View metadata,citationandsimilarpapersatcore.ac.uk
50
LEY LINES: SENSE AND NONSENSE ON THE FRINGE archaeologists/guides often received after the tours described earlier, and the results of our surveys of visitor reaction, our Tom Williamson and Liz Bellamy illustrations of archaeological reasoning seem to have been com municated to people. Some did go away knowing archaeological A 1972 ~!!.!.~.!!.i..!..Y.editorial referred to ley hunters as method: not whet we know about another time, but how we know it. belonging to: So far, the community and its visitors have responded enthusias tically to this way of returning their past. the world of New Diffusionists, Black Horses, pyramidiots, straight trackers and the rest of our method of reaching the public was chosen in the absence, them, the world which every student of as yet, of any clear archaeological interpretation of early antiquity recognises, with an embarrassed Annapolis. Clearly, that content is appropriate for a tour when smile, as a danger only to those whose weak it becomes available. Also, given that critical theory is a and muddled heads prefer the comforts of method for situating self and society and produces only momentary unreason to the difficult facts of archae pi ecings of reality, a er it ical analysis must be ongoing. This ology. (Daniel 1972:4) wi I l ensure that the picture of the act ion of modern ideology, which we can provide through illustrating archaeological method, On the other hand, the ley hunter Paul Screeton wrote of will not be reabsorbed by the very ideology we are trying to archaeology in his classic text Quicksilver Heritage: highlight. we would not take kindly to being associated Acknowledgements. with a study whose foundations are the plunder of tumul i, the amassing and categorisation of This experiment in archaeological interpretation was carried broken pottery and implements, and the out by James Sorenson and Peter Potter, graduate students in scratching away of soil with incredible anthropology at the American University and Brown University patience. (Screeton 1974:25) respectively. Mark Kramer, Lisa Royse, and Todd Sac_hs, undergraduates at the University of Maryland, were archaeological It is thus that archaeologists and believers in ley lines guides. They were all trained by Philip Arnoult, Director of the have tended to discuss their differences. In a recent article in Theatre Project of Baltimore. P.Q.Q_ular Archaeol.!!_ll, however, Aubrey Burl attempted a more ra tional discuss ion of ley theory (Burl and Michel I 1983) and this The idea of returning a community's past by giving entire it followed R. G. Atkinson's brave article in the~ Hunter itself access to methods of knowing how the past is interpreted, was (Atkinson 1981). It can only be hoped that these indicate a new under the Annapolis Inc. and created aegis of Historic its chair, trend in archaeology, and a more serious consideration of its Mrs J.M.P. Wright. The project was funded and encouraged by the fringe. This would be a salutory change, for, prior to the Maryland Committee for the Humanities. My project codirector was publication of these articles, communication between the two Dr. Anne E. Yentsch of the Department of Anthropology, College of camps was conducted at the level of sporadic exchanges of vitu Wi 11 i-am and Mary. peration. These served only as brief interruptions in the war of silence in which each side tried to ignore the other and rejected any attempt at compromise. This has been so effective that it may be necessary to inform many readers of the nature of ley theory and to give a brief account of the history of the subject. It first develoDed in the 1920s, the brainchild of one Alfred Watkins, prominent amateur archaeologist and pioneer arch aeological photographer. He outlined his theories in a number of books, the most famous and comprehensive of which is !he Q~ ~!..!l.B'.!!.!. !!~~ (Watkins 1925). This is subtitled 'Its Mounds, Beacons, Moats, Sites and Merkstones', and Watkin•s thesis is based on the notion that these and other ancient features appear
to be in alignment more often than chance would predict. Watkins brought toyouby believed that the alignments, which he named leys, represented
(Archaeological Review from Cambridge 2:1 (1983)) provided byApollo CORE .
of
53
as of
of
the
the the
and
in
one
was
they
per
hun year
This
good.
based earth
their
along
means
which
ensure
of
a
mathe
wholly
theory,
such
and
subject certain
natural
between
is
'ritual'
that
ley
Thom
than no
of
esoteric.
