Megalithic Mysteries
Home Page
EH action to repair Stoney Littleton Long Barrow after five long years
Megalithic Mysteries
Home Page
Stoney Littleton Long Barrow
Nine Ladies in quarrying threat
Stone Circle may end up in supermarket car park
Millennium
Monstrosity
at Mayburgh Henge
June 2000: Stoney Littleton re-opens to the
public!! There is, however, already evidence of fresh
vandalism (scratching on the walls) according to Pete Glastonbury from the Megalithic
Society, who is keeping a close eye on the site. April 2000: We're still waiting for Stoney Littleton to re-open but building work is continuing apace so it shouldn't be much longer...
Nov 1999: I received a letter today from Chris Smith, Asst. Director of English Heritage SW Region:
"It is most encouraging that you use your web site to raise interest in and knowledge of sites like Stoney Littleton. I have noted your comments and understand your concerns. However you wrote at a most appropriate moment. I am pleased to tell you that conservation work to the ceiling of the barrow is being carried out right now and we hope to complete this work by the end of Jan 2000.
The barrow will not be filled in as you fear but will be restored and full access will be made available. This is despite the history of small scale but repeated vandalism which led to the collapse which closed the barrow." He goes on "The trench to which you refer [see below], far from causing the problem was one of the necessary investigations to help us design the appropriate programme of repair."
I hope we can help SOSS and similar groups work with EH to come up with a way of reducing the sort of vandalism to which Chris Smith refers in the future.
I look forward to receiving a report from someone who visits the site, and some photographs, and indeed to go inside the chamber for the first time myself in spring 2000!
COMMENT! Read visitors' comments on this page, and leave your own.
Visit the Megalithic Society's web site
This is (was?) the sad state of Stoney Littleton long barrow. The
entrance to the passage and chambers are blocked by a makeshift plywood door.
We think the trouble started when excavation trenches were opened up on the sides of the
barrow and left exposed to the elements. Water got into the stone chamber and the damage
has caused the structure to become unsound.
There is evidence that vandals have tried to break their way in through the door and in the process the lintel stone over the entrance suffered some minor damage.
A first-time visitor to this site, after trudging up the hill and reading the engraved stone set into the wall of the forecourt to the barrow (which tells of the 1958 restoration of the barrow and the wilful neglect of its previous owners) might be forgiven for concluding that the custodians of this monument cared very little for its preservation and that history seemed to be repeating itself. If we do not act now not only will Stoney Littleton remain boarded up, but the likelyhood is that the solution to the damamge will be that English Heritage will fill the chamber in for good, thus hiding the astronomical alignments, the important fossil ammonite and the rest of the chamber.
We are campaigning to restore the barrow to its former condition and to allow access and observation of the solar and lunar aspects of this unique structure.
Take Action!
There is much carping in the alternative press and amongst megalith enthusiasts about the apparent lack of concern or action by the official heritage bodies over the condition of many of Britain's ancient sacred sites, but very little constructive action taken. In the light of we urge you to write to English Heritage about this problem.
The address is:
Mr Brian K Davidson
Head of Historic Team
Historic Properties South West
29 Queen Square
Bristol
BS1 4ND
No e-mail address as far as we know, however I think this campaign now needs to be escalated to head office!
English Heritage, 23 Saville Row, London W1X 1AB Tel 0171 973 3000
EH chief archaeologist: David Miles
Jocelyn Stevens' secretary: June.prunty@english-heritage.org.uk
fax 0171 973 3330
It is important to point out that we do not seek confrontation with English Heritage. Our primary concern is the repair, protection and preservation of the Stoney Littleton long barrow and its immediate environment and for reasonable freedom of access for the purposes of research and pleasure.
Here follows a summary of the correspondence currently known to have taken place
between Campaign sympathisers and English Heritage. The catalogue of events makes
interesting reading, begs a few questions about the degree of importance English Heritage
places on this site, and the level of urgency behind the proposals put forward in its
replies. The Campaign is indebted to Deborah Dear for the following information:
July 1994
Mr Davison (Head of Historic Team, Historic Properties South West) explains that Stoney
Littleton had been closed because of a collapse in the roof. At that time propping was
immediately put in place, but it was decided to close off the chamber because of visitors
inadvertently knocking into the propping and displacing it. At this date he hoped that
work would commence in late Autumn/Winter of 1994 when they were planning to unpick from
the top, gaining access through the former robber holes. He concluded this conversation by
saying that there was no further danger of deterioration.
January 1995 update
Mr Davison assures me that the funds have now been allocated and the contractors have been
appointed to begin work in the second week of March. It was then anticipated that the work
would take six to eight weeks to complete and that Stoney Littleton long barrow would be
open to the public in the early Summer of 1995. Apparently they were having some problems
with the stone itself. In several instances it had been used set on end and over thousands
of years the weather had penetrated. The lintel stone had particularly suffered damage
from the weathering and they were planning to cap it with lead to prevent further damage.
