf [accessed 12 January 2013]. Feldman, D. (2009) English Public Law. UK: Oxford University Press. Fairlough, G. et al. (2008) The Heritage Reader. London: Routledge. Hampton, M. (2005) ‘Heritage, Local Communities and Economic Development’, Annals of Tourism Research 32(3), 735-59. Heath, R. & Michell, J. (2006) The Lost Science of Measuring the Earth: Discovering the Sacred Geometry of the Ancients. UK: Adventures Unlimited Press. Heyns, C., Edge, P., & Viljoen, F. (2002) The Impact of the United Nations Human Rights Treaties on the Domestic Level. The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Hodder, I. (2010) ‘Cultural Heritage Rights: From Ownership and Descent to Justice and Well-Being’, Anthropological Quarterly 83(4), 861-882. Jones, C. & Munday, M. (2001) ‘Blaenavon and United Nations World Heritage Site Status: Is Conservation of Industrial Heritage a Road to Local Economic Development’, Regional Studies 35(6): 585-90. Leslie, D. & Sigala, M. (2012) International Cultural Tourism. London: Routledge. Muir, R. (1986) The Stones of Britain. Michigan: M. Joseph. Smith, M. (2009) Issues in Cultural Tourism Studies. New York: Taylor & Francis. Wainwright, G. (2000) ‘The Stonehenge We Deserve’, Antiquity 74(284), 334. Waterton, E. (2010) Politics, policy and the discourses of heritage in Britain. Indiana: Palgrave Macmillan. Worthington, A. (2004) Stonehenge: celebration and subversion. Virginia: Heart of Albion Press. Read More