![Introduction 19
Han, K., Shih, P.C., Rosson, M.B., and Carroll, J.M. (2014). ‘Enhancing Community
Awareness of and Participation in Local Heritage with a Mobile Application’, in Fussell,
S., and Lutters, W., chairs, Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW ‘14), ACM NY, pp. 1144–1155.
Hornecker, E. (2010). ‘Interactions Around a Contextually Embedded System’, in Coelho,
M. and Zigelbaum, J., chairs, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Tangible,
Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, ACM, NY, pp. 169–176.
Iversen, O.S. and Smith, R.C. (2014). ‘Connecting to Everyday Practices: Experiences
from the Digital Natives Exhibition’, in Giaccardi, E., ed., Heritage and Social Media:
Understanding Heritage in a Participatory Culture, London: Routledge, pp. 126–144.
Kidd, J. (2011).‘Enacting Engagement Online: Framing Social Media Use for the Museum’,
Information Technology and People, 24(1), pp. 64–77.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
McKinley, R. and Damala, A. (2013). ‘ARtSENSE and Manifest.AR: Revisiting Museums
in the Public Realm through Emerging Art Practices’, in Proctor, N., and Cherry R.,
eds., Museums and the Web 2013, Silver Spring, MD: Museums and the Web, available:
http://mw2013.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/artsense-and-manifest-ar-revisiting-
museums-in-the-public-realm-through-emerging-art-practices/ [Accessed 14/11/16].
Marty (2006). ‘Finding the Skills for Tomorrow: Information Literacy and Museum
Information Professionals’, Museum Management and Curatorship, 21(4), pp. 317–335.
Maye, L.A., McDermott, F.E., Ciolfi, L., and Avram, G. (2014). ‘Interactive Exhibitions
Design: What Can we Learn from Cultural Heritage Professionals?’, in Roto, V., and
Häkkilä, J., chairs, Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human – Computer Interaction:
Fun, Fast, Foundational (NordiCHI ’14), ACM, NY, pp. 598–607.
Oomen, J. and Aroyo, L. (2011). ‘Crowdsourcing in the Cultural Heritage Domain:
Opportunities and Challenges’, in Foth, M., chair, Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Communities and Technologies, ACM, NY, pp. 138–149.
Parry, R. ed. (2010). Museums in a Digital Age, Abingdon: Routledge.
Ridge, M. ed. (2014). Crowdsourcing our Cultural Heritage, Farnham: Ashgate.
Russo, A. (2012). ‘The Rise of the “Media Museum”: Creating Interactive Cultural
Experiences Through Social Media’, in Giaccardi, E. ed., Heritage and Social Media:
Understanding Heritage in a Participatory Culture, London: Routledge, pp. 145–159.
Sandell, Richard, ed. (2002). Museums, Society, Inequality, London: Routledge.
Simon, N. (2010). The Participatory Museum, Santa Cruz: Museum 2.0.
Simon, N. (2016). The Art of Relevance, Santa Cruz: Museum 2.0.
vom Lehn, D. (2010) ‘Examining “Response”: Video-based Studies in Museums and
Galleries’, International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4(1), pp. 33–43.
Watson, Sheila, ed. (2007). Museums and their Communities, London: Routledge.
Weil, S. E. (1999). ‘From Being about Something to Being for Somebody: The Ongoing
Transformation of the American Museum’, Daedalus, 128(3), pp. 229–258.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/19233091-250521122400-a2c87ee5/85/Cultural-Heritage-Communities-Technologies-And-Challenges-1st-Edition-Luigina-Ciolfi-44-320.jpg)
![do. 2 horses 2 nights, hay, oats, beans, Sr
Thomas Kirkpatrk 0 5 0
do. the smith for Sr Thomas’ horsses 0 2 0
Pyd. to Charles Herisse, smith, for iron
work to the Hearse 0 5 6
Mr Gilbert’s horsses 1 4 6
Grim legend clings around the account of Lag’s last illness and his
funeral. “During the latter part of his life Sir Robert had taken up his
abode in his town-lodging in Dumfries. It was an ancient pile of
building of singular construction, facing the principal part of the High
Street of the town, known as the ‘Plainstones.’ This old house was
called the ‘Turnpike,’ from the spiral staircase, a characteristic of it,
as of many of the old Edinburgh houses; it was situated at the head
of what was called the Turnpike Close, and little more than two
hundred yards from the Nith. The best known of the many legends
regarding Lag is this: that when he came near his end, and was
sorely tormented with gout, he had relays of servants posted so as
to hand up from one to another a succession of buckets of cold
water from the Nith, that he might cool his burning limbs—but the
moment his feet were inserted into the water it began to fizz and
boil.
In this old Turnpike house[38] Sir Robert died on the 31st December,
1733. It is related that on this occasion a ‘corbie’ (raven) of
preternatural blackness and malignity of aspect, perched himself on
the coffin, and would not be driven off, but accompanied the funeral
cortège to the grave in the churchyard of Dunscore.
