Was the excavation of Seahenge the best outcome for that site? Defend your. opinion using examples from other sites and parts of the world as well.

Transcription

1 Was the excavation of Seahenge the best outcome for that site? Defend your opinion using examples from other sites and parts of the world as well. ARC1DAR 2009 Synopsis Excavation was the best outcome for Seahenge for three main reasons. Firstly there were concerns about erosion. Had Seahenge been left in situ, little would be left of the site today due to the rapid erosion of the area. Secondly, it was required for new scientific investigations into the construction of the site by the Bronze Age community. Much unique knowledge about how and by whom Seahenge was built, the symbolism of the monument, and the ancient ecosystem has been discovered through investigation after excavation. Thirdly, the salvage excavation had to be completed to be able to preserve the circle for everyone. Now housed in a museum, Seahenge is open for people to learn about and enjoy the monument. For these reasons, it is clear that excavation had to take place and was the best option for the site.

2 Was the Excavation of Seahenge the Best Outcome for that Site? Holme I, also called Seahenge, is a Bronze Age wooden circle that was discovered in 1998 off the coast of the English village of Holme-Next-the-Sea. The way in which a sample was taken to date the circle had the local and pagan communities up in arms. Despite protest, Seahenge was excavated and moved for investigation, which has greatly added to the knowledge of the local Bronze Age people. Much information has been published regarding the subject, and the circle itself is now housed at a nearby town in a museum that is open to everyone. The three main reasons why this excavation was the best outcome for Seahenge are due to concerns about erosion, to new scientific discoveries about the Bronze Age community who built the circle, and to the preservation of the monument. Firstly, concerns over the erosion of the wooden circle justified the excavation of Seahenge. This ecological impact was caused by the news coverage of the intense argument between villagers, neo-pagans and archaeologists over the site. For example, The Independent on 16 June 1999 wrote that a mixed group of druids, pagans, ecowarriors and tree lovers armed only with a didgeridoo, a handful of poems and a brown dog occupied the circle on the foreshore and successfully defied English Heritage (McCarthy 16 June 1999). Such reports brought the news to an international audience, which attracted visitors to the site. These crowds overwhelmed the Holme wildlife reserve and sped up both the erosion of the beach and the wooden circle (Brennand and Taylor 2003, pp. 1-2; Wallis 2001, p. 221). Such large numbers of people can often affect sites negatively. 1

3 For example, in Egypt, the impact of tourists can be seen inside tombs, such as that of Queen Nefertari, one of the greatest artistic treasures of ancient Egypt. Her tomb had been cut into the limestone cliffs, layered with plaster and then painted with striking images. Tourists were found to have caused both direct and indirect damage to the artwork. The perspiration of people inside the tomb raised the humidity (Roberts 2006, p. xii), which caused the growth of certain salt-crystals in between the limestone walls and the plaster layer of the tomb. As the salt grew, it forced the plaster layers outwards, severely damaging the paintings (El-Baz 1987, p. 46). Indirect damage includes the shaking of the tomb by tourist buses, which can easily dislodge pieces of plaster (El-Baz 1987, p. 49). Similarly, damage to Seahenge itself was a grave concern, and should Seahenge have been left in situ, the visitors to the area would have escalated the erosion of the oak circle. Directly affected by wave erosion after surrounding dunes had been eroded away (English Heritage 2003, p. 7), the timber would decay rapidly, especially during the summer (British Archaeology 2001). According to Brennand (2004), had Seahenge remained in the water there would have been very little left to study today. The salvage excavation was a necessary requirement to save the Bronze Age monument. Salvage excavations are often performed when either developmental or natural activities threaten a site (Colley 2003, p. 38). Secondly, the reason why it was necessary to excavate Seahenge was that there was no other way to scientifically investigate the Bronze Age community who built the circle. Although archaeologists could have taken measurements of the circle, the sea covered many secrets. New discoveries added to the wealth of knowledge about the people who 2

4 built the site, from their use of new technology to the time of year they started construction. Had the site not been excavated, knowledge such as 'the sequence of construction and the contemporary environment' (Brennand 2004) would have been lost. Once the wooden boards and the stump were placed in water tanks and scientifically studied by archaeologists, valuable information about tools used on the timber was discovered. This not only helped explain how the circle was built, but also the number of people who assisted in its construction. After painstaking research, archaeologists determined both how the circle was constructed and what technology was used. It is now known which wooden beams came from which trees, and in which order the posts were set up; the stump was first set in place, and then the circle of posts encircling it (Pratty 2002). Evidence from the timber suggests that there were at least fifty-one distinct axe blade marks found. Assuming that one person could afford one bronze axe, there had to be a minimum of 51 people involved in dressing the logs for the circle this number does not include specialists assisting with other construction (Brennand 2004), such as those who pulled the oak stump into the centre of the circle with the honeysuckle rope (Denison S 2000), so the number is undoubtedly higher. Axe marks also show what types of tools were available to the Bronze Age workers, and how quickly they applied the new bronze axe technology to tasks (Pryor 2003, p. 128). The information is also unique: It's the first indication from any European prehistoric site... for the actual number of people that may have been involved in the construction of an ancient monument, (Pryor 2003, p. 267). Another result of the scientific study of Seahenge is in relation to the new archaeological theories about the possible beliefs of the Bronze Age community, which replaced previous incorrect assumptions. Originally, Brennand (2004) mentioned that the circle might have 3

