Hi Andy,
Thanks for posting my image of the landscape study area. My immediate reaction was that it perhaps gives the impression of my being involved in the campaign - "submitted by Orpbit" followed immediately by "Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site..."! I know that was not the intention but, nonetheless it remains a possibility should people not read in greater depth.
I was aware of a campaign building up, but took my eye off this particular "ball" until your post. As a result I have been rethinking my intentions as regards the placement, in terms of the sequence of publishing my researches, of my studies in identifying a defined "sacred space" in the landscape around the Stonehenge monument.
The results of those studies are directly pertinent to the increasingly polarised views about the tunnel. To clarify, the area I encircled in the image is actually part of a wider area of diameter 6.1 kilometers (3.8 miles), measured through the centre of the monument. Although a rough figure, anyone using Google Earth can speculate as to what the line of the bigger circle actually passes through. I'm not going to elaborate here, rather I should make it clear that the "sacred space" which I defined was entirely CALCULATED out of various aspects of my studies, rather than just a guess using the disposition of known features.
In short I have scientifically defined a space, which is the material expression, as I see it, of the state of scientific knowledge and/or its translation into a "sacred space" within which there would have been rigid rules for the creation of other features such as the many burial mounds and their groupings, not to mention a rationalle behind the creation of the Greater Cursus.
The important issue here is that there is only one published precedence, that I'm aware of, which comes anywhere close to the method that I employed, and this was published after I had already identified the main principle. Contact with the author of that publication, who is a well known archaeologist, has not materialised into any exchange of dialogue at present.
As a result, and bearing in mind that the extent of the area I defined is even greater, at 6.1 km diameter, than even the longer preferred stated length of tunnel by some campaigners, raises the issue of the "precautionary principle"(http://www.precautionaryprinciple.eu/). I have therefore put my publishing strategy on temporary hold while I am considering as to whether, when, how, and to what depth I should publish out of the original sequence to cover this more urgent issue.
I do have a personal view. As a landscape professional much of my work revolved around advising the planning function on the environmental impact of development proposals, which included representing the local authorities that I worked for, and included major roadwork proposals. I have no fears, therefore, as regards the seriousness of consideration and appropriate actions resulting therefrom, as to safeguarding whatever features were likely to be affected by such proposals. Nevertheless, this proposal is clearly unique in many significant ways. As such I had come to the conclusion that there should be no disturbance either above ground or below ground, within the extent of the "sacred space" that I have identified.
I am not inclined to join any campaigning group. I believe that I should put my views of potential impact of future studies/discoveries which might be irreversibly damaged by premature development by way of the current tunnel proposal. The question of how long one should wait before building a tunnel, whatever its length, arises. The answer, I suppose, depends on whether one is convinced that this is the only option available.
I have decided now that I will publish out of my original sequence, but not yet the other parameters. Whether or not the method I employed is received with any scientific credibility and which might influence the detail of the proposal, remains to be seen.
Richard
Something is not right. This message is just to keep things from messing up down the road