Moreover, when the funeral procession started, and had got some
little way on the Galloway side of the Nith, it was found that the
horses, with all their struggles, and dripping with perspiration, from
some mysterious cause could move the hearse no further. Sir
Thomas Kirkpatrick, of Closeburn, the old friend and comrade of Lag
(and his relative), who was believed to be deep in some branches of](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/19233091-250521122400-a2c87ee5/85/Cultural-Heritage-Communities-Technologies-And-Challenges-1st-Edition-Luigina-Ciolfi-58-320.jpg)
![nebbed Samuel fell aff the drift too. I saw him as we came across
Howmcraig; the drink was gaen frae him like couters. Whan we
came to the Taffdyke that rins cross Barrend there we laid the Laird
down till we took a rest awee. The inside o’ pouches war than
turned out, bottle after bottle was touted owre; we rowed about,
and some warsled. At last a game at the quoits was proposed; we
played, but how we played I kenna. Whan we got tae the kirkyard
the sun was jist plumpin’ down; we pat the coffin twice in the grave
wrang, and as often had to draw’t out again. We got it to fit at last,
and in wi’ the moulds on’t. The grave-digger we made a beast o’.”
A notable exception to the practice of the period was the funeral of
William Burnes, father of the National Bard, who was borne from
Lochlea to Alloway Kirkyard, a distance of twelve miles, not a drop of
anything excepting a draught of water from a roadside stream being
tasted.
The funeral festivities, however, did not end with the lowering of the
dead into the grave. There yet remained the final entertainment at
the house of the bereaved. If within reasonable distance at all the
funeral party returned from the churchyard to partake of the
entertainment known as the “draigie,”[39] or “dredgy.” Again the
drinking was long and deep, with results that can only too readily be
imagined.
But it must not be assumed that such scenes and proceedings
passed without protest on the part of the Church and those who had
the welfare of decency and morality at heart. The Presbytery of
Penpont, for example, in 1736 issued the following warning to their
own district:—
“Yet further how unaccountable and scandalous are the large
gatherings and unbecoming behaviour at burials and ‘lake-wacks,’
also in some places how many are grossly unmannerly in coming to
burials without invitation. How extravagant are many in their
preparations for such occasions, and in giving much drink, and
driving it too frequently, before and after the corpse is enterred, and](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/19233091-250521122400-a2c87ee5/85/Cultural-Heritage-Communities-Technologies-And-Challenges-1st-Edition-Luigina-Ciolfi-60-320.jpg)
![in the parishes of Dairy and Kells numbers of people had to be
buried in the fields, because the houses in which they lived and died
were twelve miles from a churchyard. The issue of this was, that the
district of Carsphairn was erected into a separate parish, and the
indignity of such burials came to an end.
Before closing a chapter devoted to “death custom” and “funeral
ceremony,” the use of the “dead bell” must certainly be referred to.
In these old days when methods of conveying news and information
were restricted, it was the routine practice when a death occurred
for the “beadle” (sexton) to go, bell in hand, around the district,
pausing at intervals to ring the “passing bell”[40] more particularly in
front of the houses of friends of the deceased, announcing at the
same time not only the death but also the day of burial. The usual
form of his intimation which, with uncovered head, he delivered was:
—
“Brethren and sisters,—I hereby let ye to wit that our brother (or
sister), named (name, address, and occupation), departed this life at
—— of the clock, according to the pleasure Almighty God, and you
are all invited to attend the funeral on ——.”
Particular reference to this custom in the town of Dumfries is given
in the Itinerary of John Ray, naturalist, who visited the town in
August, 1662:—
“Here (he says) ... we observed the manner of their burials, which is
this: when anyone dies the sexton or bellman goeth about the
streets, with a small bell in his hand, which he tinkleth all along as
he goeth, and now and then he makes a stance, and proclaims who
is dead, and invites the people to come to the funeral.”
On the day of the funeral it was again customary for the “beadle” to
ring the bell, walking in front of the funeral procession ringing it as
he went. This is also noticed by Ray, who notes that “The people
and ministers ... accompany the corpse to the grave ... with the bell
before them.” This usage has passed to a form, common enough to](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/19233091-250521122400-a2c87ee5/85/Cultural-Heritage-Communities-Technologies-And-Challenges-1st-Edition-Luigina-Ciolfi-65-320.jpg)
![this day, particularly in the country, of tolling the church bell as the
funeral cortège approaches the churchyard.
In the scarce Book of Galloway it is recorded how “the beadle had
rung the ‘passing bell[41] on the bellknowe of Penninghame,’ and it
was heard again when the mourners approached the graveyard.”
The ringing of the “dead bell” had its origin in the superstitious idea
that by this means evil spirits were held at bay.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/19233091-250521122400-a2c87ee5/85/Cultural-Heritage-Communities-Technologies-And-Challenges-1st-Edition-Luigina-Ciolfi-66-320.jpg)
![Along this passage the troubled ghost of the piper was long reputed
to march, backwards and forwards, playing the weirdest of pipe
music, and so indicating, as was firmly believed, to the awe-stricken
listeners above, the line of direction of the secret underground
passage.[42]
Perhaps the best-known Galloway ghost story is that of the Ghost of
Galdenoch Tower, in the parish of Leswalt. The Tower was at one
time the property of the Agnews of Galdenoch, but falling on evil
days their name disappeared from the roll of proprietors, when it
was used as a farm-house. For this, however, it was given up, for no
other reason than that it was firmly believed to be haunted. The
tradition as told by Sir Andrew Agnew is as follows:—
“A scion of the house had fought in one of the battles for the
Covenant, and after a defeat had craved food and shelter at a house
near the scene of the disaster. He was admitted by the owner, a
rough blustering fellow of Royalist leanings, who allowed him to
share in the family supper; and after a long crack over the incidents
of the day, let him make up a bed by the ingle-side fire. The young
soldier rose early, and was in the act of leaving when his host barred
his access to the door, grumbling that he doubted whether he had
been on the right side the day before. Convinced that he meant to
detain him, the youth produced his pistol and shot his entertainer
dead; then rushing to the stables, saddled up, and made his way to
the west.