the
notion
to written:
are
practical
knowledge
use discovered
The
of
society
dimly
.
ley
a
of by
by
s the
'alternative
utilitarian
established
because
transmitted
of
of
no
all
and
means has
power, and surveying
be
Neolithic been
predict
of
the
more which
used
interest.
of
development
this
harvests
are of
'proof'
no
the
Yet
of
with
of newly
was
forms
to leys
in flow
megaliths
the
current
phenomena
In
existence but
by
was
as
1969)
of
have
fields
could
was
In
the
,
connections
theories
alignment of leys discovering
the
three
original
revival
surprisingly on established
which
involve
earthworks.
any
lines
It
discovered
direct that
popular
Hadlngham
that
to
a
energy
phenomena,
'spiritual'
capable
for
in their
the
group the
of
a
!eve
of
1975:228)
rejection
to
the the
of
energy'
a force could
lines
even
energy
plenty.
necessary
(Michell
that
Evan
mark
ideas
be! locations
for
being find
seized
go
This
more
were
projection.
its produce
some
argued
undiscovered
are
and turn,
associate
kinds
development
above)
and
but
identified
to
the
to
not
were
to
along earth was
'earth
one
In
dedicated
suggested
secret
overstatement
nature:
have
simply
(or with
the variations
Michell
explanation
(Hadingham by extreme
and
encouraged
the
astral
the
islands
resurgence
lgnments
an
evidence able
also
peace
essentially
was
time
on
of its
the expertise
various
alignments built,
energy'. a
and who
al
theorists
Some people dig opinions,
John
It of
of
with
believers
and
archaeology.
that
more unusual
1976).
in
attitudes,
that
are
1960s,
were
these
same
was
of
unrelated
determine of the
by
the
ley were
many
Age
be
countryside
replaced
equals,
hunters
'earth
surges of
observations
to
variety
the
changed
monuments.
late while
utilitarian
argue
regularly
a
are
levels,
there
that that
thought
group
was range
quite
health.
statistical
a
orthodox
the
Ley
discussing
Britain
something
a
theories that
(Hitching
astronomical
science•. associated
the
woul~
Golden
used
of
and
advanced
levitation
English
established
accumulated
and
of
the
prominent that
around
occur
1974),
There
be
of
It
these large
from
produced Others archaeological and ancient ,
structures
and
and
and
for notion
the
to
at
and
.
passed
inhabitants
peace-loving
At
suggest
UFOs, first
may
that profoundly
provided
Many
closely
network
1960s
climate
Present
the
Neolithic
use.
free, 'ritual' leys, feel ley ters fertility interpretation (Screeton bizarre. energy energy ceived those •megalithic encompasses
divorced the appear Some constructions This
stored eclipses a current habitants early standards also across matical
others culture' occurrence. on which
was
The
·
B
, a
,
a
in
to
the
the
not
the
the and are and
de not the
ad
to
and,
of
thus
war
sites found
Track
anti
Ponds
until
names
A
by
groups
stand,
In system
by
on
period.
The~
leys
the
private
is
feature, subject
consists
Ordnance
straight
a
example,
picnics
medieval
c These
clear through
guidance.
not
.
Neolithic
of
of
structures
from
include
with
an
they often
ley.
by
great
Neolithic.
second
these
the
significance
work
which
had
for
features
the
although
were
,
purpose,
This
noted post-medieval
'ley'
of
existence
occupied
was
elaborated
Straight
in of
of
the
the
distant
any
the
lines
settlements walked
move
were
are
it
archaeologists and
not
Neolithi
that
same
land. from
taking
ines,
erratics
the
of
erected.
these name to
period
1
information
been
ght by
features
the
additional existence
and
i
mark and
since
be
the
until of
the
numbers
trees
Watkins
possible
these
nts•
subsequent
churches,
The
ley
date
development
inception,
1928
generally settlements
had been i
to
that
able
thlc for
to
the New
disseminated
inclusion
alignments.
