Page 84 - Hrobat Virloget, Katja, et al., eds. (2015). Stone narratives: heritage, mobility, performance. University of Primorska Press, Koper.
P. 84
stone narratives
as illustrated by a recent comment on Tripadvisor: »It’s a couple of bricks in a bit of mud.
More fun at a funeral. What do you expect from a wall though? Next time I fancy trek-
king through debris. I’ll go to a construction site. P.S. Full of weirdos in Berghaus« (Tri-
pAdvisor 2014)
Once a visitor has seen one place, why should they go and see another as they all seem
the same? There appeared to be a need for each place to tell a different story in different
ways to appeal to different groups of visitors and to encourage them to visit more of the
sites.
That this was the case was confirmed in an extensive programme of visitor research
undertaken to assess what potential (rather than existing) visitors thought about Hadrian’s
Wall (Adkins & Holmes, 2011; Adkins, Holmes & Mills, 2013). The research was carried
out in 2009–10 and comprised qualitative research involving four focus groups supported
by quantitative assessment through over 300 telephone interviews. An important element
in the focus group research was the use of mood boards through which to explore reactions
to suggested interpretation themes and approaches.
A key conclusion from the research was that Hadrian’s Wall is not well known and is
not perceived as an attractive or easy place to visit as illustrated by the following response
from a focus group participant: »I just thought it was a wall and a bit boring. I didn’t real-
ise there were different places to go, I thought it was all the same.« Other responses includ-
ed the words »remote«, »desolate«, »moorland«, »cold and bleak«, »stones and ruins«,
»wild open spaces« (Adkins & Holmes, 2011, pp. 15–16; Mills et al., 2013, p. 159) which,
whilst they might appeal to certain audiences, are clearly off-putting for others. These re-
sponses reflect the Tripadvisor comment noted previously.
A second key conclusion was that widening the interpretive offer to encompass wid-
er narratives would provide a clear opportunity to broaden the visitor offer and start to ad-
dress issues of perception, appeal and attracting new audiences. Focus group respondents
reacted strongly and positively to many of the mood boards, particularly one which cap-
tured the idea of Hadrian’s Wall forming part of a frontier between the Roman Empire
and the non-Roman world. »This held immediate fascination for all focus group partic-
ipants. Unprompted, participants compared Hadrian’s Wall to known modern frontiers,
walls and barriers built to separate people for political, social and economic purposes; par-
ticipants were able to relate contemporary issues and troubles to the past and, in doing so,
could see the Roman world as complex and many-sided – just as they view 20th-century
history and the modern world as studied at school and college.«
»This immediate and significant change in participants’ knowledge and perception
of Hadrian’s Wall indicates how public knowledge and appreciation of the World Heritage
Site could be improved through a broader approach to site interpretation and presentation.
By interpreting Hadrian’s Wall and its associated sites as part of the north-west frontier of
the Roman Empire, instead of providing a narrow focus on the Wall and its archaeology,
the scope for visitor understanding and experience is immediately enlarged.« (Adkins et
al., 2013, 161)
A comment from a focus group respondent underlined gaps in current interpretation
and opportunities to fill them: »Prior to visiting the site (Housesteads), I had a positive
expectation as to what to expect. I knew that the Wall itself was just a wall, but I thought
82
as illustrated by a recent comment on Tripadvisor: »It’s a couple of bricks in a bit of mud.
More fun at a funeral. What do you expect from a wall though? Next time I fancy trek-
king through debris. I’ll go to a construction site. P.S. Full of weirdos in Berghaus« (Tri-
pAdvisor 2014)
Once a visitor has seen one place, why should they go and see another as they all seem
the same? There appeared to be a need for each place to tell a different story in different
ways to appeal to different groups of visitors and to encourage them to visit more of the
sites.
That this was the case was confirmed in an extensive programme of visitor research
undertaken to assess what potential (rather than existing) visitors thought about Hadrian’s
Wall (Adkins & Holmes, 2011; Adkins, Holmes & Mills, 2013). The research was carried
out in 2009–10 and comprised qualitative research involving four focus groups supported
by quantitative assessment through over 300 telephone interviews. An important element
in the focus group research was the use of mood boards through which to explore reactions
to suggested interpretation themes and approaches.
A key conclusion from the research was that Hadrian’s Wall is not well known and is
not perceived as an attractive or easy place to visit as illustrated by the following response
from a focus group participant: »I just thought it was a wall and a bit boring. I didn’t real-
ise there were different places to go, I thought it was all the same.« Other responses includ-
ed the words »remote«, »desolate«, »moorland«, »cold and bleak«, »stones and ruins«,
»wild open spaces« (Adkins & Holmes, 2011, pp. 15–16; Mills et al., 2013, p. 159) which,
whilst they might appeal to certain audiences, are clearly off-putting for others. These re-
sponses reflect the Tripadvisor comment noted previously.
A second key conclusion was that widening the interpretive offer to encompass wid-
er narratives would provide a clear opportunity to broaden the visitor offer and start to ad-
dress issues of perception, appeal and attracting new audiences. Focus group respondents
reacted strongly and positively to many of the mood boards, particularly one which cap-
tured the idea of Hadrian’s Wall forming part of a frontier between the Roman Empire
and the non-Roman world. »This held immediate fascination for all focus group partic-
ipants. Unprompted, participants compared Hadrian’s Wall to known modern frontiers,
walls and barriers built to separate people for political, social and economic purposes; par-
ticipants were able to relate contemporary issues and troubles to the past and, in doing so,
could see the Roman world as complex and many-sided – just as they view 20th-century
history and the modern world as studied at school and college.«
»This immediate and significant change in participants’ knowledge and perception
of Hadrian’s Wall indicates how public knowledge and appreciation of the World Heritage
Site could be improved through a broader approach to site interpretation and presentation.
By interpreting Hadrian’s Wall and its associated sites as part of the north-west frontier of
the Roman Empire, instead of providing a narrow focus on the Wall and its archaeology,
the scope for visitor understanding and experience is immediately enlarged.« (Adkins et
al., 2013, 161)
A comment from a focus group respondent underlined gaps in current interpretation
and opportunities to fill them: »Prior to visiting the site (Housesteads), I had a positive
expectation as to what to expect. I knew that the Wall itself was just a wall, but I thought
82