Arrived safely at the Galdenoch, the fatted calf was killed, and
having fought all his battles over again round the family board, he
went to bed. But hardly had the lights been extinguished in the
tower than strange sounds announced a new arrival, which proved
to be the ghost of the slain malignant, who not only disturbed the
repose of his slayer, but made life unendurable to all within.
Nightly his pranks continued, and even after a change of owners the
annoyance was continued to the new tenant and his family. One cold](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/19233091-250521122400-a2c87ee5/85/Cultural-Heritage-Communities-Technologies-And-Challenges-1st-Edition-Luigina-Ciolfi-68-320.jpg)
![On the confines of Stoneykirk parish, in the Moor of the Genoch,
there is a plantation locally known as “Lodnagappal Plantin’,”[43]
concerning which report tells of an apparition in the form of a
headless woman who almost invariably carried a light for the dire
purpose of luring the unwary to death in the treacherous moss-holes
so numerous in the neighbourhood.
Fuller details are available of yet another “white woman” and her
unwelcome methods. Early last century, when the mail packet
crossed from Portpatrick to Ireland, a carrier, who lived at High
Ardwell, regularly journeyed backwards and forwards to Portpatrick
to bring supplies for the district. On his way home he was more than
once alarmed and troubled by a woman in white, who stopped his
horse and even caused his cart to break down. Once, indeed, the
horse was so affected that it became quite incapable of moving the
load, compelling the carrier in great distress to unyoke, and,
mounting the horse, to make for home. His fears were not much
lessened by finding that the white lady was seated behind him.
The appearances of the ghost became more frequent as time went
on, and eventually the white woman manifested a desire to embrace
the carrier, indicating that if he yielded even only to listen once to
her whispered devotion he might be freed altogether from future
interference. The carrier, after a good deal of doubt and hesitation,
at last yielded, but, wishing to have some substantial barrier
between himself and his ghostly lover, stipulated that she should
come to the little back-window of his cottage on a particular night.
The appointed time came, but the carrier, still very doubtful, had
planned accordingly. Cautiously and partially was the window
opened. The white figure was there. Bending down to what
appeared to be the man’s face—but what was really the skull of a
horse held towards her—there was a swift savage thrust of the
ghostly face and half of the protruding horse’s skull was severed.
Thwarted in this unexpected way, the evil spirit slunk away,
muttering “Hard, hard, are the banes and gristle of your face!” At
least that is what the tradition tells.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/19233091-250521122400-a2c87ee5/85/Cultural-Heritage-Communities-Technologies-And-Challenges-1st-Edition-Luigina-Ciolfi-70-320.jpg)
![Standing irresolute, a blaze of blue light flashed right in front of him,
in the centre of which appeared the figure of a piper, his pipes
standing like horns against the background of blue light. The figure
moved backwards and forwards playing the wildest of music all the
time. It next seemed to come nearer and nearer, and the drover,
now transfixed to earth with terror, saw that the piper was headless,
and his body so thin that surrounding hills and country could be
seen right throught it. A blinding flash of fire, followed by an ear-
splitting clap of thunder, brought matters to a close for the time
being, and the drover fell prostrate among the heather. When he
recovered his senses the strange light had gone, and with it the
headless piper. The storm had cleared off, and in due time he
reached the farm, where he was put up for the night. When he told
his story no one spoke for a moment or two, then the farmer’s aged
father broke silence: ‘Aye, aye, lad, ye hae seen the ghost o’ the
piper wha was murdered on his wey frae Patiesthorn.[44] I hae had
the same fearsome experience myself, tho’ its mair than saxty years
syne.’”(85)
In the Dundrennan district of Kirkcudbright a persisted belief lingers
concerning a headless lady haunting the Buckland Glen. The
following narrative which has been handed down lends an increased
interest to the tradition:—
Long ago a Monkland farmer, accompanied by one of his farm-lads,
was on his return from Kirkcudbright at a very late hour. The farmer
was riding a small Highland pony, the boy being on foot. It was
about midnight when they got to that part of Buckland Glen where a
small bridge crosses the Buckland Burn. They had just crossed the
bridge when the pony suddenly stood up and swerved, almost
throwing the farmer out of the saddle.
“What’s wrang wi’ ye the nicht, Maggie—what’s tae fricht ye, my
lass?”
