Re: Seahenge...... | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

PeterH Oct 20, 2005 13:38:16

Replying to dee

It should have been left where it was and protected by a cofferdam as is done in Denmark and elsewhere. The structure and location were all important and now all that we have are lumps of wood. I was there just before the extraction and spoke to many people including the squatting druids. Local peole said that they had known about it for years as it was periodically uncovered and covered again. They were certain that it was in no danger from the sea - it had lasted 3000 years so why not longer!

The archaeos really made me angry as did Francis and Maisie Pryor. The obtaining and study of core samples, tool marks and micro-fossils were given as the reason for demolition - all could have been obtained while the monument remained in situ. Just imagine if Stonehenge was demolished to prevent erosion and to enable the archaeos to study the stones better. Sheer arrogant vandalism based on the assumption that heritage belongs to the academics and not to the people.

Wild Wooder Oct 20, 2005 14:14:45

Replying to PeterH

On the other hand, if it's displayed in a museum with suitable preservation techniques there's a chance that more of the people it belongs to will get to see it. I would have thought that wood in a wet environment with wind and tides would be bound to deteriorate eventually, so this seems a longer term option.
I agree that the location is important but the situation isn't really comparable to Stonehenge, given the different materials, and it must have been a difficult call. Francis Pryor said on camera that he would pay more attention to the views of others, eg new agers, in future, so perhaps his mind is opening just a bit. Don't forget, though, it's the academics who have revealed oodles about our past and who seek in their various ways to preserve it for our future.

Littlestone Oct 20, 2005 14:57:01

Replying to PeterH

>It should have been left where it was and protected by a cofferdam as is done in Denmark and elsewhere.<

Yes I agree - preserve the original <i>in situ</i> if possible. However, it usually comes down to finances and then the bottom line is 'lose it completely or save some of it' - when the options are that stark I think I'd opt for the latter.

juamei Oct 21, 2005 08:09:40

Replying to PeterH

> It should have been left where it was and protected by a cofferdam as is done in Denmark and elsewhere.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was found on a nature reserve. The pictures of the cofferdams that google provides really don't look suitable for that current location.

Seahenge​…​…

Seahenge……