5 been for a burial. Had the tree not been excavated, this theory may not have been proved to be incorrect. As the Time Team episode showed, once the stump was removed from its resting place, no body was ever placed on or under the inverted oak stump (Time Team Special 03 The Mystery of Seahenge 1999). Investigation also showed that the inverted tree had a flat base, showing that the constructors knew how best to position the central stump for stability. The stump was certainly designed to stay firmly in place. Information gathered also suggested that the orientation of the stump was related to their belief in an underworld. Pryor wrote that, One of the main insights provided by Seahenge was the evidence for the possible existence of a world that was believed to exist below the ground, (Pryor 2003, p ). Brennand and Taylor theorised that, had the Bronze Age people entered the circle, they would have seen the inverted stump with its protruding roots, and perhaps had a glimpse of the underworld. According to Bradley (2000, p. 12), there is a similarity between the wooden altars of the Saami people of Lapland and the upside down stump; as their underworld is a mirror image of the human world, idols made from the bole of trees tend to be inverted. Whether the similarity is correct or not, the Bronze Age community must still have had a very strong, and likely spiritual, reason to deliberately put a 2.5 tonne oak tree trunk upside down in the ground in the middle of the monumental wooden circle. As Brennand (2004) suggested from the results of testing after excavation, the reason that the trees were all cut for construction during the spring or summer could be a connection to observations of the midsummer alignment. The circle itself seems to be oriented towards both the midsummer rising sun and the midwinter setting sun. It is therefore possibly symbolic of life and death (Brennand and Taylor 2003, p. 68), spiritually linking the community with 4

6 another world. It is this spiritual connection that likely gave the ancient Britons prestige and authority (Pratty 2002) as the community worked together on this sacred project. Such investigations of the excavated past allow for potential application in daily life. The Cusichaca Trust, in South America, has worked with local people to restore two Inca-built stone water canals. Abandoned during the Spanish Conquest, canals carrying glacier waters had been used to irrigate Incan farmland. Applying the archaeological information to modern life, two of these canals are now flowing again, and about 150 acres of land is once again flourishing (Renfrew and Bahn 2004, p. 558). In the case of Seahenge, the information obtained from the study of the timber posts and stump allowed Channel 4's Time Team to build a modern replica (Channel 4 29 December 1999) using experimental archaeology. Lynn Museum officials advised that a full-sized replica would also be used to give visitors the experience of entering the original circle (Eastern Daily Press 13 January 2007), before they see the actual display of remains of Seahenge itself. Information from investigations also assisted with reconstructing the ancient landscape of the time when Seahenge was built. According to Wallis (2001, p. 221), the circle would originally have been about 30 miles inland, and Brennand (2004) shows that the area was a saltmarsh close to the high tide mark, but not in the sea itself. Plant macrofossils seeds, fruits and cereal remains include sea lavender, saltmarsh grass, rushes, celery, parsley, cabbage, buttercups, nightshade, nettle, birch, bramble, elderberry, barley and spelt (Brennand and Taylor 2003, pp ). From plant remains, it was found that trees were felled for construction of the circle in the spring or summer of 2049 BC. Had the circle been left in situ, information on the ancient environment would never have been found. 5

7 Lastly, the archaeological emphasis is on the preservation of the site. According to the archaeological point of view, religious and cultural beliefs can sometimes cause damage to a site. An Aboriginal cultural tradition of repainting rock art damages the original works. Yet the social significance is of greater importance to the Aboriginal community (Colley 2003, p. 38), rather than the ancient drawings themselves. At the other end of the scale, the Taliban s 2001 destruction of the two giant Buddha statues, carved into the cliffs in Bamyan, Afghanistan, during the 3 rd century AD, was in fulfilment of religious beliefs. However, by the western world it was considered as nothing more than an act of destruction (Renfrew and Bahn 2004, p. 549). In the case of Seahenge, archaeologists were concerned with the indirect destruction that would have occurred had neo-druidic religious requests been met. Neo-druids became concerned that moving the circle from its location on a ley line would destroy the spiritual essence of the site (Wallis 2001, pp ). They then requested that the wooden circle remain in situ, so that it could retain its magical significance. Unfortunately this also would mean the destruction of the monument due to erosion from the encroaching sea. As Renfrew and Bahn ask, But how does an archaeologist persuade the self-styled Druids that their beliefs are not supported by archaeological evidence? (2004, p. 576). They argue that such beliefs are trivial in comparison to the knowledge of human history that archaeology can reveal for all mankind; the preservation of the circle and access to the remains are of great importance for future study. Once investigations concluded, Seahenge was placed on display at Lynn Museum, in the town of King s Lynn near Holme-Next-The-Sea. Originally, it had been difficult to find a museum to house the circle (British Archaeology 2001), but the circle is now displayed in the Lynn Museum's Seahenge Gallery in its original formation, allowing both locals and 6

