Thornborough "debate"

[archae_logical]

quote:Originally posted by mercenary

Thornborough Henges and environs may be comparable to Stonehenge and environs for archaeological value, but I don't think it has anywhere near the tourist appeal. A few points that spring to mind:

Few of the monuments are upstanding and visible.

Most of the land (all?) is privately owned, so access is not always possible.

The central henge has a huge eyesore, a landfill, next to it.

There are no visitor facilities, interpretation boards, or signs.

These are huge hurdles to overcome before even a modest tourist trade can begin in the area surely? The comparisons with tourism at Stonehenge are not favourable. By the way does Stonehenge make money or is it supported by govt. subsidy through EH, English Nature etc?

There [u]are</u> huge hurdles to overcome which is why it is important to get the conservation plan to recognise the extent of the area involved.
Grubby: I recently used to live in Thornborough village, with friends in Nosterfield and West Tanfield, so am well aware of the local opinion having knocked on peoples doors and asked them. I have lived somewhere in that area since 1962.
Comparisons with tourism at Stonehenge may not be favourable - yet, but there is still a long way to go. As for tourist appeal, there are already visitors to the henges which shows there is an interest. This is before any great publicity of the site and before any signs or interpretation boards etc. So far these visitors have not impacted greatly on the local residents.
There is a better road infrastructure around Thornborough than at Stonehenge. Already these roads are used for visitors to Lightwater Valley theme park which attracts lots of visitors. There is little impact on local villages from all this traffic.
As Venutius says we have to get rid of the spectre of quarrying from the area before we can move forward in other directions, but we have given thought to the future.

E
(reading Tourism Management at University)