THE SEAHENGE CONTROVERSY

Never before has a Time Team programme been the focus of so much public interest and controversy as the Christmas Special on Seahenge, screened on 29 December. The Time Team website alone saw more than 600 Forum postings and e-mails on the subject during the following few days. The great majority, initially at least, were critical of both the removal of the timber circle from its location on the Norfolk foreshore and the felling of a 150-year-old oak and 20 younger trees for the Time Team reconstruction. The images of the removal of Seahenge's central stump, in particular, clearly carried immense emotional weight. Many of those who commented viewed it as an act of 'desecration', compounded by the felling of a mature oak tree as the centrepiece of the modern reconstruction. (You can follow the debate which resulted from the programme – and add your own opinion – on the Time Team Forum.)

Much of the criticism, however, was founded on a misunderstanding of the nature of the programme, the reasons for the removal of the circle and the source of the timber used in the reconstruction. The aim of this page is to provide some of the background information necessary to place the controversy in context and enable an informed discussion to take place.

Not a 'normal' Time Team programme

The first thing to bear in mind is that this was not a 'normal' Time Team programme. The decision to excavate and remove the Seahenge timbers was the responsibility of English Heritage, made on the basis of the best expert advice available to them. Time Team played no part in that decision, nor did it take a view on it. The Team's role, on this occasion, was that of observer; the resulting programme was more of a 'fly on the wall' documentary than the familiar Time Team investigation. The programme tried to present both sides of the argument as fairly as possible, and to record events as they unfolded. Both Tony Robinson and, at the end, Francis Pryor, one of the archaeologists in charge of the excavation, also spoke at some length about the 'feel' and spiritual significance of such places.

Why English Heritage decided to remove the circle

When Seahenge was constructed, 4000 years ago, the site on which it stood was between three and 30 miles inland (depending on which estimates one accepts of the rate of coastal erosion). Since then, coastal erosion and rising sea levels have taken their toll, so that when it was first brought to the attention of English Heritage, it was only exposed for a few hours at a time around low tides. That exposure seems to have been a relatively recent thing, although some locals do recall sightings of the circle as long as 50 years ago. For most of the period since the sea first covered the land on which it stood it has been buried (and protected) under sand, but winter storms in 1998 washed away a protective sandbank and exposed the site.

The original intention of English Heritage had been merely to record the monument and then leave it to the elements. The now infamous chainsawed slice was taken from the central stump at this time because it was not thought possible to obtain a suitable sample for dendrochronological purposes by other, less destructive means. A campaign was mounted, however, for the excavation and preservation of the timbers, to which English Heritage subsequently agreed.

A number of factors led to the decision to remove the timbers. Time Team's Mick Aston believes that it might have been possible, had the necessary finance been made available, to build a dyke behind which the circle could have been protected. But English Heritage's view was that, even if the money could have been found, the practicalities of the site would have ruled out such an option. Erecting a dam to keep the timbers constantly immersed in water was considered, but experts felt that the geology did not lend itself to this solution. A coffer dam that left the timbers exposed would have raised immense problems of preservation. It was the lack of oxygen when they were buried under water, clay and sand that helped to preserve them for so long; insect and other damage was already evident as a result of their being exposed.

Additionally, the site of the monument is an SSSI (site of special scientific interest), a national nature reserve and a wetland of international importance. It is home to a number of protected species. Increased visitor numbers had already threatened the fragile ecology of the site; these would have increased as a result of any attempted preservation in situ. Any dam or other construction to preserve the monument would also have had unpredictable effects on coastal erosion locally, most likely to the detriment of local wildlife habitats.

The decision was taken, therefore, to excavate and remove the timbers to the Flag Fen Laboratories, near Peterborough, where they could be studied and preserved. Although no final agreement has been reached, English Heritage has also pledged to put the preserved timbers on display in a location as near as practicable to their original site. It was only at this point, with all the relevant decisions about the future of Seahenge having been taken, that Time Team became involved in order to record the excavation and removal.

The felling of the trees

Damien Goodburn, Time Team's woodworking expert, who led the modern reconstruction of the Seahenge monument in the 29 December programme, spoke to Time Team website editor Steve Platt about the felling of one 150-year-old and 20 younger oaks for the reconstruction. This summarises what he had to say:

All of the trees felled for the Time Team reconstruction come from a site (in Bromley, southeast London) that is managed for conservation purposes. Its management involves the felling and renewal of a variety of tree species on a regular, cyclical basis. The 20 younger oaks came from an area of coppiced woodland; all of them will regrow from the stumps. The mature oak stood in a particularly dark area of woodland in which selective felling was needed to let in light to the forest floor and encourage the growth of smaller fauna and less mature trees.

This particular area of woodland has been managed in this way for at least 500 years. Indeed, it is currently managed by a member of the same family who have had an interest in the land for most of that period. All activity on the site is entirely environmentally sustainable. Time Team would never use materials that were not obtained in a sustainable manner. The success of the management programme is demonstrated by the fact that deer have recently returned to the woodland for the first time in many decades, while other species are also returning and flourishing.