fieldwork. and
in
I
stra use
prominent
of
po for medieval
to
the
in
his
glacial
involves
suggests
away,
Pine
had
the
organisation
by
hills,
large
for
the
the
were
characteristically
aligning
1927), in
these
1
were
Neol
which
·
which
some
to
considered
and stones
and
survived only
on
notable
track,
initial
•mark
division the
planted This deduced died medieval
his
the
on
The
also
and
Scots
drawing
that
surveyed natural,
and
religious
stones'
of hunting leys, In
ted
gentee
sites
1925; with
In
important
people the
club
its
followed
prior
have
but a
posts of
considered
and
place-names.
constructed
justified
on
that
photographs.
Ley
after
new
vis! tional
be
archaeologists sights
to
Track,
occurred The
indicates in
•mark
generally
it,
was
most
mark confirmation
notch mounds
attention,
of
therefore
been after
by
line,
argument
resultant
originally add!
a
because
features. hunting
long
(Watkins
ubiquity
to
are
must and
The
amalgam the
their he
all, continuous rubbing
frequency
pencil,
This
originally
Watkins
seems
reasons,
the
or
style.
found
observed
along
have
a
ley
the
element
for
The
in
Watkins•
of
Straight
as
years
from
and
however, this
of by
the gentlemen
trees
to
which
of
'site
accounts
fixed using
en
_
and placed
ancient
peak
straight
Old for
and
this
straight
of
conventionally
be
portfolios.
later.
and
and
of such
considered
date
Survey.
subject
tracks, some
considerable formed.
Companion
a
and
places
it,
folklore from
of
time.
Watkins
work,
Watkins
search
map
lines,
The
or
are
.
had
stones
variety
unconvincing
dead
as
those
were
important
thought
the
For
was
posed In
line,
a
explained
Map
a
the
that
ty.
ley
postal
ladles
52
in
inhabitants
towards such ancient property
They
Hunter's
straightforward variety features Survey for which methodology period
doctrine Iey meeting only
features
scendants of at which normally small qul subject, on dition, most was bean
received
were English of derived and Ordnance containing when of
Club
· a
is
55
is
to
or ng
at
In
to
of
it
i
the
the
and and
can was ley
the
and
Ap
They
also
aca
past
much past
of
docu
myth
of
in
liter
Smith,
of
but
of
able
search.
past
overall an
social,
provide
conven
some
•spirit•
the
discover
suggested
therefore
cultural spiritual
something
them,
must
someth
dangerous
interested
myth
history
the
present welcome
society
the
indeed
of
Is
remote
the Adam
archaeology
and
that
as being relevance
with Prehistory
they
our
of
belief
they
libraries
approach.
own anything
The
primitive
English
nature
ls
interest.
of
the
are
a
political
the
it
and
of
no
that
present,
system
of
This for
a
appeal
physical
in
traditions.
around local
what
of
clearly
that study
for
this
our
of
of
1
past.
the
a
fro11
all
achievements
and
utilisation
emulating,
the the
ls
the there
number
prehistoric
feel
al to has believe
part
like
of
hunters•
study, a
features of
of the
about
forms
of
writings
to
the
that
study
for
identify
present
record.
remote of
feel They confirms
There
ley
large
poetic
antiquarian
the
encourages
the ecologically
classical
society, possible
on through
possibility contrast
impossible. the
to
scientific
read
perhaps
many
Some
a
aware
different
want
which
the
prose of
relics
boast
than
a
is
the
contrast
be
and
landscape
the achievements justification
be in
intrinsic
both
both
subjects
SE.£•
be
critique
and relics
past.
how
not
in studies,
of
either It
gives the merely
The potent
based
for
very
perhaps
themselves. a
by
to
an
modern
with
the
prefer
the
to
hunters a
more a
do
the
the press). however,
to
at,
aspect
n against
ley
and occur
ours,
is
which
ethnographic
for
to
i
for
immediate present.
they
was is
no
hunters•
In
Ley
They
to it
Biblical
of
paths,
than
or
implicit
it
obviously
which
aspects
view It orthodox
this
1974).