“Eh, Maister, did ye see that?” whispered the lad. “See—yonner it’s
again!”](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/19233091-250521122400-a2c87ee5/85/Cultural-Heritage-Communities-Technologies-And-Challenges-1st-Edition-Luigina-Ciolfi-83-320.jpg)
![A lady renting it for a few years tells how she was twice or thrice
disturbed in the night by hearing a horse trotting round to the front
door, and on getting up to look out of the window always found
there was nothing to be seen, and nothing to be done but to return
shivering to bed. Several years after, returning to the
neighbourhood, she met the owner of the house, who asked her to
go and see the improvements he had recently effected. On being
shown over the house she was told that the room she had slept in
had had the partition taken down between it and the dressing-room
next it to make a large room, and strangely enough, when taking
down the wall, a horse’s skull was discovered built into the wall.
The only connecting link to the above curious circumstance is that a
former proprietor paid a hurried visit to the town of Dumfries at the
time of the terrible epidemic of cholera (1832), the journey being
naturally accomplished in these days on horseback. Unfortunately,
he contracted the disease and died shortly after his return.
Until some years ago a huge boulder lay at the roadside on the way
from Dalbeattie to Colvend, not far from the cottage known as the
“Wood Forester’s.” The story was, that this was the scene of foul
play long ago, the victim being a woman, whose ghost afterwards
haunted the neighbourhood in the black hours of the night.
Bearing upon this, an exceedingly graphic account has been
furnished the writer of such an apparition having been seen by the
captain of a local coasting vessel[45] late one night as he was
walking from Kippford to Dalbeattie. It made its appearance near
Aikieslak, which is the next house to the “Wood Forester’s,” and not
very far away. The figure walked in front, stopped when he stopped,
and finally disappeared, to his intense relief, in the wood to the left.
The parish of Kirkbean is particularly rich in ghostly record, no fewer
than six haunted, or once haunted localities having been noted.(86)
Traversing the parish from Southwick towards Newabbey, the first
eerie place of note is a field above Torrorie known as the “Murder](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/19233091-250521122400-a2c87ee5/85/Cultural-Heritage-Communities-Technologies-And-Challenges-1st-Edition-Luigina-Ciolfi-86-320.jpg)
![[Medicalstudyzone.com] 1. AIIMS NOV EMBER 2015 SOLVED PAPER.pdf](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/medicalstudyzone-250904212000-ef4cbf83-thumbnail.jpg?width=560&fit=bounds)
Cultural Heritage Communities Technologies And Challenges 1st Edition Luigina Ciolfi
- 1. Cultural Heritage CommunitiesTechnologies And Challenges 1st Edition Luigina Ciolfi download https://ebookbell.com/product/cultural-heritage-communities- technologies-and-challenges-1st-edition-luigina-ciolfi-38466182 Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com
- 2. Here are somerecommended products that we believe you will be interested in. You can click the link to download. Maya Cultural Heritage How Archaeologists And Indigenous Communities Engage The Past Patricia A Mcanany https://ebookbell.com/product/maya-cultural-heritage-how- archaeologists-and-indigenous-communities-engage-the-past-patricia-a- mcanany-51723426 Communities And Cultural Heritage 1st Edition Valerie Higgins https://ebookbell.com/product/communities-and-cultural-heritage-1st- edition-valerie-higgins-47119628 Southeast Asian Cultural Heritage Images Of Traditional Communities Ong Choo Suat https://ebookbell.com/product/southeast-asian-cultural-heritage- images-of-traditional-communities-ong-choo-suat-51765640 Cultural Heritage And Territorial Identity Synergies And Development Impact On European Regions Elisa Panzera https://ebookbell.com/product/cultural-heritage-and-territorial- identity-synergies-and-development-impact-on-european-regions-elisa- panzera-46703946
- 3. Cultural Heritage InInternational Investment Law And Arbitration Valentina Vadi https://ebookbell.com/product/cultural-heritage-in-international- investment-law-and-arbitration-valentina-vadi-47377474 Cultural Heritage Management In Africa The Heritage Of The Colonized 1st Edition George Okello Abungu https://ebookbell.com/product/cultural-heritage-management-in-africa- the-heritage-of-the-colonized-1st-edition-george-okello- abungu-48299790 Cultural Heritage Education In The Everyday Landscape School Citizenship Space And Representation Camilla Casonato https://ebookbell.com/product/cultural-heritage-education-in-the- everyday-landscape-school-citizenship-space-and-representation- camilla-casonato-48706254 Cultural Heritage In International Economic Law Valentina Vadi https://ebookbell.com/product/cultural-heritage-in-international- economic-law-valentina-vadi-49492998 Cultural Heritage In Modern Conflict Past Propaganda Parade Timothy Clack https://ebookbell.com/product/cultural-heritage-in-modern-conflict- past-propaganda-parade-timothy-clack-50447070
- 6. Cultural Heritage Communities Culturalheritage communities of interest have increasingly expanded from cultural heritage professionals to volunteers, special interest groups and independ- ent citizen-led initiative groups. Digital technology has also increasingly impacted cultural heritage by affording novel experiences of it – it features in a number of activities for all the aforementioned groups, as well as acting as support for visitors to cultural heritage centres. With different degrees of formality and training, these communities are increas- ingly defining and taking ownership of what is of value to them, thus reconfiguring the care, communication, interpretation and validation of heritage. Digital tech- nology has played a crucial role in this transformative process. In a fully international context, cultural heritage practitioners, community champions and academics from different fields of study have contributed to this book. Each chapter brings to the fore the multiple relationships between heritage, communities and technologies as a focus of study and reflection in an inclusive way. Contributions touch upon present and future opportunities for technology, as well as participatory design processes with different stakeholders. This book brings together ideas from different disciplines, cultures, methods and goals, to inspire scholars and practitioners involved in community heritage projects. Luigina Ciolfi is Professor of Human-Centred Computing at The Cultural, Communication and Computing Research Institute (C3RI), Sheffield Hallam University, UK. Areti Damala is an Adjunct Lecturer in Digital Humanities and Augmented Heritage at the Université Paris 8, Vincennes – Saint-Denis, France, and an Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Strathclyde, UK. Eva Hornecker is a Professor of Human–Computer Interaction in the Faculty of Media at the Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Germany. Monika Lechner is an advisor on Digital Heritage for foundations such as Dutch Digital Heritage and (currently) Erfgoed Brabant, the Netherlands. Laura Maye is a Postdoctoral Researcher based in the Department of Computer Science, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland.
