Current Archaeology, No.167, March 2000
In the spring of 2050 BC a mature oak tree was blown over, perhaps during a great storm. At some point during the following year the upper part of the tree was chopped away from the bole with a bronze axe, and tow holes were expertly cut in the lower part of the trunk.
In the same season of the following year, 2049 BC, the great bole was harnessed with rope manufactured from interwoven strands of honeysuckle and a family or small community dragged it across the landscape to a flat and wet marsh. It was accompanied by 55 whole or split large oak branches and trunks,which perhaps acted as skids or rollers to aid the dragging of the bole. A pit was excavated and the bole was inverted into the hole, with the roots pointing towards the sky. A trench was excavated around the bole and the large timber posts were placed within the trench to form a solid palisade.
Except for the occasional crack between the fimbers, there was no way to see into the centre. The only point where access was possible was through a forked post, which had been blocked, perhaps as a final gesture when the original ceremonies were finished.
On a cold day in September 1998 we walked out across a North Norfolk beach to visit a wooden structure that had just been reported to Norfolk Landscape Archaeology by a local man called John Lorimer. It was his discovery of a bronze palstave (axe) to the immediate north of the structure that aroused his suspicions about the posts. We walked out across a bleak, windswept landscape of broken and eroded peat beds toward the retreating tide and what was likely to be a few stakes from a fishtrap protruding from the marine mud.
Within an eroded hollow in the grey silty muds and flooded with seawater from the retreating tide, was possibly the most remarkable sight to confront a prehistoric archaeologist. A circle of upright posts surrounded a large tree trunk, with the stumps of the rotten and eroded branches still stretching skyward. These were not just the dark soil stains of long rotted timbers but the posts themselves! There were no doubts in our minds that the structure was prehistoric and most likely Bronze Age - contemporary with the palstave found to the north.
We returned to undertake an evaluation of the site during the stormy autumn of 1998. The timbers lay in the middle of the intertidal zone and were only exposed for one to four hours a day. This obviously caused problems when we started excavation. The excess water had to be pumped from the site each day before work began (not to mention the delicate removal of the sea-life) and a hasty, but ordered, retreat had to be beaten at the end of each day.
The structure was composed of 55 posts of oak forming a continuous circle (actually an ellipse) with a maximum diameter of 6.60 metres. The eroded tips of the stumps protruded for about 0.30m from the eroded surface and despite the battering of the sea and the holes left by boring molluscs, some of the bark was still intact. There was no apparent entrance or a break in the circle. The central tree was an oak tree and we initially considered it might even have been growing in-situ.
It was several days before reality dawned. Huddled in our Land-Rover drinking a last cup of coffee before facing the icy water, we watched the great timber emerge from the sea. Then it came to us. We were not looking at broken and eroded branches. The 'branches' were in fact the roots! There could be no doubt. It had to be a ritual or ceremonial monument.
On the surface, the surrounding posts appeared as whole tree trunks split once down the centre. The majority of the posts were positioned with the bark to the outside of the circle and the split face to the inside. From the outside, the structure must have appeared as a continuous wall of bark.
It was immediately evident that the sea had scoured the inside of the circle and there were no intact ground surfaces surviving within the circle. The inside of the circle was thoroughly cleaned by trowel but a construction cut for the posts or the bole could not be identified. A narrow trench was excavated to the north of the circle and the surrounding area was sampled with a gauge auger, but we could find no trace of a surrounding ditch. A narrow slot was excavated from the inside face of one of the posts across to the inverted bole. Beneath the ground the post was substantially wider than its eroded top, and was embedded for a depth of one metre. No artefacts were recovered from this evaluation, although wrapped around the buried base of the inverted bole was a rope formed of strands of plant fibre, later identified as honeysuckle. This was, to our knowledge, the first time this plant had been used as rope in prehistory. Experiments by Channel 4's Time Team showed it to be perfectly capable of moving an object weighing up to two tons. At the close of the evaluation, four posts and the central tree were sampled for dendrochronological dating and the structure was left alone to face the winter storms.
The site appeared on the front page of The Independent on 19th January 1999 as the 'Stonehenge of the Sea'. The local press promptly christened the site 'Seahenge' which is inaccurate on both counts (it is not a henge and was never at sea). But the name has stuck, and between January and May 1999 the site entertained over 16,000 visitors.
A major problem is that it was situated in an ecologically highly sensitive area, where large numbers of visitors would cause much damage. It is an S.S.S.I - a site of Special Scientific Interest, protected by law, and run for English Nature by the Norfolk Wildlife Trust. It has a large population of a bird known as a knott, which overwinters in Norfolk, and then flies to Siberia to breed in the summer. And unless it is left alone to put on a lot of weight, it will not make the long journey to Siberia. It is essential therefore that they should not be disturbed: the archaeologists would only be allowed to dig between May and August, when the knott was in Siberia. Visitors, and publicity were at all times discouraged. We had to try and keep publicity to a minimum. It was not always very easy!