Particular care was taken, incidentally, during the felling of the large oak to protect a mature rowan tree growing in its shadow. Like the oak, the rowan is considered by some to have magical, or spiritual, significance. It will now flourish where once the oak stood.

UPDATE: The following press release was issued by Bromley Council on 26 June 2000, marking the conclusion of its investigation into the felling of trees for the reconstruction featured in the Time Team Seahenge Special:

'On 29 December 1999 Channel 4 broadcast a special Time Team programme about "Seahenge". During the programme, trees were shown being felled in a woodland in Bromley and the timber was used for the reconstruction of "Seahenge" in Norfolk. Following the programme a number of residents contacted Bromley Council expressing concern about the tree felling and in particular the uprooting of a 150-year-old oak.

The trees are in a wood within Bromley Borough where all the trees are protected by Tree Preservation Orders. Any work to these trees needed the agreement of the Council before work was undertaken. No consent had been given for the felling to take place, although the landowner had previously had agreement for management work within the wood. This had expired before the making of the programme.

The Council has interviewed the main parties concerned, taken into account all of the circumstances leading to and following the felling and has resolved to take no further action. Discussions are taking place with the landowner about the future management of the woodland.

Time Team have stated, "We regret the controversy that arose around the felling of the oak tree at Bromley. The archaeological experiment that was undertaken for the "Seahenge" programme was a valuable one in that the reconstruction added substantially to people's understanding of the structure and the methods that must have been employed in its original construction. Time Team would like to make it clear that they acted in good faith. Whilst accepting that the felling appears to have been a technical breach of the law, they are pleased that all parties agree that this particular landowner takes his responsibility for woodland management seriously."'

Agreement on removal of the monument

The Time Team Seahenge Special featured a number of Druids and other protesters opposed to the removal of the monument. What was perhaps not made clear, however, was that, in June 1999, a meeting took place involving English Heritage, local archaeological and wildlife groups and the main protesters. At this meeting, which went on for five hours, agreement was reached about how to proceed. We have reproduced the minutes of that meeting here in full to provide further background and to give a flavour of the issues discussed.

Minutes of meeting, Tuesday 22 June 1999

Venue – Le Strange Hotel (Hunstanton)

Present:
Linda Gerrigan – protester
Lauren Bleach – protester
Shelly Waldrick – local resident
Mark Brennand – Norfolk Archaeological Unit
Bill Boismier – Norfolk Archaeological Unit
Bill Boyd – Norfolk Wildlife Trust
Gary Hibberd – Norfolk Wildlife Trust
Des Crow – protester
Sam Jones – protester
Philip Walker – English Heritage
David Miles – English Heritage
Clare Prout – chair

Also invited:
Buster – protester
Geoff Needham – parish councillor
Melvin Lambert – local businessman
Le Strange Estate – owners of the land. David Miles authorised to speak for them.

Clare opened the meeting by stating the aims of the meeting, which were to:

1. share information and knowledge about all aspects of the site;

2. agree how the excavation might go ahead;

3. decide how the excavated timbers might be managed.

Des disagreed with 2), stating that he was opposed outright to the removal of the timbers. The group agreed that a starting point of discussion on whether excavation should proceed topic was appropriate.

Clare stated that her own interest for this meeting was the peaceful resolution of a difficult situation, and that this be done in a sacred way, asking our Deities and Ancestors to be present; using a Talking Stick to conduct discussion; that no one group had more rights over the site than any other. All in the group agreed. She also said that she had campaigned for the excavation of the site when English Heritage (EH) had initially planned to simply record it.

Clare then asked people to introduce themselves to the group and briefly share their interest in the site. Then she asked the group to hold hands and Des invited the presence of our Deities and Ancestors. As a group the Awen, a Druidic chant, was made.

Discussions began with Linda explaining that the site had a planetary significance, that it had been uncovered naturally at this time for a reason and, for this reason, should not be removed.

Lauren agreed with this, and contributed her geomantic and earth mysteries study of the site. Lauren said that the timbers were acting as an acupressure point on the earth, and that Ley lines connected it to Stonehenge, Walsingham and other sacred sites.

Shelly agreed too, but wondered if it was possible for part of the site to be excavated, so that archaeological studies could be made of the site whilst maintaining the spiritual value of the location.

Mark Brennand explained that, in his opinion, the entire site would need to be excavated to gain a full understanding of it. He said that the cut marks on the wood could reveal who was involved in its construction and that the peat deposits might yield artifacts that could cast light on its purpose.

Bill Boyd shared his deep concerns about the impact of increased tourism on the beach which is a National Nature Reserve, Site of Special Scientific Interest, Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar convention, Special Protection Area (for its bird interest) and candidate Special Area for Conservation. He explained that the peat deposits were very fragile and the food source for internationally important numbers and species of birds who were very vulnerable to fright. If their food source – the plants and animals that live on the peat – continued to be damaged by the numbers of people visiting the site, they would die of starvation. If the birds were too frightened to land on the beach due to visitor numbers they would die of exhaustion.

