Jersey Conference for Culture 2012

Julie Gibson, County Archaeologist, Orkney “The Heart of Orkney World Heritage Site: its meaning and value for tourism”

Having looked at La Hougue Bie and the bronze coin hoard as examples of ’s rich heritage, there was no question that a World Heritage site in thet Island was possible – the question was rather ‘did Jersey want it’? What was the balance between the bureaucracy which it brought and the opportunity to brag about the designation? Experience in Orkney was mixed.

Orkney comprises an archipelago of 18 islands with farming at the heart of the economy, though recently there had also been a rapid expansion of interest in renewable energy.

Historic Scotland run the World Heritage sites (with 1 ½ ranger posts) but simply regarding archaeology as a series of museum exhibits was not sufficient; making the most of it also involved ‘doing it’. There was no was no national support for ongoing excavation.

However, partnerships had been developed with universities, and archaeology was a niche subject at the University of the Highlands and Islands (UHI). A commercial unit which undertook work for developers subsidised the archaeology.

The period of human occupation in Orkney was much more recent than Jersey’s, dating from the Mesolithic. Principal visitor sites were the Neolithic monumental sites which included buildings, burial tombs and villages with stone furniture. Sand blown sites like had been rediscovered after extreme weather conditions.

Finds from later periods revealed the increasing wealth of the Bronze Age, discoveries from the Iron Age and later evidence of Roman trade in amphora, broaches and drinking glasses. Julie Gibson traced subsequent archaeological finds through the history of Orkney - incorporation into the Pictish kingdom, the impact of Vikings invaders and the influence of the Scots earls, ending with evidence of the two world wars of the twentieth century on the local community.

Today more than a quarter of visitors to Orkney went specifically to look at the archaeology (compared with 1% to the Highlands of Scotland). The World Heritage application prepared by Historic Scotland had initially foundered because the identified site was too small.

Having successfully re-launched the bid to embrace a wider area, the World Heritage site now demonstrated the richness of the Neolithic in different parts of daily life – domestic, funerary and ceremonial. Although the sites were relatively small, they were contained within a protective buffer area.

Within this area were both the designated sites and other monuments of the same period, sometimes overlaid with evidence of later periods like Norse graffiti.

The designation had positive and negative aspects, she argued. Cuts to the budget of Historic Scotland and its loss of specialist archaeological expertise meant that the nature of the partnership with the local Council was still evolving. Orkney wished to drive research so had established a department in the UHI which was supported by the geophysics department. This link had been particularly useful in surveying sites to ensure that the introduction of visitor services did not adversely impact on the archaeology.

A controversy relating to the siting of a wind turbine illustrated the value of the designation in planning terms. A gap in legislation had resulted in approval for a turbine on the horizon, visible from Brodgar but a public inquiry subsequently reversed the decision and this resulted in new planning guidance which took into account the importance of ridge lines in relation to the World Heritage sites.

Regarding the use made of the designation in marketing Orkney, experience was mixed. There was, for instance, no mention of it on the front of Visit Scotland’s promotional material for Orkney though it was mentioned in cruise literature. Orkney receives some 37,000 cruise visitors in less than three months. A BBC film shown on New Year’s Day had also generated valuable publicity for the Island’s tourism economy.

However, the constraints imposed by the designation were not always an advantage for the archaeologist. At Brodgar it was only, ironically, the requirement to introduce steps for reasons of health and safety which had permitted further excavation of the site, allowing new data to emerge.

Public engagement was most evident in the interest in digs and the interpretation of archaeologists at work had been assisted by the work of an artist-in-residence.

It was hoped that the World Heritage designation would help in the research of marine renewables as they affected the threat to the sites posed by tidal action. In particular, Skara Brae was in danger of becoming an island as walls were eroded if no action was taken.

A further benefit concerned the effect of the designation on students: the undergraduate population in the archaeology department at UHI was some 50 students, bucking declining student populations elsewhere.

Questions and comments

Had Orkney experienced challenges from people using metal detectors? No, most of the World Heritage archaeology pre-dated the era of metal artefacts and the scheduled sites were, in any case, protected. Such finds as there had been – rings, for example – had been handed in.

There was much archaeological evidence of cows – why? The Ness of Brodgar site was surrounded by pavement and the evidence of the slaughter of some 600 cows was discovered in mounds. This might indicate feasting but the slaughter of 600 cows was highly unusual. Elsewhere a house was founded on cow skulls and at Skara Brae there was evidence of a bed with cow skulls. The evidence suggested that cattle had a particular significance.

Had there been finds of art? A representational carving had been found from the late Neolithic or perhaps early Bronze period. Other geometric forms had also been discovered.

Given the number of fortifications in the , the notion that WH recognition could effectively protect the whole of the islands had put some people off the concept. How did such concerns relate, for instance, to the example of the wind turbine previously quoted? There was a need to define why views were protected. For example, there might be a relationship between towers which were erected for a defensive purpose and the views between them would, therefore, have a particular significance. In the case of Orkney, horizon lines were important because of the relationship between the sites and the sun and moon; however, some turbines did not interrupt the horizon line and could therefore be perfectly acceptable. It was a case of looking at the scale of such interventions and also the particular qualities of the site.

In Jersey the aim was to select the best examples of fortifications but this required professional input. Had Orkney employed a professional World Heritage co-ordinator? Yes, ultimately, though the progress of the application had been protracted. It was only national government which could advance a bid for recognition and Historic Scotland had acted as the government agency. The original bid had been turned down because it was too limited. Then Orkney looked at recognition on the basis of being a cultural landscape of universal value because of its farming rather than the ultimate focus of the Neolithic. A document had been assembled on this basis though it was accepted that it had not been sufficiently detailed. Historic Scotland then undertook to advance the Neolithic bid and a part-time post was created for two years. The expense was undoubtedly worth it, though there should ideally have been more time devoted to the preparatory work.

Each of the principal Channel Islands had made an inventory of its fortifications, including a well preserved Roman fort in Alderney. There were some 300 sites and there were plans to put the sites on to a digital map but now there was a similar need for someone to draw this work together.