society
the
ought
Iey
hunting,
and
contact
People
sources.
to
poetry
a
attracted
does
the
an
of
which
looking
society
something demonstrate
to
perspective
hunters,
for more
subject
represent
the
ley
in
by
-
landscape
example, present,
would
as
energy a
people
Bellamy,
judged. relevance
against
in
ley
superior
historic to
making
past they
technology
compared. energy
from
perspective
ecological.!.!..!!.!!.!
museums.
with recognise
they
the
the
for
be
a Cobbett.
pastoral
tangible {Screeton and
useful
this
impressive
organisation
studies.
in
the
was
about
are
for
of
rooted
past
references
in
remote
a
Its
and
created
powerfully
and many
relevance of
regard
can
given
that
natural° and
popularity
direct
at
in archaeology
age,
the
from
enthusiasm
archaeology Ing
profit
more
made
Archaeologists and
or a
and
they natural
cases
are
For
invested
which in polluting
intelligent
the a
favourably
hardly
direct
hey
that thus
landscape
looked tangible t
by support
dead Their
science, believe
discover earth's
one ually'. tional are
mented and have present theories, evidence be justification
all, economic barbarous lie demic these
some appeal contribute Is antiquity a
and golden heritage, might (Williamson
peals and
ature,
Carlyle
a
a
in
to of no
of to
no by
of
ley
and
the
can
feel
hun five
both
is
their
impor
fringe
map,
resear
hunters
sophis
all
of
only
periods
profes
possible
books
subject.
ley
within
and
orthodox subject's
same,
they
equipment
ponds thrill
albeit
financial
purpose
The
Is
Ley
there
20
make
all
Furthermore, the
be
long
more
the the
having
their
line
The
academics,
anything,
and
Surv~y it
to will
knowledge.
of
their
wider
undoubtedly
of
some
if
for
Pines,
serious
or
worthless! points•
with
serious
supported
alignment
from
which
fieldwork,
amateurs
Is
fringe,
ley,
surveying
cannot
tower
fieldwork,
side
up
as
Into leys.
the
no entered
all amateurs.
an
Although a
knowledge,
origins
writes:
we
so
and
oversimplification
What,
Scots
the
possible 'mark and
'amateurs'.
promising
chance Ordnance in
to
put
and lies,
enthusiast.
of
reasons present
fit
of
has
cannot,
understandable
ivory
specialist
the
an
a
thus
see
of
that
and
track.
to
subject 25)
for
map
subject
of
and at an
lost
4:
map
maps
a
on of
not good
quite
the
-
the
to
they
are
numerous
castigate
anyone.
forthcoming
eoretical
of
.
Screeton
a
197 the
are have -
of
do
is
w~rld
th
past,
worthless. 1:50,000 agree
subject. their
or
to
Britain
interest
both
long
limited
researches
search
are
scale important tissue
of
a
discover
it
indication
importance
ton
in Paul
There
the
the the
an •experts'
the will
of
They
less
stand
There
to
case
the
Somehow unable open
speculate
In
In
something
to
well-trodden of
more
mere •experts•,
only
large or
good
revenge'
the
hunters
to
or
(Scree
1979),
the
vital a a
democratisation
are
results
a
involves
requires they
game.
leys. completed
popularity
are
and a
the
ruler.
use
is
in
novices
participation as
archaeologists
through
ley
more
subsequent
seems
a
using
heads".
any
own
beginner
and
true discovery the
attractions
has
devoted
is
concept
the
between
that welcome a layman's
The
and
prove
having
process
provide accept
past
ly undertaken. deeper
Thompson most archae~logist
published.
hunting
the the
likewise
theory
participate
on
hunters
their
1,
from
to
before
happened
academic
in
the
'the
which
muddled of
and are
the
Ley
incorporated.
implications seems
not, narrow
have
at Academics
ley
can
complete
ley therefore
archaeology
Since
of should of
has
and
of
for
penci
able
and prlmari
Fieldwork
One
unlikely
achieved
discoveries
dichotomy
It
to
alignments, the minutes.