Mid 1995 update
Mr Davison explains that due to another property being vandalised the work was temporarily
stopped by English Heritage and the funds made available for Stoney Littleton were
redirected to what was felt to be a more needy case (this was to restore a church).
January 1996 update
Mr Davison tells me that vandals have entered and work is now not scheduled to begin for
the foreseeable future.
23 July 1997 update
Spoke to Nick King who is adamant that no funds are available and as far as he is
concerned Stoney Littleton is not a priority; that, he says, is the position of
English Heritage and the end of the story.
25 July 1997 update
Mr Davison says he is most concerned about the current condition of Stoney Littleton and
suggests that I should write to Jeff West as he is in charge of budgets.
Independently of Deborah
Dear's effort other interested parties took up the call to write to English Heritage to
express their concern for the condition of Stoney Littleton long barrow. The following
information is gleaned from correspondence between English Heritage and Danny Sullivan,
Deborah Dear, Wayne Perkins and John Palmer:
9 June 1997
Nick King (Acting Director South West Region) informs Sullivan that due to several
incursions into the barrow English Heritage feel it may be necessary to block
access more effectively - possibly by earth infill (!) - so as to prevent harm to
either visitors or the monument. He says he can give no assurances as to when the repairs
will be undertaken, completed and the monument reopened to the public. He agreed on the
need to take some action to tidy up the site and gave assurances that EH will do all they
can to repair, make safe and reopen the site to public access as soon as possible.
11 July 1997
Nick King says the practical and statutory requirements of health and safety preclude the
possibility of reopening the Stoney Littleton long barrow to the public. He says he is
unable to give a timetable for repairs at this stage but says that the excavation trench
dug to investigate the possibilities of repairing the collapsing roof from above rather
than from below will be refilled and that they will devise a more effective form of
blocking of the entrance so that visitors are not put to additional risk through
break-ins. This will be done in as seemly a way as possible. He suggests the restrictions
on access to be in place for "the next year or two".
5 August 1997
Kevin Brown (Director South West Region) informs us of the departure of Nick King. He also
informs us that he hopes to be able to undertake repair work to Stoney Littleton long
barrow during the course of the next eighteen months, following which the interior of the
monument will be opened to the public. He confirmed that the excavation trench across the
top of the mound would be refilled this autumn (1997) and a renewed attempt would be made
to seal off the entrance in a way which is both more effective and more seemly.
26 August 1997
Brian K Davison (Head of Historic Team Historic Properties South West) reiterates the
comments made by Kevin Brown on 5 August with the exception that the time scale for the
repair works is reduced to twelve months. This timescale was further reiterated in a
letter to Wayne Perkins in response to a letter of enquiry. He stated that the anticipated
cost of the repair works would be in the region of £50,000.
Mr Davison finally responded to an early request by Danny Sullivan for some constructive
dialogue about alternative methods of funding, maintenance and management of our ancient
sacred sites. He said he would be interested to hear them. Sullivan responded saying that
he would canvass suggestions from those people he was aware had taken part in the Campaign
with a view to preparing a discussion document which would be sent to English Heritage in
due course.
29 August 1997
In response to a further letter of enquiry from Deborah Dear, Jeffrey West (Acting
Director of Historic Properties - London) reiterated the comments made by Kevin Brown on 5
August (virtually word for word) and the timescale for the repairs reverted to the
original eighteen months.
Autumn 1998
Julian Cope writes in The Modern Antiquarian:
Autumn 1999
Over two years since English Heritage promised '18 months' we are still waiting for
something to be done!
STATEMENT
This statement has been sent to English Heritage... The Campaign is not
arrogant enough to assume that it knows better than English Heritage how to manage our
common ancient sacred heritage of sites and monuments, but, like many other interested
parties it feels that the deplorable state of some of the less well-publicised and less
well known ancient sites suggests that the redirection by English Heritage of resources
into high-profile projects at a moments notice implies a lack of adequate finance and /or
an imbalanced view of the importance of the corpus of sites under custodianship. The
recent fiasco over the plans for the redevelopment of the Stonehenge site is a miserable
failure of gargantuan proportions. If the custodians of the country's most important
prehistoric monument cannot arrive at a solution to the problems of access and vandalism
there what hope is there for the Stoney Littletons and Belas Knapps of this world?
Adequate funding is likely to remain a problem in the long term and the pursuit of
alternative sources of money and the management of existing resources is a matter for
English Heritage. The Campaign would not presume involvement on this level. However there
are ways in which some site specific small scale fund raising might assist the situation.
In addition it may be possible to enlist volunteers to undertake the role of guardianship
which would put no pressure on budgets. To this end we propose the following courses of
action to improve the situation at Stoney Littleton in particular and other similar sites
in general.
The Campaign would like to launch a volunteer organisation to assist in the role of fund
raising, maintenance and management. This group would necessarily have to widen its remit
beyond the confines of one particular site in order to generate sufficient public interest
over a wide enough geographical area to raise significant funding and engage sufficient
numbers of volunteers to make any form of warden programme viable. Our initial suggestion
is to create an active site preservation group with a broad subscriber base, e.g. a
Friends of Cotswold Severn long barrows. This class of monument is particularly vulnerable
to casual vandalism as well as deliberate damage and neglect by farmers. As a group of
monuments situated in a well-visited part of the country they could be a valuable tourist
resource and a source of income on some level. Most are readily accessible making any form
of guardianship a relatively simple matter.
