Escaping for a moment from the unromantic present of transcribing
proceedings of tortuous meetings:

> So, how *does*  "the history" becomes "our heritage"? Is the transformation
> handled
> deliberately by spindoctors, or does it just flow naturally once a few key
> ideologies are
> in place? I'd love to hear the views from Cadw (or ex-Cadw, hi Angela!) and
> EH.

I would say from my doctoral and then Cadw experiences that what is most
interesting is how the mass of heterogeneous cultural flotsam and jetsam
becomes 'our heritage' through ad hoc decision making and what can only be
termed 'a series of accidents'. From the specific context of my
understanding of working within the publications unit at Cadw (I'd love to
hear from EH and Historic Scotland people) we were working within our own
'heritage' of history-making in Wales. That is, the 'definitive' texts about
ancient monuments and historic buildings in Wales in the care of the state
were produced by a team of two people (I came in too late in the game to
have made any impact on the storytelling) from the 1980s through mid '90s
who worked with 'respected' authors - the famous names in castle and abbey
architectural history like Arnold Taylor, John Kenyon, Richard Avent and
David Robinson himself.

The publications unit team felt very strongly about creating a print media
identity for Cadw that could stand up to the most robust - if conventional -
critique. It wanted to bridge the gap between popular and academic writing
to create entertaining texts that also represented the 'last word' in
scholarship. That identity was/is intimately bound up with the Royal
Commission and, to a certain extent, the National Trust. It speaks for and
about 'official' histories and is concerned with the 'best and brightest'.

There is also the interesting issue of language and identity in Wales and
certainly many Welsh-language activists felt that Cadw did not represent
their identities. Cadw's argument with that is that it does not choose which
monuments to represent, that its own activities are bound by a longer
history of state involvement in the built environment. As Cadw is not taking
any more properties into care, the bulk of the estate is to do with Edward
1, some Marcher lord castles and a number of Cistercians (to over-simplify).

But, of course, the heritage presented through Cadw's print media (but
people should note that the interpretative print on panels at sites is
produced by a separate interpretation officer) does not foreground that
'ecology'. I used to have lots of discussions with colleagues about whether
the reading public would actually be quite interested in such
contextualizing histories. But the weight of archaeological and
architectural history in Wales - the intellectual centre of which, I would
argue, is Monmouthshire - precludes significant change.

Of course a valid argument is that as a representative of the state Cadw
(and EH and Historic Scotland) faces limitations. As part of the civil
service there are standards of 'objectivity' to uphold. The possibility of
objectivity per se is, not surprisingly, not something widely discussed.

So to bring it back to the general question, I believe that if we are to
begin to answer how history becomes heritage we have to look at very
specific contexts of production and consumption. In other words we need to
explore administration systems, teams of colleagues, employment
trajectories, budgets, public sector contexts, management, who is validated
as official experts and why. And we have to look at who consumes this
cultural capital and how and what their relationships are to the producers.
From there of course we can tease out the specifics of the continuing tense
relationships between professional and academic archaeologists, which goes
beyond the simple theory/practice binary.

Back to my current context of knowledge production (yikes)
Angela

A A Piccini
Postdoctoral Research Associate
PARIP ‹ Practice as Research in Performance
Department of Drama: Theatre, Film, Television
University of Bristol
Cantocks Close, Woodland Road
Bristol BS8 1UP
T: +44 0117 954 5474
E: [log in to unmask]
W: www.bris.ac.uk/parip



23/5/02 11:54 pm

> Hello Sarah et 542,
> 
>> 5) How did castles - symbols of miltary domination - become divorced from the
>> violent context of their constructions in the minds of 21st century British
>> people (or Cornish people)
> 
> Interesting discussion point, Sarah. I assume you're referring to the way
> they've been
> 'heritagized' -- or as Stephen put it, 'recontextualised'. Specific history is
> neutralized by the superimposition of a grand narrative that somehow minimizes
> the
> violence, and portrays conflict as the result of comparatively trivial
> differences of
> opinion between royalty, about as consequential as ancient football (no
> offense intended
> to those extremely excited over World Cup). Is this bad? Hm. Compare to places
> where 14th
> century battles are taught as though they took place yesterday and must be
> avenged with
> neighbours' blood today.
> 
> So, how *does*  "the history" becomes "our heritage"? Is the transformation
> handled
> deliberately by spindoctors, or does it just flow naturally once a few key
> ideologies are
> in place? I'd love to hear the views from Cadw (or ex-Cadw, hi Angela!) and
> EH.
> 
> As some of you know, I'm writing from Canada, and those geographical and
> historical
> specifics do matter, but the general process of collectivizing/rescripting
> heritage is
> surely similar. Here, historical locations of wholesale slaughter are
> becoming
> romanticized with the rosy patina of 'heritage', repackaged and sold as
> tourist
> attractions. We're in an era when I thought we knew better, but people seem to
> feel that
> they have little choice; as global market forces work their 'magic',
> traditional
> economies collapse and 'less modern' places (e.g. small Canadian villages,
> just like
> their overseas counterparts) have nothing to trade on but their historical
> quality. And
> that means converting history to heritage. And that means downplaying war,
> murder, and
> persecution. Clearly this path has been travelled before elsewhere. I think we
> are not as
> far along in the process overall as Britain, for all kinds of reasons
> including tourist
> density, different types of built heritage, absence of King Arthur, and the
> fact that
> comparatively few people emigrate from Canada and return as tourists to find
> their roots
> and appropriate tartan etc.
> 
> David Lowenthal (who made the history/heritage distinction used above) summed
> it up in
> Possessed by the Past, I think, when he said that much heritage is "downright
> diabolical".
> 
> So why do heritage sites permit/encourage personal ceremonies there?
> Performing some kind
> of ritual at a site is an explicit act of affiliation, and in a climate where
> heritage is
> frequently perceived to be under siege (underfunded, underappreciated), the
> more
> affiliated with it, the better. Or it might not be so different from the
> Moscow tradition
> of having wedding photos taken at the Kremlin...
> 
> Kathryn
> p.s. Judging from Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones, apparently the goofy
> princess-and-prince-in-a-meadow-by-a-castle narrative transcends galaxies...
>