Sea Henge forum 15 room
Image by meg-y
Sea Henge

Seahenge. Looking back.

close
more_vert
tiompan T
tiompan Feb 12, 2013 18:38:55
Replying to bladup

bladup wrote:
harestonesdown wrote:
Howburn Digger wrote:
harestonesdown wrote:
I dunno, i just think it's so sad how it's ended up, present it now to someone who never saw the original context and it'd be a very hard to make head or tail of it. not that we've "cracked" it's meaning in any way i should add.
No-one saw it in its "original" context. The context and environment Seahenge was created in are gone aeons ago. What was revealed and excavated were the remnants after thousands of years of getting buried in sand and pummelled by the sea.
I agree it is very hard to make head or tail of or "crack" its meaning. Even large, well-preserved stone circles, tombs and alignments are still bound in mystery and conjecture. Seahenge seems to me a piece of strange ephemera... original intent... like catching fog in a net...
Well if you want to be pedantic i'm sure those who built it saw it in it's original context. :P

Btw, my thoughts are (probably influenced by being a gardener) the central oak was a way of making offerings to the earth, it makes perfect sense really. (well to me) The upside down nature was so the roots "drew" offerings down into the earth. in it's natural life the roots were responsible for drawing up nutrients, turn it upside down and it could perform the same but in reverse. i've never heard another theory that makes any sense at all.

Anyone else care to offer their theory. ?

I agree with what you said and will just add that they could by that point have been losing trees to the sea, so inland a bit they built it to try and stop this happening, trying to tap into the power of the trees to fight back against the sea, that's certainly what i get trying to look at it though ancient eyes, without the modern googles on.
Evidence from the palynology of the peat bed suggested that the site had been a salt marsh prior to being built ,with later alder and brushwood encroaching from the landward by 1300BC the area to the landward had become marsh and dune slacks .

B bladup
bladup Feb 12, 2013 19:08:43
Replying to tiompan

tiompan wrote:
bladup wrote:
harestonesdown wrote:
Howburn Digger wrote:
harestonesdown wrote:
I dunno, i just think it's so sad how it's ended up, present it now to someone who never saw the original context and it'd be a very hard to make head or tail of it. not that we've "cracked" it's meaning in any way i should add.
No-one saw it in its "original" context. The context and environment Seahenge was created in are gone aeons ago. What was revealed and excavated were the remnants after thousands of years of getting buried in sand and pummelled by the sea.
I agree it is very hard to make head or tail of or "crack" its meaning. Even large, well-preserved stone circles, tombs and alignments are still bound in mystery and conjecture. Seahenge seems to me a piece of strange ephemera... original intent... like catching fog in a net...
Well if you want to be pedantic i'm sure those who built it saw it in it's original context. :P

Btw, my thoughts are (probably influenced by being a gardener) the central oak was a way of making offerings to the earth, it makes perfect sense really. (well to me) The upside down nature was so the roots "drew" offerings down into the earth. in it's natural life the roots were responsible for drawing up nutrients, turn it upside down and it could perform the same but in reverse. i've never heard another theory that makes any sense at all.

Anyone else care to offer their theory. ?

I agree with what you said and will just add that they could by that point have been losing trees to the sea, so inland a bit they built it to try and stop this happening, trying to tap into the power of the trees to fight back against the sea, that's certainly what i get trying to look at it though ancient eyes, without the modern googles on.
Evidence from the palynology of the peat bed suggested that the site had been a salt marsh prior to being built ,with later alder and brushwood encroaching from the landward by 1300BC the area to the landward had become marsh and dune slacks .
Cheers, I think the fact it's built on this changing inbetween land and sea place is important and a massive tree truck in the ground could have been a attempt to stabilize this "climate change" or on a lighter note it may have been a kind of naughty tree - "If you Don't pack it in you'll go sit on the tree til sun's gone down" It's fun to guess, I guess.