Tag Archives: Climate Change

OHD_DSF_0240 Heritage Surrogates after climate disaster

Leave a Reply

Hello welcome. My name is Hannah and today I want to take you through a couple fo examples of how our surrogates collection has helped us recreate heritage in times of great loss. 

Just for those who do not know our surrogate collection is a collection of metadata that describes a material object or site and its context. The data in the surrogate collection is groups of information like, photographs, measurements, scans of maps, descriptions, and even oral history recordings. Our initial motivation to collect this information was because certain items we were interested in would come up for auction and in some cases we would be unable to acquire it and it would end up in a private collection. The thought was that if we had enough surrogate information and this information was store a safe and secure location we might be able to recreate certain objects if we needed to. The later also started to include items that were being treated by decay or mould or we simply could no longer look after properly because of budget cuts. After storm Humboldt which significantly damage the collection of a property in the south and the lost of cliff house a year later the institute decided to up the surrogate collection policy by getting sites to actively think about which collection items might be at risk and then even more ambitious act of creating surrogates for whole sites in some cases. This also led to an increase in oral histories being recorded as part of the surrogate scheme. 

Moving on to our examples…

My first example is this bench which is a replica of a bench that was burnt during a fire caused by a severe drought we had a couple of years ago. The file on this bench in the surrogate collection had a couple of photographs but most importantly it had an oral history and some literature from the person who made the bench because they used particular techniques that are not very common knowledge. 

The second development is one of our more recent project, which comes from the surrogate file on Seaton Sluice. The village no longer exists because after significant storms throughout the late 2020s it was deemed a unsafe space to live. At the time we collected maps, oral histories and photographs. 

For the anniversary of the final resident leaving the village we commissioned a group of artists to create an audio visual experience to give an impression of Seaton Sluice before we lost it. We sifted through the surrogate data, the maps, photographs and recordings, and did a public call out for anyone who might have any material linked to the village, which led us to record new oral histories. 

From this material two visual artists and sound artist created this beautiful map of Seaton Sluice which visually showed the different eras of the village and then on the map you had links to different audio clips. These audio varied between soundscapes, music and oral histories often mixing them together. In addition because we had so much archival material we also a creative writing student make a collection of short stories about Seaton Sluice, this was an extra thing visitors could buy. This project only week live a week ago so we have not yet had time to gather or evaluate feedback. 

My last example it probably our most successful application of the surrogate collection, our local history storytellers. This does what it says on the tin. Storytellers go round visiting pubs, village halls and schools etc. telling stories of the local history. These stories are specifically about things in our surrogate collections because these are the things people do not have access to via museums or archives. We found that the surrogate collection is not used a lot by the public, so we wanted to do develop something that is a little more accessible and ended up with the storytellers. They have been great success. We are in our second year now and we have ten different storytelling programmes around the country and we are currently looking to add two new locations. People have said about the storytellers that they find it very engaging way to tell history and many have also commented on the pleasantness of the evenings and find them very relaxing. The schools similarly enjoy the storytellers. One of my favourite quotes came from Thomas, at St Mary’s Primary School saying, “I was going to go dressed up as Harry Potter for Book Day but now I am definitely going to go as Johnny the stable boy.” 

So these are just three examples of what we are currently doing with our surrogate collection but we have many more in the pipeline and hope that we are able to do more as people become more aware of the collection and its potentail. 

OHD_DSF_0181 Adaptive Release Report

Leave a Reply

Adaptive Release Report

1.0 Site

This section addresses the entire physical National Trust site, including buildings, gardens, offices, cafes, and any other facilities on site. 

1.1 Unplanned damage

This section will include any damage that was done to the property in the last year that was not mentioned in the previous year’s Adaptive Release Report including the Watching Brief.

This is likely to include weather damage, accidents, and unforeseen wear and tear done to the property’s site.

1.2 Adaptive release actions

This section will include:

  1. Adaptive release actions on the property’s site that were noted in the previous year’s Adaptive Release Report
  2. Adaptive release actions on the property’s site that were planned and completed after the previous year’s Adaptive Release Report was submitted
  3. Any adaptive release actions on the property’s site mentioned in the previous year’s Adaptive Release Report but were not completed and the reason they were not completed

1.2.1 Opportunities of adaptive release action

This section includes the opportunities found in each of the adaptive release actions that were done on the property’s site.

1.2.2 Environmental impact of adaptive release action

This section includes how the adaptive release actions on the property’s site follow National Trust policy around climate friendly storage and the overall environmental impact of the adaptive release actions. You also need to include how the adaptive release actions influence the site in achieving carbon neutrality.

1.3 Future adaptive release plan

This section needs to include all plan adaptive release actions for the coming, the reason for the actions and predicted opportunities and improvement to environmental impact of the site.

1.3.1 Watching brief

This section includes any part of the property’s site that is not part of an adaptive release action but whose state needs to be observed as a possible area for an adaptive release action.

2.0 Digital collection

This section addresses all the digital files that are held within the National Trust IT network, which includes hardware storage and cloud space. Digital files include word documents, spreadsheets, film and audio files that have been acquired by the site. The surrogate collection is also included in this section.

2.1 Unplanned damage

This section will include any damage that was done to the digital collection in the last year that was not mentioned in the previous year’s Adaptive Release Report including the Watching Brief.