Image right: Uncovered excavation trench at Stoney
Littleton
Discussion
The following suggestions are offered for discussion:
1 To set up a voluntary warden system to visit and guard these sites. The National
Trust runs a volunteer archaeological monitoring scheme where members of the public
'adopt' a site and make regular visits and report on the condition of one or more
monuments. If EH have a similar scheme it is not well publicised. What is needed is a
concerted dialogue between all concerned parties and perhaps some focused volunteer and
campaigning work on the part of the 'alternative' scene. Volunteers should go to less
well-visited sites, record what they see and if any aspect of the site requires further
investigation or attention get in touch with EH, NT, RCHME or their county archaeologist.
2 To develop a central database of threatened sites and useful contacts. This is being
done by Sam Fleming!
| The increasing problem of damage to
ancient sites If you plan to visit any of the sites featured here and leave offerings or anything else please read this If you spot any damage please report it here (offsite links to Sam Fleming's web site) Read the Charter of Responsible Megalithic Webmasters |
The increasing problem of damage to ancient sites
If you plan to visit any of the sites featured here and leave offerings or anything else
please read this
If you spot any damage please report it here (offsite links to Sam Fleming's web site)
Read the Charter of Responsible Megalithic Webmasters
3 Some kind of documentation needs to be prepared, in conjunction with the 'official'
heritage bodies, outlining general procedures, formalised damage identification and
courses of action for active 'unofficial' site guardians. A network of like-minded
individuals across the country could help prevent other sites getting into the mess,
archaeological and financial, that Stoney Littleton now appears to be in. For instance,
the vandalism of the blocking door at Stoney Littleton might have been recorded and acted
upon at an earlier date had such a scheme been in operation.
4 To instigate local campaigns involving local schools and colleges and nearby
universities with a department of archaeology. These could raise money on appeal for
specific sites or utilise skills and labour on a voluntary basis to assist in on site
maintenance from earth moving to picking up litter.
Students are a valuable resource of largely free labour and skills and should be given the
opportunity to gain field experience in repair and maintenance work of ancient sites. The
National Trust conservation days at Wansdyke in Wiltshire have involved local schools,
colleges and individual members of the public and has been an entertaining insight into
archaeological conservation. Important erosion-containing work, open to all and sundry,
was carried out on the monument. Public interest can be achieved with minimal financial
outlay but plenty of imagination.
5 To establish a preservation group newsletter concerned with the history and care of
these irreplaceable monuments. This could raise funds by subscription to cover the
cost of administration for a volunteer warden system and to donate to specific projects as
and when possible. Its aim would be to enable to public to feel 'pro-active' and involved
with sites that appear inert and untouchable. Visitors should feel that the monument has
something to say about the future as well as the past. It would aim to increase public
awareness of the importance of ancient sacred sites, with a view to encouraging a more
respectful attitude towards them. It would promote the desire to 'preserve' sites, not to
mothball them as a future resource for archaeologists. The aim is to make sites more
accessible whilst discouraging unnecessary 'visitor facilities'.
6 To press for better communications: To encourage dialogue and interaction between the
public, archaeologists, historians and local organisations like libraries, museums, etc.
Elitism should be avoided at all costs.
7 To press for more information at source: More and better information signs need to be
erected at sites where access has been restricted. The National Trust have been reasonably
successful in their recent closing off the Cove at Avebury. An informative notice on the
fencing explained clearly why the area was restricted and what was being done. Visitors
need to feel capable of 'interacting' with a site as opposed to fulfilling the role of
passive observer. Better information for visitors would be welcome in the form of on site
information boards or through the ready availability of information leaflets/guides.
8 To encourage better public relations: There is a
perception that English Heritage only reluctantly allows access to ancient sites,
especially the high profile ones, and has little interest in the more obscure barrows and
standing stones. This is an odd attitude from a body that is funded by the public on whose
behalf it purports to act. This is probably inaccurate, but widely felt. English Heritage
has a very wide remit and historic properties appear to take priority over prehistoric
sites (with the exception of the big money-spinners, such as Stonehenge) in funding and
publicity. English Heritage needs to drop its elitist attitude and to engage in a massive
public relations exercise if it hopes to fulfil its role as a public guardian of our
shared ancient heritage. It needs to encourage public involvement in the maintenance and
guardianship of sites which receive little attention from the authorities. The public is a
cheap resource which is under exploited. Movement towards an inclusive approach to
maintenance and management would pay off in the long run.
Page last updated: 11 July, 2000
Photographs © Danny Sullivan
| MEGALITHIC MYSTERIES | MAP VIEW | SEARCH | CONTENTS | WHAT'S NEW | CREDITS |
Site authored by:
Andy Burnham
New on
this website
Photo guide to England