- 7. Digital Research inthe Arts and Humanities Series Editors: Marilyn Deegan, Lorna Hughes, Andrew Prescott and Harold Short Digital technologies are becoming increasingly important to arts and humanities research, expanding the horizons of research methods in all aspects of data cap- ture, investigation, analysis, modelling, presentation and dissemination. This important series will cover a wide range of disciplines with each volume focusing on a particular area, identifying the ways in which technology impacts on specific subjects. The aim is to provide an authoritative refection of the ‘state of the art’ in the application of computing and technology. The series will be critical reading for experts in digital humanities and technology issues, and it will also be of wide interest to all scholars working in humanities and arts research. For a full list of titles in this series, please visit https://www.routledge.com/ history/series/DRAH Also in the series: Performing Digital Edited by David Carlin and Laurene Vaughan Digital Scholarly Editing Elena Pierazzo Copyrighting Creativity Creative Values, Cultural Heritage Institutions and Systems of Intellectual Property Edited by Helle Porsdam Critical Gaming Interactive History and Virtual Heritage Erik Champion Literary Mapping in the Digital Age Edited by David Cooper, Christopher Donaldson and Patricia Murrieta-Flores Historic Newspapers in the Digital Age “Search All About It!” Paul Gooding Cultural Heritage Communities Technologies and Challenges Edited by Luigina Ciolfi, Areti Damala, Eva Hornecker, Monika Lechner and Laura Maye
- 8. Cultural Heritage Communities Technologies andChallenges Edited by Luigina Ciolfi, Areti Damala, Eva Hornecker, Monika Lechner and Laura Maye
- 9. First published 2018 byRoutledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2018 selection and editorial matter, Luigina Ciolfi, Areti Damala, Eva Hornecker, Monika Lechner and Laura Maye; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Luigina Ciolfi, Areti Damala, Eva Hornecker, Monika Lechner and Laura Maye to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-1-138-69719-5 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-52245-6 (ebk) Typeset in Baskerville by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India
- 10. Contents List of figuresvii List of tables viii List of contributors ix Introduction 1 luigina ciolfi, areti damala, eva hornecker, monika lechner and laura maye 1 Archaeological remote sensing: some community engagement in Ireland 20 kevin barton and daniel curley 2 Online maker communities: craft and new spaces of engagement with cultural heritage 38 amalia g. sabiescu, martin woolley, catherine cummings, janine prins and neil forbes 3 The Limerick dance halls project: the charm of discreet technology 60 gabriela avram 4 Towards user engagement models for citizen science: initiatives in the digital cultural heritage domain 78 edel jennings, milena dobreva and anna devreni-koutsouki 5 Challenges in designing cultural heritage crowdsourcing: tools with indigenous communities 96 colin stanley, daniel g. cabrero, heike winschiers-theophilus and edwin blake
- 11. vi Contents 6 Howto get small museums involved in digital innovation: a design-inclusive research approach 114 arnold p.o.s. vermeeren and licia calvi 7 Emotional connections with the past: exploring engagement with historical images from an online museum collection 132 tom wrigglesworth and leon watts 8 Artcasting, mobilities, and inventiveness: engaging with new approaches to arts evaluation 150 jen ross, claire sowton, jeremy knox and chris speed 9 Challenging political agendas through indigenous media: Hawai’i and the promotion and protection of cultural heritage 166 susan shay 10 War at your doorstep: supporting communities discovering their local history via interactive technology 185 anna pisetti, elena not and daniela petrelli Index 203
- 12. Figures 1.1 Images ofRathcroghan Mound and surrounding area 25 1.2 Remote sensing techniques 29 2.1 Traditional Romanian blouse with folk motifs (Ro. ‘ie’) and sleeve detail 48 3.1 The exhibition in the Stella Ballroom 68 3.2 Stationary and mobile recording of memories 70 5.1 Initial and co-designed IKDC 105 6.1 The context of small museums 118 6.2 Example screens from the app. 123 7.1 Photographs used in the studies 138 8.1 Lines of trajectory showing artcasts as they move 153 8.2 An artcast sent to the past; encountering artcasts 154 10.1 The visitors wearing the belt approaching points of interest 189 10.2 The Artillery exhibition space 194
- 13. Tables 4.1 Differences interms related to citizen science 80 5.1 CCSP icons design session 108 7.1 Concepts developed from codes during analysis 143 10.1 Sample contents used at the trenches 191 10.2 Sample contents used at the artillery section 195
- 14. Contributors Gabriela Avram isa Lecturer in Digital Media and Interaction Design, and a Senior Researcher at the Interaction Design Centre of the University of Limerick, Ireland. Building on a Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Knowledge Management background, her current research focuses on the design and development of interactive technologies for cultural heritage set- tings, with an emphasis on co-design. In parallel, she is also working with several urban communities interested in technologies for civic engagement. Dr Avram has worked on a variety of international research projects, on topics such as: cultural and social aspects of collaboration, distributed work practices, Open Source communities, adult learning and the adoption and uses of social media for work-related purposes in various environments. She has published extensively in international confer- ences and journals. Kevin Barton is an Archaeological Geophysicist. He was Co-Director of the Heritage Council-funded ArchaeoGeophysical Imaging Project in the Rathcroghan Complex, which carried out Ireland’s first multi-method remote sensing survey in the 1990s. In 2002, a career break from the Applied Geophysics Unit at University College Galway provided the opportunity to found LGS (Landscape & Geophysical Services). LGS provides remote sensing services with associated education, training and project management to the community, commercial and academic sectors. In Ireland and mainland Europe he has surveyed over 100 sites dating from the Neolithic to the 1940s. For two years, he was a member of the General Management Board of the European Commission-funded ArchaeoLandscapes Europe (ArcLand) Project (2010–2015) involving twenty-three co-organising institutions and forty-five associated partners. Within ArcLand he was the Co-Director of ground and aerial photography field schools in Ireland and Hungary. With ArcLand sup- port, Kevin has pioneered hands-on local community engagement in remote sensing in Ireland. Current community remote sensing projects in Ireland include work with primary and secondary schools, heritage groups and local museums. Current European work includes collaboration with former