there
Moreover,
learned
Is waiting
wrong
real have knowledge It the
ters, •discoveries' limitations 54 for few tant •markstones' hunters road ticated stages Everyone (Devereux appeal. study sharp professional of points ches. sional print doubt, notion "weak be being be
dismiss
Yet 57 to
it
of
of as
ot
to he
of
his
for
the the
and
The ap
ap the
The
way
that
they
dead
lead
good
view.
range
past,
which
though
effort
to not
of
viewed
a hunters
this
Watkins
the
response
them
the
the
that possible
educated archaeo
care
that
serves arguments
the
landscape
viewed
academics
long,
in and
in
lessons
pest.
fringe
ley
significant
doctrine
even
on
on past.
clear.
settled
to en
in
to
authority
not
be
ridiculed consequences;
the
of
should
status
long-distance
feel
1930s,
the
structures•
the the
interpretations
some
time
that
leys,
the
ere
is
alternative
evidence, fieldworkers
follow
for
the
not
base,
seem
who
which
of
the
maps,
if
connecting
on
of
the profitably
depend
on
of
but
short-sighted
castigate
Andes
of
to
people
its
in
densely
•
in suggestion
a
as
not
leys
be In
consideration waste
it
shown
and
advances alarming
dependent
date
associated
archaeological
anticipated
those
the
of
is
based
do
to
hunting
should
'truth'
approaches
of was
Survey
here,
the
many
archaeology
can
'ingenious
or
in
The
points
cases
have
studies our
does
the
threat
long
more
have
alternative
seems
end
hunters
to .
then
of
was
ley
this
archaeologists
Many
to
the
end
popularity
conscientious
of
many only
uniquely
ley
They
'glib'
25km give
•mark
repossession
such
diminution
archaeologists
consent.
that
could
concept of
debated trees prepared
Britain
that
hunting,
practicalities
reasons Ordnance
that
decades
almost
of
protection is
stance
rather serious
to
as
of
archaeology.
end
Not
hunting
in
be
the
discovery
end
on
danger
ere
alternative
It
the
knowledge:
that
assertion
This
up
messes.
the be,
two the
one
to
conventional
general
common
wonder
very
ley
the
wrong
le.
plausible further
popular
of
(indeed, the
is suggest
on a
the
to
may
that
for
by
lines
This
treasure
ler
course,
. cannot
the
last
correct,
people
of
the
Yet
examination
direct publ
phenomena.
covered
any
diligent
ell
seem
Small
destruction
Atkinson
prehistoric
tor
dismissed
to
and
ot
a
pose
This
simi
an the
to
professional for
would
also
•trlnge•.
was levels
for
conventional
pest
pathways,
value
because
·
of
kind
proliferation he
are imperative
ignored
and
hunting
not
We
in
that
a
time.
archaeology,
be
mainly
the
their but
who
the
very
general
cleared. two
over preserved argument
lead
from
inadequate
end
hunters
and
right
1978).
'lunacy•
as
hunting
are
disparate
of
pathways. to
Burl
meaningless
ritual
the
be intelligent
defined
in
these
to
tor
was
seems
reasons
the
may
the
safely
end
Iey
evolution'
by
or
ultimately
potential et
end
ley
of
been
It It treasure
of
end
arguing
finance
be
popularity
Watkins archaeology,
only
The
features
learned
the
11
logists its from taken theories believe that
plotting of •site sighting, views straight have (Morrison sane of developments unfair together some greet ments extensively
prehistory). country can archaeology defeat for was can proaches proaches entirely acceptance could was conventional wl strongly elite The be
allowed
a
is
of
in
on
on as to
be
the
the
the
and
ley the
and
the has
have
have
more
with
them.
para
could
image
1953).
