30/12/23 UPDATE: We have become aware that the full text of the open letter has not been showing for some over the last day or so. We are unsure why this has occurred, and can only apologise for the confusion. The restored original text is below:

We write as members of the UK’s archaeological community to urge our sector to come together in taking a renewed and rightful lead in re-framing the current, divisive debate around the Stonehenge Tunnel.

The prominence of Stonehenge in the national and global public imagination means that the debate around the tunnel draws an unprecedented amount of attention. With input from a range of voices, this could be turned into a positive opportunity to effect real transformation in the understanding, scope and implementation of heritage protection and archaeological mitigation in the UK.

In spite of this, archaeologists themselves have been overwhelmingly absent from the discourse. While a number of public figures have shared their views on the project, many of the individual archaeologists and heritage specialists who are best-informed on the subject are unable to comment due to factors which include their professional obligations.

Meanwhile, many major organisations representing UK archaeology have distanced themselves from the heart of this politicised and polarised debate.

Into the vacuum has stepped the Stonehenge Alliance, whose increasingly divisive and populist rhetoric directly risks the public understanding of archaeology in the UK for many years to come. Rather than being presented with diverse, informed perspectives, the tone of the matter has been steered, almost single-handedly, by this campaign group and its backers.

The role of archaeological intervention in mitigating impact on heritage has been consistently distorted and misrepresented by the Stonehenge Alliance campaign in spite of persistent requests by archaeologists to tone down their rhetoric.

After years of cuts to the sector, coupled with the politically convenient presentation of archaeology as a barrier to development in planning reform discussions, we simply cannot afford to take another blow.

Archaeological and, in particular, prehistoric heritage can be profoundly powerful in shaping contemporary identities. With many archaeologists and representative bodies remaining mute and public feeling running high, the narrative is skewed towards fringe voices. Even those individuals within the sector who are not bound by client confidentiality agreements face the threat of online abuse, while practitioners working at contentious sites could be at risk simply by doing their job.

UK archaeologists are represented by multiple professional bodies, and include commercial contractors, local government and NGO employees, community heritage practitioners, academics, curators and more. Such a diverse community is naturally home to a great range of perspectives, but regardless of individual or organisation positions, we come together now to directly and openly challenge the misrepresentation of our sector, and especially the fundamental role archaeology plays in the preservation and protection of the UK’s heritage.

We agree upon the following:

1. The monument of Stonehenge is not under threat. Under no proposed plan of action would any construction take place within or adjacent to the monument, and the nearest works will involve the removal of the current A303.

2. What is at risk is archaeology preserved within the wider landscape setting of the monument and within the wider World Heritage Site. Any intervention must be undertaken to a very high standard under our obligations to UNESCO, the Valletta convention, and to the National Planning Policy Framework.

3. With the right level of resources, teams of experienced, professional archaeologists would mitigate the impact of the project to a very high standard. This work is already underway and its scope is guided by both the independent A303 Scientific Committee and the planning conditions currently in place. We would like to see the work of that committee - led by Sir Barry Cunliffe and ensuring the highest standards of any necessary mitigation programme - elevated in the public eye. We would also like to see the experience and professionalism of the hundreds of archaeologists who would undertake the work similarly celebrated and supported.

4. If at any point there is an argument that the professional response put in place under planning conditions is not sufficiently detailed or resourced, the issue should be discussed in the context of the wider situation for archaeology under UK planning law. Archaeological investigation and mitigation should be conducted to the same appropriate levels across the country no matter where the site is. Enhancements for the way archaeology is conducted in the event of tunnel construction in the Stonehenge landscape should translate into enhancement across the sector.

5. We do not protect Stonehenge because it is sacred, or because of any connection to, or perceived ancestry from, its numerous generations of builders. The framing of the tunnel project as ‘desecration’ is inappropriate and counter-productive to a constructive discussion of how heritage is managed and valued in the UK. These calls risk opening the door to an archaeological narrative of ethno-nationalism. Instead, we unite behind the protection of our prehistoric heritage for everyone, for its global cultural and scientific value.

6. What is needed is a call for a reasoned position of concern and vigilance. This will help ensure the principles of the National Policy and Planning Framework (NPPF) are implemented and our shared national responsibility as guardians of this important and valued World Heritage Site is seen to be taken seriously.

With the 80th anniversary of the Council for British Archaeology coming in 2024, this is the perfect time for the heritage sector to unite in working towards a future where archaeology is valued and well-resourced. A powerful, evidence based, voice re-framing the Stonehenge debate is urgently needed. We can all be that voice.