25th June 2010, 10:58 AM
vulpes Wrote:My point was to question the assumption that important archaeological sites 'need' visitor centres, marketing etc. The so called 'success' of Stonehenge as a visitor attraction (actually more like the 9th or 10th most popular in the UK and a long way behind Blackpool Pleasure Beach!) has inexorably lead to inappropriate development within it's setting, car parks, subways and so on. It has also resulted in reduced access to the site itself.
I'm not a fan of the reduced access, but I can see how there is a need for facilities and information about the site. Not everone who visits has specialist knowledge, and there should be some way to present the information about the site that has been garnered by archaeological studies. Otherwise, why study it or permit archaeologists to even excavate or study the site, or for that matter any site?
Surely, conservation of the site means some sort of management and control? Making Stonehenge a free-range site may cause more harm than good, with no control at all as to how the site is treated by the visitors.
Prime practitioner of headology, with a side order of melting glass with a stern glare.