- 15. x Contributors ArcLand partnerson the Hidden Cultural Landscapes of the Western Lesser Poland Upland Project. Edwin Blake is a Professor in Computer Science at the University of Cape Town (UCT) and the Director of the UCT Centre in Information and Communications Technology for Development (ICT4D). His doctorate is from Queen Mary (London University). Before joining UCT he was at the Dutch national research centre for Mathematics and Computer Science (CWI). His work focuses on the relations of people to computers, mainly in the context of a developing country. Recently he has focused principally on two overlapping areas: User Experience in Virtual Environments and Games and, increasingly, ICT4D. An important aim is to increase people’s own ability to act effectively for their welfare. His research outputs range from reflections on ethical and policy considerations to methods for community-based co-design. “Community-based” conveys that the work deals with groups of people rather than individuals. “Co-design” means both computer experts and community members are designers on an equal footing working cooperatively. Practical computing artefacts refine ideas and drive insights and have been applied in South Africa and other African countries including Namibia, Kenya and Uganda. He has supervised a number of research students, many from African countries, and has collaborated with researchers in other developing countries. Daniel G. Cabrero is a funded Doctoral Researcher at the School of Computing and Engineering, University of West London, UK. He is a multidisciplinary social scientist, academically trained and accomplished as a scriptwriter, and a Director and Producer of fictional and documentary films. He has also trained as a Computer Scientist in the design of technologies within the disciplines of Human–Computer Interaction and Interaction Design. At present he is finish- ing his PhD thesis on “User-Created Personas”. During his PhD, Daniel has been a Visiting Researcher and Lecturer at the Namibia University of Science and Technology (NUST), Windhoek, Namibia. It is in Namibia that Daniel has studied the way the persona artefact differs across ethnic groups in rural and urban Namibia. Having published twenty-five peer-reviewed publications dur- ing his doctoral studies, Daniel is interested in further pursuing studies on the representation of laypeople towards the design of technologies, especially outside of technological dominant locales; and to craft technologies that are contextually suited – by producing new hardware and software designs as and when required. Daniel has recently joined Human Factors International in India as Vice- President of Advanced User Experience. He is drawing on his learnt knowledge at a PhD level into industry-based projects to advance methods and techniques. Licia Calvi is a Senior Lecturer and a Researcher at the Academy for Digital Entertainment at NHTV University of Applied Sciences in Breda, the Netherlands, where she teaches courses on Interactivity and on Media Theory. Her research is about museum experience design and the use of digital storytell- ing for cultural heritage. She has been experimenting with various technology
- 16. Contributors xi (VR andAR, mixed media) and applied the notion of performance to inform the design of interactions in public and semi-public settings, like museums. In 2016, she co-organised a design-research workshop on Museum Experience Design at CHI 2016, the leading conference in Human–Computer Interaction. LuiginaCiolfiisProfessorofHuman-CentredComputingintheCommunication and Computing Research Centre at Sheffield Hallam University, UK. She holds a Laurea degree in Communication Sciences, University of Siena, Italy, and a PhD in Computer Science, University of Limerick, Ireland. Her research interests are in the fields of human–computer interaction and computer- supported cooperative work, and focus on people’s experience of technology in the physical world, socio-technical systems and collaboration and participation in technology design. She is the author or over eighty refereed publications in international conferences and journals and has led many multidisciplinary projects linking computing, social science and design. Having studied cultural heritage technologies for the past twenty years, she is currently interested in exploring practices of collaboration and co-design involving various cultural heritage stakeholders and communities. Catherine Cummings is a Research Fellow at the University of Exeter on the RICHES European project – Renewal, Innovation and Change: Heritage and European Society. She holds a PhD in museums and collections and has lectured in art and design history, cultural theory and museum studies. Her research interests include the historical and contemporary role of the museum, ethnographic collections, the representation and interpretation of tangible and intangible cultural heritage and the relationship between contemporary craft and digital technology. Recent research addressed the impact of digitisation on cultural heritage in how we access, interpret, communicate and preserve cultural heritage in a digitised era. Daniel Curley is a Historian interested in archaeological research and commu- nity rural tourism with