8 visitors the opportunity to see the monument. According to the Norfolk City Council, they hope that visitors will flock to the newly restored Lynn Museum to speculate on the ancient meaning behind the timbers - which we were able to rescue for all time from further damage, (BBC News 25 Mar 2008). The excavation of Seahenge was therefore the best possible outcome for the site in such trying conditions. Firstly the threat of erosion and the potential destruction of Seahenge warranted the salvage excavation of the timber circle. Had the circle been left in situ, Seahenge would have rapidly eroded in the sea. Secondly, the site required excavation so as to add unique scientific knowledge regarding both the Bronze Age community who built the circle and Seahenge itself. The construction techniques used, the use of the monument as a symbolic link to the underworld, and information on the ancient ecosystem are all now known. Thirdly, the wooden circle had to be excavated to enable the preservation of the monument. Seahenge itself is now accessible to everyone as it is currently on display at Lynn museum. People are now freely welcome to enjoy and study the circle. Although not everyone is happy, this is certainly the best possible outcome for the site. 7

9 Bibliography Ampim, M 2007, The Discovery of Queen Hatshepsut's Mummy: Fact or Fiction?, viewed 30 April 2009, < BBC News 25 March 2008, 'Ancient Seahenge 'Returns Home'', viewed 30 April 2009, < Bradley, R 2000, An Archaeology of Natural Places, Routledge, London; New York. Brennand, M & Taylor, M 2003, 'The Survey and Excavation of a Bronze Age Timber Circle at Holme-Next-The-Sea, Norfolk, ', Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, vol 69, pp Brennand, M 2004, 'Seahenge Story', British Archaeology, vol 78, viewed 27 March 2009, < British Archaeology 2001, 'Seahenge Timber Circle Heading for Reburial', vol 57, viewed 6 May 2009, < Channel 4 29 December 1999, 'The Wooden 'Henge' Rescued from the Sea Off the Norfolk Coast: Seahenge', viewed 6 May 2009, < Colley, S 2003, Uncovering Australia: Archaeology, Indigenous People and the Public, Allen & Unwin, Crow's Nest, NSW. Denison, S 2000, 'In Brief: Dating Seahenge', British Archaeology, vol 51, viewed 6 May 2009, < Eastern Daily Press 13 January 2007, 'Seahenge Ready to Return to Norfolk', viewed 6 May 2009, < ws&tbrand=edponline&tcategory=news&itemid=noed14%20jan%202007%2019%3a3 2%3A24%3A577>. 8

10 El-Baz, F 1987, Geographic and Geologic Setting, Wall Paintings of the Tomb of Nefertari: Scientific Studies for their Conservation: First Progress Report, July 1987, pp , The Egyptian Antiquities Organization; The Getty Conservation Institute, Cairo, Egypt; Century City, United States. English Heritage 2003, Coastal Defence and the Historic Environment: English Heritage Guidance, Arkle Print. McCarthy, M 11 January 2001, 'You Wait Millennia for a Seahenge and then Two Come Along at Once', The Independent, viewed 30 April 2009, < McCarthy, M 16 June 1999, Druids and Pagans Stop Seahenge Being Moved, The Independent, viewed 1 May 2009, < Pratty, J 9 January 2002, Seahenge Scanning Completed, Culture24, viewed 7 May 2009, < art10705>. Pryor, F 2003, Britain B.C.: Life in Britain and Ireland Before the Romans, HarperCollins, London. Renfrew, C & Bahn, P 2004, Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice, Thames & Hudson, London. Roberts, P 2006, River in the Desert: A Modern Traveller in Ancient Egypt, Tauris Parke Paperbacks, London. Time Team Special 03 The Mystery of Seahenge 1999, video recording, Channel 4. 9

11 Wallis, R 2001, 'Waking Ancestor Spirits: Neo-Shamanic Engagements with Archaeology', The Archaeology of Shamanism, ed N. Price, Routledge, London, pp