Nearly 180 years ago Winchester played host to a vigorous debate about different approaches to “doing history” that may need to be revisited in this media-driven age, writes Barry Shurlock…

 

POLITE disputes between historians are hardly rare, and sometimes boil over into something worse. After all, it is extremely difficult – if not impossible – to reach a definitive, enduring account of any event in the past that cannot in some way be challenged.  In fact, every generation tends to make a career from overturning the views of the previous one. 

Such arguments can, however, sometimes get out of hand, as happened when the Victorians got their teeth into archaeology. In the summer of 1845 this played out in Winchester where the annual meetings of both the British Archaeological Society (BAS) and the Archaeological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland (now the Royal Archaeology Institute, RAI) were held.

It is a measure of the historical significance of the city that the two groups came to it so early in their existence: the BAS had only been founded in 1843 and the RAI a year later, started by those who disapproved of the rival.

A leading BAS protagonist was amateur archaeologist Charles Roach Smith, who applied statistics to coin hoards and for a while lived in Winchester at St Cross. Others were Thomas Wright, a Quaker who excavated the Roman town of Wroxeter, and Thomas Joseph Pettigrew, a surgeon who studied Egyptian mummies.

All three were highly critical of the traditional power base of history, the Society of Antiquaries, which had been founded in 1707, with a royal charter in 1751.  Their main concerns were that it was too aristocratic and stuck in its ways.

Based in London, they thought it had the character of members of a select club toying with antiquity, rather embracing the new methods and enthusiasm of local archaeologists emerging all over the place.

As for the RAI, it espoused a more traditional slant, and its foundation was a knee-jerk response to what was regarded as a near revolution fomented by BAS. Even the Archaeological Journal begun by these upstarts – still a major platform for archaeology – fell foul of the feud and after only a year had migrated to the RIA.

The full story is complex and involves disputes between publishers, fuelled by touches of that quintessential British issue of “trade” versus “top drawer”. As highlighted by the Hampshire Field Club (HFC) project, Celebrating Hampshire Historians, the meetings of archaeologists in Winchester inspired at least two local people, who went on to influence the study of history in the city.

These were Catholic historian Francis Baigent (1830-1918), son of a drawing master at Winchester College, and Henry Moody (1805-1871), son of a brewer, who took advantage of the RAI meeting in Winchester to set up a temporary museum in the Deanery and hand out copies of his publication on the Domesday Book (for details, visit www.hantsfieldclub.org.uk/ihr100/index.html).

These reflections call to mind the variety of approaches to history evident in the forthcoming Winchester Heritage Open Days (HODs) as well as HFC’s Showcasing Hampshire History, one of its principal events, being held on September 14 in the Hampshire County Council Ashburton Hall on Sussex Street.

The HODs events pose interesting questions about the differences between “history” and “heritage". The former at its best is obviously an attempt to tell the stories of the past in an accurate manner, with appropriate interpretation of the period. Although “heritage” has similar objectives, it is also concerned with the value and status of its subjects – with obvious implications for tourism and business.

Of the huge range of venues, each with its own complexion, the Hampshire Record Office and the military museums are obvious ones. Less conventionally they include the retail premises of Belgarum, P & G Wells and Warrens, which no doubt are presenting “history” with a genuine intention to inform, but also trading “heritage”.

The Royal Logistics Museum at Worthy Down has a great story to tell, but might expect a PR bonus in the setting of defence spending.  And Winchester College too is opening its doors, in a shadow of possible changes to its VAT status under the new government.

Talking up Winchester to polish its “heritage” was probably always part of the work of those local historians who served the city council over the years, including John Trussell (1575-1648), Thomas Stopher (1837-1926), Barbara Carpenter Turner (1915-1997) and others.

The differences between history and heritage can be seen in the different approaches of the Hampshire History Trust (HHT) and the Hampshire Field Club (I must declare an interest as a member of its local history committee). The former grew out of HODs and was only founded four years ago, with the aim of promoting “community participation in history and heritage”.

The Field Club was founded in 1885 to promote research and publication in all areas of history in the county.  Its website claims that “it is not bound by tradition…and is constantly evolving to provide the best possible awareness of and access to Hampshire’s heritage [that word again]”.

So, what are the major differences between the two bodies? HHT is clearly media-driven: as well as directing HODs, it produces podcasts or Hampshire Histbites, as well as posting home-produced heritage films on a huge range of subjects on YouTube.  To take one example, the well-known explorer John Pilkington, also a HHT patron, presents one on 100 years of Canon Street (www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ6ue3RAWms).

Based on two memoirs in the Hampshire Record Office, it is a skilled presentation of the history of a street now regarded as “des res”, but once a work-a-day setting subject to slum clearance. It used to be called Pig-Sticker’s Lane.

John takes the viewer through a colourful story of pubs – it had five – a slaughter house, a cab-driver running ladies to the cathedral on a donkey, Joe Dumper the man who in 1908 sparked the gun riots, a lodging house of Nelson’s mistress, soldiers lurking outside the several brothels and much else.

It is a rich feast, and all based on documents lodged in the Hampshire Record Office: “A memoir of Canon Street” by Hilda Mudddiman (1892-1983), who lived at No. 61 for 85 years and “A memoir of St Michael’s parish” by Kathleen Alice (“Kitty”) Bishop (1916-1999), who lived at 22 Culver Road for 74 years (HRO, TOP343/1/442 and 443)

Which raises a question of sources.  Non-print media (and newspapers) rarely cite the sources of their content and videos do not generally caption pictures.  The documents mentioned in the previous paragraph were fleetingly mentioned in the film – and might have been found by anyone who knew their way round archives – but it would have been better to have listed them as a credit.

Arguably, it is more fun to watch a video than read a paper or a website: HHT productions are eminently watchable and leave strong impressions, but they are not easy for researchers to follow up. In contrast, HFC publications list all sources, so the reader knows if, for example, information came from an unpublished document, a book or paper or a website - or even an individual (cited as “pers comm”). Perhaps this is the major difference between “heritage” and “history”:

Both approaches to presenting the past have their merits and it is to be hoped that, they can learn from each other, as eventually did those Victorian archaeologists.

 

CAPTIONS

 

John Pilkington presenter of “A 100 Years of Canon Street”. Image: Hampshire History Trust

 

Charles Roach Smith (1807-1890), leading light in the British Archaeological Society. Image: Wikipedia

 

Frank Warren (1879-1956) HFC secretary and editor of his firm’s Hampshire Observer. Image: Hampshire Field Club

 

 HFC’s flagship journal