involvement in a number of Heritage Council-funded archaeology projects in his home area. Since being appointed Manager of the community-run Rathcroghan Visitor Centre in 2014, Daniel has directed pro- jects that have enhanced the interpretive experience and garnered recognition for the unique Rathcroghan Archaeological Complex. These projects have been inspired by a need to regenerate the Centre, involving broadening its reach to a national and international audience. Projects include re-design of the Centre’s interpretive rooms, production of a series of outdoor informa- tion panels and co-authorship of a driving trail to guide visitors around the Complex. The vision for the museum involves providing an immersive experi- ence for the visitor, resulting in renewal of the facility’s public spaces and devel- opment of events and conferences thus promoting sustainability. The annual community archaeology conference, run since 2014, has been supported by the ArchaeoLandscapes Europe Project. Daniel’s current work includes engaging with the National Museum of Ireland in order to obtain accreditation for the
- 17. xii Contributors facility todisplay local-provenance artefacts. He is also exploring opportunities for collaborative projects which combine agriculture in the archaeologically sensitive Rathcroghan landscape with heritage-based rural tourism. Areti Damala is an Adjunct Lecturer in Digital Humanities and Augmented Heritage at the Université Paris 8, Vincennes – Saint-Denis, France and an Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK. She holds a BA (Hons) in History of Art and Archaeology, an M.Phil in Cultural Heritage Informatics and a PhD in Experience Design and User Studies. During the last ten years, she has carried out research and collaborated with museums, heritage institutions, Cultural Heritage professionals and museum audiences in France, Italy, Spain, Greece, the UK and the Netherlands. Her main research interests are situated at the intersection of museum and herit- age studies, audience research, visitor-centred experience design and museum- learning using digital and hybrid interpretive media. Anna Devreni-Koutsouki graduated from Sofia University “Saint Kliment Ohridski” with specialisations in Information Science and Teaching in Informatics. She pursued her PhD studies in the domain of cultural heritage informatics. She combines affiliations in the secondary and higher education sector; from 2012 to 2014 she was the Headmaster of the Second Chance School in Drama, Greece. From 2014–2015 she was the Headmaster in the 1st Technical High School of Drama. Currently she is lecturing in the Education faculty of the South-West University “Neofit Rilski” in Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria. Her main research interests are on the influence of technology on education and learning. Milena Dobreva is an Associate Professor and works in the Library Information and Archive Sciences Department of the University of Malta. Her major research interests are in digital curation, user studies for digital libraries devel- opment including citizen science and digital humanities. Since graduating in Informatics in 1991, Milena Dobreva worked in the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences on digitisation, accessibility and preservation of cultural heritage where she earned her PhD degree in Informatics (1999), and acted as the found- ing Head of the first Digitisation Centre in Bulgaria (2004). In 2007–2012 she worked in Glasgow and served as the principal investigator for projects on digi- tal preservation (SHAMAN); prioritisation in digitisation based on user needs (DiscMAP), and evaluation of Europeana. She is the lead Editor of the land- mark text “User studies for digital library development” published by Facet, London, in 2012, and the national representative for Malta in DARIAH, the European e-Infrastructure on Digital Humanities and Arts. Neil Forbes is a Professor of International History at Coventry University, UK. His research interests and publications lie in the fields of cultural heritage (con- flict, contested landscapes and the memorialisation of war), the interaction of foreign policy formulation with the practices of multinational enterprise during
- 18. Contributors xiii the interwaryears, the processes of financial stabilisation after the First World War and Anglo-American relations and the rise of the Third Reich. He has played a leading role in several research projects, including a £1m digitisa- tion and creative archiving project in association with the UK’s BT and The National Archives, and has recently acted as Coordinator of the EU’s FP7 RICHES project – Renewal, Innovation and Change: Heritage and European Society. He is a member of several professional associations and other bodies. Eva Hornecker is a Professor of Human–Computer Interaction in the Faculty of Media at the Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Germany. Before Weimar, she was a Lecturer at the University of Strathclyde, UK. Her research investigates peo- ple’s interaction with physical and embedded technologies, e.g. with tangible or UbiComp systems, and gestural and embodied interaction. Her work often focuses on the social interactions that evolve around such systems, in particular in public settings, such as museums, heritage sites and urban settings. Over the course of fifteen years, she has worked with museums and heritage sites in Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, England and Scotland on the develop- ment and evaluation of museum/heritage technologies and installations. Edel Jennings is a Citizen Science and User Experience Researcher with the TSSG research and innovation group in the Waterford Institute of Technology, Ireland. She graduated with a BA (first class honours) in Communications Studies in 1993, and achieved a MSc in Multimedia Studies in 1999. Since then she has taken up a wide range of roles in the design and research of multi- media applications. She coordinated the digital humanities citizen science pilot for the EU FP7 project Civic Epistemologies, which involved co-developing digital