Page 85 - Hrobat Virloget, Katja, et al., eds. (2015). Stone narratives: heritage, mobility, performance. University of Primorska Press, Koper.
P. 85
public presentation of stone monuments
that forts like Housesteads would be a lot more interesting than the Wall. I also knew that
Housesteads had a museum which I hoped would not only explain information about the
fort itself, but about life in Roman Britain and other things such as the Roman empire, Ro-
man soldiers etc.« The respondent’s expectations were unfulfilled by their visit to the site
(Adkins et al, 2013, p. 165).
Hadrian’s Wall from this perspective is part of a much broader narrative about the so-
cial, economic, cultural and political drivers of the Roman Empire. The Wall is not in itself
the narrative; it is an object (admittedly a big one!) that illustrates a narrative. Once artic-
ulated this is clearly self-evident; to understand any frontier you must understand the con-
text in which the frontier was created and the impacts it had (or has) on people either side of
it. Immediately the narrative of the Roman frontier resonates with the modern world and
becomes part of the visitor’s life experience. This wider context and modern resonance be-
comes even clearer through the transformation of Hadrian’s Wall from being an independ-
ent World Heritage Site into being part of the transnational Frontiers of the Roman Em-
pire World Heritage Site.
People are interested in people. At the simplest and most direct level, people are in-
terested in the everyday life of people in the past because this is something they can relate
to. Themes such as love, families, children, work, crafts, fashion, food and drink provide a
direct connection between present and past. At a deeper level people are also interested in
the broader context in which people lived their lives in the past including language, com-
munications, ethnicity, social relations, religion, economics, nationhood and governance,
provided these themes are presented in ways that enable modern visitors to connect. As
suggested by the reaction to the frontier theme above, if presented in the right way these
deeper, more complex themes have the potential to challenge and provoke the visitor and
so to engage them more deeply with the past.
Informed by the visitor research, by the need to improve public presentation along
Hadrian’s Wall and by the principles of good interpretation, the Hadrian’s Wall Interpre-
tation Framework was developed to guide much needed investment to improve the visitor
experience (Adkins & Mills, 2011; Mills & Adkins, 2013). The term framework was used
very deliberately to distinguish it from a strategy. A strategy implies a clearly set out cost-
ed plan to be implemented over a set timescale. This has the disadvantage for a complex site
like Hadrian’s Wall, with multiple sites where investment is likely to take place as part of a
rolling programme over a long time frame, that the environment in which the strategy was
first developed will change. Funding opportunities for major investment are notoriously
fickle, new technology may become available, there may be changes in management etc, all
of which can result in the strategy quickly becoming outdated.
The Framework takes a more flexible approach, setting out basic principles and pro-
posing a central concept and a range of themes which form a menu through which inter-
pretation plans for sites along Hadrian’s Wall can be developed in response to opportuni-
ties as they become available, enabling each site or museum to develop its own distinctive
and complementary offer and to benefit through the experience of others. The Framework
has the potential to be useful over a long time frame.
The interpretation themes suggested in the framework are not intended to be used
rigidly, as a list, with different sites delivering interpretation focused on a different theme
83
that forts like Housesteads would be a lot more interesting than the Wall. I also knew that
Housesteads had a museum which I hoped would not only explain information about the
fort itself, but about life in Roman Britain and other things such as the Roman empire, Ro-
man soldiers etc.« The respondent’s expectations were unfulfilled by their visit to the site
(Adkins et al, 2013, p. 165).
Hadrian’s Wall from this perspective is part of a much broader narrative about the so-
cial, economic, cultural and political drivers of the Roman Empire. The Wall is not in itself
the narrative; it is an object (admittedly a big one!) that illustrates a narrative. Once artic-
ulated this is clearly self-evident; to understand any frontier you must understand the con-
text in which the frontier was created and the impacts it had (or has) on people either side of
it. Immediately the narrative of the Roman frontier resonates with the modern world and
becomes part of the visitor’s life experience. This wider context and modern resonance be-
comes even clearer through the transformation of Hadrian’s Wall from being an independ-
ent World Heritage Site into being part of the transnational Frontiers of the Roman Em-
pire World Heritage Site.
People are interested in people. At the simplest and most direct level, people are in-
terested in the everyday life of people in the past because this is something they can relate
to. Themes such as love, families, children, work, crafts, fashion, food and drink provide a
direct connection between present and past. At a deeper level people are also interested in
the broader context in which people lived their lives in the past including language, com-
munications, ethnicity, social relations, religion, economics, nationhood and governance,
provided these themes are presented in ways that enable modern visitors to connect. As
suggested by the reaction to the frontier theme above, if presented in the right way these
deeper, more complex themes have the potential to challenge and provoke the visitor and
so to engage them more deeply with the past.
Informed by the visitor research, by the need to improve public presentation along
Hadrian’s Wall and by the principles of good interpretation, the Hadrian’s Wall Interpre-
tation Framework was developed to guide much needed investment to improve the visitor
experience (Adkins & Mills, 2011; Mills & Adkins, 2013). The term framework was used
very deliberately to distinguish it from a strategy. A strategy implies a clearly set out cost-
ed plan to be implemented over a set timescale. This has the disadvantage for a complex site
like Hadrian’s Wall, with multiple sites where investment is likely to take place as part of a
rolling programme over a long time frame, that the environment in which the strategy was
first developed will change. Funding opportunities for major investment are notoriously
fickle, new technology may become available, there may be changes in management etc, all
of which can result in the strategy quickly becoming outdated.
The Framework takes a more flexible approach, setting out basic principles and pro-
posing a central concept and a range of themes which form a menu through which inter-
pretation plans for sites along Hadrian’s Wall can be developed in response to opportuni-
ties as they become available, enabling each site or museum to develop its own distinctive
and complementary offer and to benefit through the experience of others. The Framework
has the potential to be useful over a long time frame.
The interpretation themes suggested in the framework are not intended to be used
rigidly, as a list, with different sites delivering interpretation focused on a different theme
83