This is likely to include file migration, file corruption, dead links, and software updates that have made the files unreadable.

2.2 Adaptive release actions

This section will include:

  1. Adaptive release actions in the property’s digital collection that were noted in the previous year’s Adaptive Release Report
  2. Adaptive release actions in the property’s digital collection that were planned and completed after the previous year’s Adaptive Release Report was submitted
  3. Any adaptive release actions in the property’s digital collection mentioned in the previous year’s Adaptive Release Report but were not completed and the reason they were not completed

2.2.1 Opportunities of adaptive release action

This section includes the opportunities found in each of the adaptive release actions that were done in the property’s digital collection.

2.2.2 Environmental impact of adaptive release action

This section includes how the adaptive release actions in the property’s digital collection follow National Trust policy around climate friendly storage and the overall environmental impact of the adaptive release actions. You also need to include how the adaptive release actions influence the site in achieving carbon neutrality.

2.3 Future adaptive release plan

This section needs to include all plan adaptive release actions for the coming, the reason for the actions and predicted opportunities and improvement to environmental impact of the site.

2.3.1 Watching brief

This section includes any part of the property’s digital collection that is not part of an adaptive release action but whose state needs to be observed as a possible area for an adaptive release action.

3.0 Material collection

This section addresses the materiel collection that is held on site. This includes all collection object such as painting and furniture, and archived paper documents kept on site.

3.1 Unplanned damage

This section will include any damage that was done to the material collection in the last year that was not mentioned in the previous year’s Adaptive Release Report including the Watching Brief.

This is likely to include mould damage, water damage, wood worm, accidents etc.

3.2 Adaptive release actions

This section will include:

  1. Adaptive release actions in the property’s material collection that were noted in the previous year’s Adaptive Release Report
  2. Adaptive release actions in the property’s material collection that were planned and completed after the previous year’s Adaptive Release Report was submitted
  3. Any adaptive release actions in the property’s material collection mentioned in the previous year’s Adaptive Release Report but were not completed and the reason they were not completed

3.2.1 Opportunities of adaptive release action

This section includes the opportunities found in each of the adaptive release actions that were done in the property’s material collection.

3.2.2 Environmental impact of adaptive release action

This section includes how the adaptive release actions in the property’s material collection follow National Trust policy around climate friendly storage and the overall environmental impact of the adaptive release actions. You also need to include how the adaptive release actions influence the site in achieving carbon neutrality.

3.3 Future adaptive release plan

This section needs to include all plan adaptive release actions for the coming, the reason for the actions and predicted opportunities and improvement to environmental impact of the site.

3.3.1 Watching brief

This section includes any part of the property’s material collection that is not part of an adaptive release action but whose state needs to be observed as a possible area for an adaptive release action.

4.0 Third party collection holders

This section addresses all the partnerships with institutions that hold material donated by the site.

4.1 Current relationships

This section will include a list of all long-standing partnerships established before the submission of the previous year’s Adaptive Release Report, what material they hold and any issues or opportunities within the partnership.

4.2 New relationships

This section includes all partnerships that have been established since the submission of the previous year’s Adaptive Release Report, what material was donated and any issues or opportunities within the partnership.

4.3 Future relationships

This section includes any possible future partnerships that the property is interested in, what material they are looking to donate, and any issues or opportunities within the partnership.

OHD_BLG_0101 Reading Group – 20/10/20

Leave a Reply

TOPIC: Oral history and the environment

Papers read:

“Drought, Endurance and ‘The Way Things Were’: The Lived Experience of Climate and Climate Change in the Mallee” by Deb Anderson

“Bringing a Hidden Pond to Public Attention: Increasing Impact through Digital Tools” by Anne Valk and Holly Ewald

Overall good, fun papers that everyone agreed with.

Oral history for legislation

Because the topic was environment, the oral history projects outlined in the papers were great examples of how oral history could feed into legislation. The paper by Anderson illustrated how the human experience of climate change makes the issue more tangible for people. Instead of the climate change just being stats and numbers. Valk and Ewald’s project re-engages people with nature but the sustainability and legacy of the project will show its true power.

The future is always better

The writers of the papers and the oral historians in the group seemed to suggest that it is often the case that people talk about the future in a positive sense. It is as if the nostalgia of the past gives people hope for a better future. Which in the case of climate change is remarkable but human’s are strangely optimistic.

Who don’t we interview

I keep finding cases where people wonder about why we do not interview certain people. Oral history is meant to “represent the voice of the people” yet there are still many voices left out. For example in Anderson’s paper she only interviews people who are still in the Mallee and not those who left the Mallee because of the trouble climate change was causes. Similarly I wondered during the reading group on #BLM why people hadn’t interviewed the people who would have been affected by the activism of those who had been interviewed.

It was brought up during the session that there is a lack of oral history projects based on our relationship with nature. We seem very obsessed and busy with industry but less so with nature. Both the papers have projects that are based in the countries where there were indigenous people before the europeans came. These indigenous must have had a relationship with the land before the people being interview and in some cases stories about the nature and land might have been passed down over generations. Why aren’t we recording those.

And finally America is doing something better than us…?

No, not messing up their democracy. But grass roots community oral history projects are more common in America than here. Let’s change that!