Gary Hibberd, the warden for the site for the last 10 years, also expressed his fears for the site and the wildlife. Both he and Bill Boyd were for the excavation of the timbers because the circle was creating vastly increased tourism to the beach. He also explained the process by which peat is created. It takes decades to develop and the conditions on the beach mean that no new peat deposits can be created.

Bill Boismier supported Mark's views and the views of Norfolk Wildlife Trust. He noted that both groups were under considerable strain in trying to do their jobs and respecting the needs of protesters and tourists. He also noted that the local paper seemed interested only in conflict rather than informing the readership about the issues in a balanced way.

Des said that he was on site to protect it. He said that the way in which it had been treated, specifically using a chainsaw to take material from it, was grossly abusive. He wanted the site to remain on the beach and for those timbers already excavated to be returned. The site was built as a ceremonial focus and was sacred to its builders – it remains a living place of reverence and should be treated with the same respect as a church.

Sam agreed, and added that the meeting had the opportunity to create a peaceful way forward which could be a template for future excavations.

David Miles said that he was profoundly sorry that a chainsaw had been used but that this decision had been taken before he was assigned to the project. He also explained how the site had been preserved: it was built about 30 miles inland and the land then would have become boggy, resulting in layers of peat forming over the timbers and sealing out air. As coastal erosion continued the peat became covered in sand. And this same erosion now uncovered the timbers. He also noted that the site was degrading swiftly, by the actions of the sea and insect and marine animal activity.

David also shared his experience of archaeological excavation in the Middle East where sacred sites were formally deconsecrated by clergy before work began. He was very positive about discussing how protesters felt the site should be treated in future.

Philip Walker also expressed his regrets for the insensitive handling of the excavation and explained that the timbers were being moved to Flag Fen – another Bronze Age timber ritual site where specialist facilities would swiftly lead to a greater understanding of the timbers as well as first class preservation of them so that they could be returned as quickly as possible to the area – though not to the beach – if that was what the group decided was most appropriate.

Points of agreement:

• The site should be treated with respect.

• The site was sacred to the people who created it.

• It remains sacred to a large number of people today.

• The site contains a lot of information that can be shared, from archaeological to geomantic, and this should be shared.

• The beach is profoundly vulnerable.

• The current trend of visitor numbers will irrevocably damage the site.

• That the damage done to the site by visitors will result in the death of birds by starvation and exhaustion, and of a decline in their numbers because they will be unable to breed.

Discussion went on for five hours over which time common ground was reached.

Conclusions, agreed by all in the group:

1. That all work on the site be stopped until Monday 28th June 1999.

2. That complete excavation be continued from that date.

3. That any ritual or ceremony to mark the removal of each timber or the deconsecration of the entire site, dependent on the will of the protesters, will be welcome.

4. That the timbers will be moved to Flag Fen for the purpose of interpretation and preservation.

5. That a new timber structure be erected to mark and re-energise the site on the condition that if this new structure causes provably damaging levels of tourism it be removed or pushed deep into the earth.

6. That in principal, the timbers be returned to the area, with the possibility of a new museum being created to house them. This might be a Bronze Age village that the timbers can be part of.

English Nature and the Le Strange Estate had to be consulted over the erection of a new structure. There are so many variables to take into account over this and the creation of a new installation to display the timbers that it was felt inappropriate to give all this information to the media. However, it was agreed that all in the group could inform the people they represented, asking them to respect the need for further research before a definite announcement could be made.

Recognising that locals would want news of our conclusions, a joint statement was made (see below). The entire group also felt that the meeting had been a success and that a similar method of respectful dialogue could be used in future.

The circle was closed by the group again joining hands, thanking our Deities, Ancestors and Spirit of the Land for their inspiration, and Awening.

Joint Statement from representatives of English Heritage, Friends of Seahenge, Norfolk Archaeological Unit, Norfolk Wildlife Trust and a local resident:

It has been recognised that Seahenge is a sacred site and the beach an important and legally protected area for wildlife. Government agencies will be consulted but we believe a way forward has been found that will safeguard all our concerns.

We have reached a compromise – there are no winners or losers but we agreed about the future of the site. Archeological investigations of the site will begin next Monday with the cooperation of interested parties. We hope that this format of exchange of views will be used to make decisions about similar sites in the future.

Seahenge accessibility

The Seahenge site is off the Norfolk coast, near Holme-by-the-sea. It is actually privately owned foreshore in a very sensitive SSSI (site of special scientific interest) and national nature reserve. For this reason, Time Team has agreed not to provide too precise details of the original location. Increased visitor pressures on this very vulnerable area could cause irretrievable damage to both local flora and fauna.

The original Seahenge timbers are now at the Flag Fen Laboratories, near Peterborough. It is intended that when they have been studied and preserved they will be reconstructed and put on public display in the Norfolk region. That will obviously not be for some time.

The Seahenge reconstruction is on private land, whose owner is currently seeking planning permission to keep it there. It is visible from the road and accessible, with the owner's permission, via the fruit farm and shop on the road between Holme-by-the-Sea and the next village to the east.

Back to the Time Team Past programmes page

Back to the Seahenge page

Back to the 2000 series page