I think Ian Baxter's aim to turn the Heritage Monitor into 'THE digest' for
heritage professionals by turning it into a 'state of the historic
environment report' is a very laudable one and we should be glad to see this
happening.
I'm not at all sure about setting it up to cover all of the UK: inevitably
some parts of the UK will get incomplete coverage and confusion will arise
out of different legislative and administrative arrangements. This is not to
say that the English Monitor should not be supplemented by others for
Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man... etc.
John Clark's comment is an interesting one. Museums are excluded, but maybe
this is only right since museums now fall under Re:source which has its own
policy plans etc. But I do NOT think this makes the Monitor irrelevant to
him or other museum professionsals, especially where they also have
responsibility for or interest in archaeolgy and historic conservation more
generally. I understand about pressure of time, but if the Monitor can be
made THE source of information, consulting it will save rather than add
time. Incidentally, I note that industrial, rail and similar preservation
societies also seem to be excluded, and I wonder if they ought to be.
I don't at present have any firm suggestions on this (answers on an email?)
but it seems to me that the categories used in the Monitor at present
reflect a very narrow and rather legalistic approach to heritage issues. It
seems to me that -- whatever it faults -- 'The Power of Place' is all about
integrating elements of the historic environment into a coherent and ongoing
whole, embracing past present and future in the way we experience places.
The Monitor maybe could reflect this in adopting a new structure which does
not rely so heavily on distinguishing essentially similar types of things.
I also think there is much more to heritage than either conservation or
tourism, and so the matters addressed could also be widened considerably. At
present there are few forums where active exchanges between researchers into
the nature of heritage (like me) and people who do the actual work (e.g.
staff at EH or the NT) can take place. It is particularly important, it
seems to me, to leaven 'practice' with a bit of (dare I say this?) 'theory'
and vice versa. Together we have much to learn and our conceptions of
heritage can only be bettered by creating a place where such two-way
communication can take place. Maybe a revamped Monitor could be such a
place?
John Carman
Dr John Carman
co-Director, "Bloody Meadows" Project and
Affiliated Lecturer, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge
Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, UK
Tel: +44 (0)1223 333323
Fax: +44 (0)1223 333503
Email: [log in to unmask]
|