I spent yesterday at the Battle of Hastings site . They had a big event on to mark the upcoming anniversary of the battle, and at some point during the day, people laid down wreaths at the Harold Stone – the stone marking the place where King Harold is said to have fallen .
It made me think again about ‘place’ and interpretation. We interpreters talk about place a lot in one way or another. It’s usually about two things: on one hand, we’re concerned about communicating, or creating a sense of place for visitors , and on the other, we’re harking back to Tilden and his bit about meeting ‘the Thing Itself’, which we tend to discuss only in terms of siting panels, or getting visitors to look at something.
But place goes far deeper, and is much more complex, than simply being something we need to explain or create, or a visual focal point for an interpretive intervention. Place is a destination, a pilgrimage, as is obvious for example from roots tourism . It doesn’t even have to be a historically legitimised place in order to become a destination, as war memorials illustrate, or, for a less-obvious study, Mount Rushmore . On the other hand, where historical events are concerned, people do seem to want to know where it happened, as the search for the site of the Varusschlacht in Germany shows . And yet, if there is a strong enough marker at another site, both may continue side by side as a destination – historical authenticity not being all that important to visitors . One reason for this may be that place isn’t so much about place at all as it is about memory and social action, as Byrne has argued .
So what does this mean for interpretation? Well, first of all we need to think about the above a little more when we talk about planning, or ‘doing’ interpretation. If place is a social action with multiple layers of meaning, then we cannot pretend that interpretation is (just, or maybe even at all?) about explaining to visitors what is special about a place . In other words, we can no longer treat place as the neatly defined physical object of interpretation. It does not do to assume that ‘visitors’ come without meaning, and will not already, for example by their very act of visiting, participate in ‘narrating place’, as Byrne has called it. For many sites, meaning, and a desire to perform place, will already exist for people – as is the case at the Battle of Hastings . Some interpreters may feel that by considering prior knowledge, existing attitudes, and a whole range of other segmentations, we’re already addressing this. But I would advise caution here: for as long as the proclaimed objective of interpretation is to ‘explain’ something, to ‘change attitudes’ and to ‘evoke support for conservation’, we’re still falling into the trap of wanting to somehow change visitors – and that, I feel, too often means disenfranchising people, disrespecting their right to their heritage, ignoring their part in creating heritage.
The above makes me think that interpretation is very much about marking place, much more so perhaps than it is about anything else – at least in some places. If I look at what visitors tell me at Varusschlacht in Germany, for example, that’s what they say: they want interpretation to state this is the place where. Their favourite interpretation is the recreated Germanenwall, the turf wall from behind which the Germans attacked the Romans. And some interpreters wouldn’t even call such reconstructions interpretation! Similarly, the Harold Stone at Battle Abbey literally just states the fact: Here is where traditionally Harold is said to have fallen. But it is arguably the focal point of the entire site. Is it interpretation? 
So finally, and this is contentious even to my mind, I wonder how much interpretation as a marker of place must actually be about stating facts, giving information, and not about explaining (or revealing, as Tilden called it). Is this where facilitation lies? The giving of facts that visitors in Germany have requested, so that they may make up their own mind? I don’t know. I hope as I embark on analysing my visitors interviews over the next months, I’ll get an answer. Watch this space.
 1066 Battle of Hastings and Battle Abbey is one of my research sites for my doctorate research.
 This wasn’t a ‘scheduled’ laying down of wreaths, so unfortunately I missed the act itself. The notes that went with the wreaths suggest that they were put down by the re-enactment societies involved in the event. I actually think someone should do a proper study on re-enactment societies and what they do for the people involved. There is a scheduled wreath-laying ceremony on Monday, 14 October, the actual date of the anniversary.
 That is in a nutshell what the interpretive handbook ‘A Sense of Place’ sets out to do. Here, as with other definitions of interpretation, the objective is, in my own words, to foster appreciation of place so that visitors may support its conservation. Hello Tilden again.
 Paul Basu’s book Highland Homecomings (Routledge, 2007) is a good read on this topic.
 see Pretes, M. (2003). ‘Tourism and Nationalism’ In: Annals of Tourism Research 30(1), pp. 125-142.
 see for example Henige, D. (2007). ‘”This is the place”: putting the past on the map.’ In: Journal of Historical Geography 33, pp. 237-253
 see for example Hoffman, D. (1994). ‘Der Teutoburger Wald und andere Orte der Erinnerung.’ In: Fansa, M. (1994). Varusschlacht und Germanenmythus: eine Vortragsreihe anlaesllich der Sonderausstellung Kalkriese – Roemer im Osnabruecker Land in Oldenburg. Oldenburg: Staatliches Museum fuer Naturkunde und Vorgeschichte Oldenburg, pp. 87-107
 Byrne, D. (2008). ‘Heritage as Social Action’. In: Fairclough, G. (2008). The Heritage Reader. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 149-173
 This being the definition used in the above cited ‘A Sense of Place’ handbook. Variations of this definition can be found in all definitions by our professional organisations, and the classic interpretation literature.
 There is a discussion to be had about where that meaning comes from. School education is certainly one aspect, which comes through very strongly at the Battle of Hastings. But there’s also something else, for at Culloden Battlefield, and indeed at Varusschlacht, there is a public association with the site that is in direct opposition to what has been taught at school. This is interesting, but outside of my study, so for the moment I’m not aware of any studies that have been done on this. I expect it’s something around public memory.
 Before you say it: yes, the rest of the provision, from the sheer tourist sign along the motorway to the café and finally the exhibition, also play a role. What kind of role I haven’t established yet, and may not be able to either in my research, the focus being on something else.