The circle was originally constructed in a marshy freshwater 'backswamp', behind a protective coastal barrier of dunes. During the Later Bronze Age the climate worsened and the timber circle was covered by peat which formed an anaerobic covering which preserved the timbers. Recently however this barrier has retreated, and the sea has moved inland and engulfed the circle and rapidly began to destroy the peat. This is the root cause of the threat to the site.
From the outset it was evident that the long term safety of the timber circle could not be guaranteed on the beach. The reasons for believing the site was threatened were based on scientific surveys and archaeological evidence. Despite the circle's survival for 4000 years the state of the wood was very poor. The circle had survived in an anaerobic environment beneath a protective capping of peat, which formed over the timbers during the Bronze Age.
However when the sea broke through the dunes, the peat would not last long. When these peat beds were first exposed in the 1980's they were 0.60m (two feet) thick. Now only isolated, thin basal fragments survive. Once the sea had removed the peat, and exposed the timbers to the air and saltwater, the destruction was rapid. Molluscs burrowed into the wood and weakened the timbers. The posts actually caused eddies in the water and increased the erosive process around themselves. Seawater and the periodic exposure and drying at each low tide steadily weakened the wood. A covering of sand would not produce an anaerobic environment like peat, but would continue to expose the timbers to destructive microbes.
Local people claim that the circle has been known for many years and was periodically exposed and buried. However, there is evidence to suggest that as recently as 1985 the surrounding timbers were at least 0.80m higher than they were in 1999. Removed from the protection of the peat the timbers were rapidly being eaten away. No 4000-year-old timber can survive for long in the open air, certainly not for another 4000 years!
Various engineering solutions were put forward. Protecting the site by covering it in clay or surrounding it with concrete would not only be expensive, impractical and short term, but would also mean that the structure would no longer be visible. To cap the site with any material would simply expose it to the full force of the sea and actually increase the risk of damage. The decision was made to excavate the timbers so that they may be studied, conserved and displayed close to the original site but in a more secure surrounding.
It was repeatedly suggested that we should have built a cofferdam around the site. However the dam would have to be built on sand and similar soft basal material, and the measures required to construct a dam high enough to keep a storm tide out would have challenged the skills of any engineer.
Furthermore, the 'knock-on' damage to the surrounding area, caused both by construction plant and consequent tidal eddies and currents, would have been considerable. The site was also in a SSSI, and the peat beds, which are a major food source for some of the most precious bird species, would have been very severely damaged by such a heavyhanded approach.
The excavation commenced on Wednesday May 26th. We returned to find that the timbers had been severely battered by the winter storms, and numerous fragments had been lost. It was clear that it would not survive many more winters like this. We also found a large public and media presence and the structure covered in thick gloopy mud which had to be removed and bagged up before work could begin.
This was, of course, no ordinary excavation. The site often resembled a World War 1 trench rather than an archaeological site. However, our approach was that of archaeological investigation. The site was completely covered with several metres of water twice a day leaving mud, detritus and sealife within the trenches. Pumping and bailing was required before work could start and the window of opportunity was exceptionally short (a maximum of four hours). It could take up to half the site time just to get back to where we left off the day before.
There was no sign of a construction trench or excavated slot for the timbers on the surface of the silt. But once the first post had been removed, the evidence for a trench was visible in section. Discrete changes in the shades of the silt suggested the posts had been placed in the centre of a wide trench with a U-shaped profile that became wider and shallower towards the top. This suggested that the trench originally incorporated a shallow ramp. This might in turn imply that the timbers inserted into the trench were tall enough to require pulling up into place. At least one of the posts had a wooden block wedged against its outer face, possibly to try and rectify a lean. It is currently believed that the structure was built in one event, but this will require dendrochronological confirmation.
Numerous environmental samples were taken to define the changes in the soil and the extent of any cut features. It was a great relief when pieces of wood were found within the backfill of the bedding trench. These included a variety of off-cuts, wedges and fragments of poles. The location of the pieces of wood helped to define the extents of the construction trench and suggested that last minute trimming of the upright timbers was taking place on the site itself. At every second timber a radiating section was drawn, sampled and photographed. This section included the central area, the bedding trench and a small part of the exterior.
All the timbers have been removed to Flag Fen where they are to be studied in detail by Maisie Taylor. During this time a decision will be made about conservation. A Forum has been set up by Norfolk Museum Service to decide on the timbers' future. This Forum includes representatives of the Museums Service, the District and Parish Councils, the landowner, English Heritage, Druids, Pagans and other interested parties, including local archaeologists.
So what was it? Its location was probably too marginal to allow permanent settlement and there are many obvious parallels with known later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age ceremonial and funerary sites. But the process of post-excavation research has only just begun and it would be very unwise to speculate much further.
One final thought. The excavation and removal of 'Seahenge' caused a great deal of public interest and concern, especially amongst the Holme residents. There were other interests too. There were a number of 'Druids' and pagans who saw the site as one that had been sacred to the religions of the past, and the work on site was interrupted by protesters on more than one occasion. The profession as a whole must learn from this. 'Seahenge' will not be a one-off. Every year dozens of circular ritual sites are excavated up and down the country. Whose turn next?
This account was written for an archaeological readership by the directors of the work.
You can compare it with the newspaper and other magazine treatments: