What constitutes our heritage and who is it for? This is a question that has been at the forefront of my mind throughout my placement at Buckland Abbey. Although the site has lived through many iterations over seven hundred years, it is only in the last seventy-five that it opened its doors to the public. My role on the project ‘Buckland Seventy-Five’ was to conduct interviews with volunteers, visitors, and former staff who have, in various ways, engaged with the Abbey since 1951. As the project itself suggests, this milestone celebrates the role of the public. The Abbey has been shaped as much by the memories, stories, and anecdotes of its visitors and volunteers as by its material fabric.
This placement was conducted almost entirely remotely. I trained, researched, and interviewed mostly from my laptop. However, a site visit in early May took me to Buckland Abbey, and to the South-West of England for the first time. It was here that I spent two days rummaging through the Abbey’s tiny archive, which reflects the preoccupations and interests of the latter half of the twentieth century. Looming large amongst these documents is the legacy of Francis Drake, whose shadow is cast rather widely across various heritage sites – a fact that organisations like the National Trust are beginning to recognise. It goes without saying that the designation of something as heritage is not a neutral categorisation, but can often be difficult, divisive, and as exclusive as it is inclusive.
I learnt so much during this placement. As a historian who has always specialised in early modern history, I had no prior experience in conducting oral interviews. Back in April I took a course with the Oral History Society, which began a journey into the complex technicalities of data protection laws, ethical practice, and the practical issues involved in interviewing. During the initial stages of research, I listened to a range of archived interviews with the transcripts alongside. To me, the value of the interview as the source became so clear; the sound, intonation, pitch, and cadence of the voice could not be fully captured in the transcription. Talking, remembering, conflating events, and telescoping time are all things that interested me during this research, whilst factors such as reliability receded in importance. My experience with oral history was therefore both a technical and creative exercise. It feels hugely rewarding to have been able to help preserve many more voices for posterity as part of this project.
I began this project with an interest in the storied nature of monastic buildings. I leave it with a newfound respect for the practice of the oral historian, and the potential offered by oral sources. I hope that the Buckland Seventy-Five initiative contributes to, and captures, the ever-transforming relationship between the Abbey and its people.