in
1972),
to
align- but
having
rooted
normal almost
on
of
society
mount
(Gerner
work
popular general
there
hunters'
from
an
the
by
report
en
they
should
contested
to
enough
the
failing
dismiss
rather
'primitive'
which
the
the
is
provide
pursuit,
and
end
time-wasting
ley
public)
deeply
is
understandable
influence,
archaeologists only
with
of
construct
Garner
relevant on
to
straight
appearing
Elements
modern
criticism
1982),
and
(Crawford
Is
Influence
the
its
to
the
points
establishment
attempt
a
lunatic
clearly
archaeologists
quite
1982),
Track'
way
job
it
{Petitpierre
because
useful
literature
Alen
contemporary
from mentioned,
in
long,
necessitated
are subject
not
Yet
themselves
effectively
ere
Ide
from
now
in
not
of
Forest
major
of
for
some
concerned
intellectual
Traditionally,
of
practising
admit,
informed
be
archaeologists
a is ability
the place,
their
exploit
particular
Chi
proportion
archaeologists.
erroneous
have
in
Exeter
and and
they
of
to
appear
Streight
existed
should
already
in
archaeological
be
can books
the
Is
why
thinkers
immune
of
works
with
leys that
been
otherwise
-
press).
some
clearly
taken
such
1976;
beliefs,
sterile to
totality
would
Old
even
and
revenge•.
they
music
which
of
archaeological contribute, have
In
ley
a
they
by
not
of is
past
has
been
has
many
sizeable
misrepresentation
Devereux
prejudice.
majority
definition to
the
prepared
'The construction
amateur
Bishop
the
a
It
they
archaeologists
in
that
reasons
the
or
fringe
not
than
that
exceptions
against
reminder
by
the
could
desire
network
.
children's
by
theory
up
theory
the
concept
the
a
the
of
supposed
1982;
learned end
with
but
number
seem
a
to
Bellemy,
has
Watkins
'layman's
past.
prominent
allow
the
Iey
more
in
as
the
b~
them
a other
allowed
.
other
is
the
in
The
discussion
(Hunter!!!!,
crop
strange lines
Just
by
end
is
contemporary
theory
study
the
to
be culture
the of
seem
in
the
it
campaign
astro-erchaeology
1981),
that and
both
they ridicule,
ere
ill-informed
situation,
(Robins
it
honourable
in
lunacy, ley
of
a
serves
not
ley
the
archaeology
of of
books may
lines if
·
seems
connected
of
for
profitably
academics
interest
dismiss
believe
about
serious
the
Auden
convened
to
should these
that archaeology
It
there
can
lacked
be
articles
appear
such
that
(and
Ley
popular
that
to to
(Wilson
of
occurs duty
of
patent
silence, knowledge sustained evidence
many
(Williamson In more all
encountered.
perhaps
With
basis
Scientist
Nor
creation Even
subject
Yet
our
imately
56
lunacy.
like
In response that than lnt theory tended the theories, peoples
present, been this public fanatical attraction claims perhaps their
more public
k~owledge aware some
normal When
prevent exorcism The New archaeology good denied development which poems The 1963),
when
Thom 58
non-professional worker, historically the mainstay of the subject STONEHENGE, GENERAL PITT-RIVERS, AND THE FIRST in this country. Those with an interest in the past should on no ANCIENT MONUMENTSACT account be made to feel excluded from its orthodox study, and this is especially true at a time when spiralling unemployment is Christopher Chippinda ! e leading to increased leisure. When Sir John Lubbock began, in 1870, to prepare legislat i on At the same time, archaeology must be seen to be relevant to to protect prehistoric and other ancient sites, he had in mind the wider issues of society. This is not just a case of the their defence against careless destruction by their owners for subject's aims but also of the communication of these to the the sake of some trivial advantage. The Jockey Club, f or general public. The ley hunters• description of archaeologists instance, had during the 1860s mutilated the Devil ' s Dyke where as being Involved in a kind of boring and methodical treasure it runs across Newmarket Heath because scouts and tipsters had hunt, irrelevant and inward-looking, may indicate the way in been using it to sneak views of the