This Friday there will be a decision made about whether the Stonehenge tunnel will built.

Over the years I have seen many plans put forward for Stonehenge - from previous plans for tunnels to road widening and other associated works.

Thread.

These previous plans have on the whole united the archaeology world in opposition. However, the current plan is different - it has divided the archaeological world in two.

Stonehenge is unusual. Unique in its scale, landscape and presence, it is nonetheless another monument which, many would argue, has been elevated in its status and focus, skewing archaeological thought towards southern Britain for many years.

However, it is also a UNESCO World Heritage Site - a status which, rightly, affords it protection within its landscape. But, it is also situated by a very busy road with a high accident rate, and which causes many local traffic issues.

Within the archaeological world there are those who see the tunnel as a chance to carry out more archaeological work within the area, and as an opportunity to broaden our knowledge beyond the targeted questioning of research excavation.

Many also see the road as a current eyesore, with the tunnel allowing the monument to better stand in its landscape, perhaps easing the current traffic issues.

On the flip side, there are those who see any construction within a WHS as setting a dangerous precedent, both in this country and overseas. They also fear that the works will result in the destruction of archaeological evidence, which in some form is undoubtedly correct.

However, many are stating - some might say overstating - the destruction without acknowledging ongoing work of the arch units, who have been assessing the route for last few years + who have detailed, wide ranging + comprehensive plans to examine the arch should plans go ahead.

You will not hear from these people, or many of those employed in the other various organisations involved, as they will be contractually obliged not to share their thoughts. The narrative therefore, for whatever reason, omits many arguments from the other side.

So this post is a plea for everyone, when the result is announced on Friday to look carefully at the evidence, to listen to both sides of the story.

It is an emotive issue but there is not a right and wrong answer. There are no bad guys. Archaeology is destructive, it always is and developer funded archaeology is the day to day of archaeology in the UK.

For me, I'm not sure. I don't believe the tunnel is the best solution + I worry about precedent of construction within WHS. But equally, I can see that the arch research this will allow will be greatly valuable. I also have faith in the arch unit contracted to undertake the work.

But my one hope is when this decision is announced there will be understanding from both sides. Archaeology needs to pull together, rather than blame.

(P. S. Just in case it needs saying. There is no historic/prehistoric evidence for druidry being associated with Stonehenge)

Link to the documents on the Highways England site can be found here:

https://highwaysengland.co.uk/our-work/a303-stonehenge/