racehorses in training. A which many people see our discipline. It seems strange that the century later, that kind of damage by landowners -- whether less popularisation of archaeology is so often done in terms of ob or more accidental -- continues. A more contemporary threat is jects and artefacts rather than interesting and useful knowledge, the one that follows from the overwhelming response of a well Strange, too, that little attempt is made to explain the develop educated, well-meaning and interested public. No aspect of the ments in method and theory in the subject over the last two heritage is immune. Historic houses and, especially, gardens decades at a popular level. The lessons to be drawn from ley take a fearful onslaught. The main tracks up Snowdon are only hunting are that if archaeology fails to stress the immanence and prevented from degradation into broad stony swathes by a relevance of the past, and to encourage popular participation at programme of restoration and r epair. Hadrian's Wall has suffered every level, then in a nominally free society others will always badly, and so have the more famous Wessex sites. The access be ready to fill the void. paths to Wayland 's Smithy and West Kennet chambered barrows are pounded mud all the year round, liquid or dried as the season References falls. At Avebury, the ends of the bank segments, the favourite places to scramble up, are losing their grass cover. The path up Atkinson, R. J.C. 1982 in 'Spirit of the Ley Hunter•. The !!!.l Hunter 90:21-2. Silbury Hill has been so eroded that the Hill is now permanently Burl,---x:-"and J, Michell. 1983 The Great Debate. Po.2_!!lar closed and must be viewed from a distance. Archaeolofi 4(8):13-18. -- ~ Chllde, M, 19 Discovering Churchyards. Shire Publications. The damage is usually very local, for the tourist is an Crawford, O. G. S. 1953 Archaeol_Q_g_Y in the Field. Phoenix House, London. ------unusually gregarious creature. The only other visitors you see Daniel, G. E. 1972 Editorial. Anti~uity 46:4. at the barrow-groups only half a mi le from Stonehenge wi 11, most Devereux, P. and I. Thomson. 1979 Te 1!.l Hunters Companion. be archaeology students on a university Where Thames and Hudson, London. likely, field-trip. Devereux, P. and R. Forrest. 1982 Straight lines on ancient the millions of eager feet do tread, the damage can be appalling, landscapes. New Scientist 96(1337/1338):822-6. both directly (through erosion of paths and grass cover) and Gar~er, A. 1963 TneMoon of Gomrath. William Collins, London. indirectly (through the damage caused to the attraction itself by Hadin~o':i'!i~~- E. l!f'IT" C1!CTe_! !nd Stand.!.!!£ §.!~nes. Heineman, the facilities provided there). Land's End has been a notorious Hitching, F. 1976 Earth Magif, Cassel, London. case in this respect. Some kinds of archaeological sites, such Hunter, J. et al. 19rr--E"ssex andscape: The Historic Features as the Palaeolithic painted caves, cannot begin to bear the . Essex "Count:y Counci 1-.-- -- · numbers: and for most of these, not just for Lascaux, a presenta M1ch~ll, J. 1969 The View over Atlantis. Garnstone, London. medium an Mor~1s~n, A. 1978 lllilhwais "Tothe Gods. M. Russel, London. tion to the non-specialist publia through the of Pet1tp1erre, R. (ed.) 197 Exorcism:---The findin.[! of a Commission entirely artificial replica must be the answer . . convened by the B,~~hog of Exeter. -s:p,c:K:";'"'I"onilon. ------Robins, D. v.• er.:lll1r2 e ragon Proiect and the talking stones . New Sc1ent1st 96(1328):166-71. Stonehenge, the most famous archaeologica l site in Europe, ScreeTorl, P. 1974 ,9uicksilver Heri.!!..K..!.i. the M.Y._!tic Ley~ Their is na t urally as much under siege as any; and the cumulative .!!lgacy of anc1eii'tw1sdom. ~rsons,-we"lTrngfiorou~ -- effect of individually well-intentioned and sensible decisions Watk~~ -r92S The OT
(Arehaeological Review from Cambridg.e 2: 1 (1983))