engagement tools with teenagers and senior citizens to recording place- based heritage. Her research interests are in citizen science, the human com- puter interaction aspects of crowdsourcing and social implications of pervasive and social technologies. She led user experience research and evaluation tasks in the EU FP7 ICT-SOCIETIES project, engaging with disaster management, university, and enterprise communities to facilitate their experience, reflection and evaluation of novel technologies. Jeremy Knox is a Lecturer in Digital Education at the University of Edinburgh, UK, and a member of the Centre for Research in Digital Education. His research interests include critical post-humanism and new materialism, and the implications of such thinking for education and educational research, with a specific focus on the digital. His published work includes critical perspectives on Open Educational Resources (OER) and Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Monika Lechner works as Consultant for Digitisation at Erfgoed Brabant (Heritage Brabant, the Netherlands). She holds a BA in Dutch Studies and an MA in Books and Digital Media Studies, both from Leiden University in the Netherlands. Her main expertise is knowledge dissemination, bringing content
- 19. xiv Contributors to communitiesand vice versa, online as well as offline. She focuses on building bridges between technological innovations, research results and their applica- tion by heritage professionals in their daily practice. Her main field of work at the moment is around the Brabant Cloud, a semantic web-based infrastruc- ture for aggregating, enriching and contextualising digital heritage collections online for the Dutch province Noord-Brabant. Laura Maye is a Postdoctoral Researcher at Aalto University, Espoo, Finland. She holds a PhD in Human–Computer Interaction; her PhD involved inves- tigating technology adoption in small museums. Her research is concerned with co-design in cultural heritage and the use of interactive digital technolo- gies and toolkits at cultural heritage sites. She has collaborated closely with museum professionals at The Hunt Museum in Limerick, Ireland, as well as other museum professionals in the Netherlands and Italy as part of the meSch project. Elena Not is a Researcher in the Intelligent Interfaces and Interaction Research Unit at Fondazione Bruno Kessler in Trento, Italy. She has a background in Computer Science and has twenty years’ experience in the application of ICT technologies to the cultural heritage domain. Her research has focused on the adaptive presentation of multimedia information with special emphasis on methods for personalising the experience delivered to users, for planning the narrative structure of digital content, managing the issues related to the integration of different modalities, multilinguality and referring expressions, and with the use of virtual agents and mobile systems. On these topics, she has published extensively in international conferences and journals discussing the results of research and development activities aimed at studying how to improve the visiting experience in museums through more personal and engag- ing interactions. Recently, she extended her investigation to the application of Internet of Things concepts to empower visitors with a more active role in interacting with exhibit objects and spaces. Through fieldwork and evaluation studies in the context of digitally augmented exhibitions, she has gained insights on the challenges of concealing technology within the museum place to best support curators’ values and goals. Daniela Petrelli is a Professor of Interaction Design at the Art and Design Research Centre, Sheffield Hallam University, UK. She started working on new technologies for cultural heritage in 1996 designing the first context- sensitive personalised interactive mobile guide. Currently she leads meSch, a European project exploring the value of tangible and embodied interactions in museums and heritage sites. meSch has received international awards and is the first project to use the Internet of Things and Cloud Computing in muse- ums. Dr Petrelli’s other research interests include personal and family memo- ries, data visualisation, multimedia and multilingual information access. In her career, she has published over 100 international peer-reviewed contributions and received eleven awards, both from academia and industry. Dr Petrelli is
- 20. Contributors xv Co-Director ofthe Digital Materiality Lab at the Art and Design Research Centre, an interest-group considering new digital-material hybrids. Anna Pisetti is the Educational Services Manager at the Italian Historical Museum of War in Rovereto, one of the main Italian historical museums. She deals with the creation of educational courses and training of teachers, educa- tors, cultural and tourism workers. She collaborates in creating publications and temporary exhibitions of the museum. She is co-author of the publica- tion “Children on the trail of the Great War in Trentino”, Italian Historical Museum of War (2012). In the historical context, she has dealt with the his- tory of women in the First World War. She is a member of the Accademia degli Agiati di Rovereto and the Società di Studi Trentini di Scienze Storiche. Within the European project meSch (www.mesch-project.eu), she has worked on the case studies hosted at the Museum of War. Janine Prins graduated from the National Film and Television School in England as an independent documentary filmmaker and producer (1990–1994) after she obtained an MA from Leiden University as a Visual Anthropologist in 1986. Janine has been a Visiting Lecturer since 2009 within the Visual Ethnography programme at Leiden University, and a Research Fellow at Waag Society media lab, where she worked for the RICHES European pro- ject, compiling various field studies. Janine initiates innovative projects for a variety of stakeholders. In 2007 she developed the cross media production “Expeditie Europa” for Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad for which she received an Erasmus Europedia Sponsorship Award, together with co-author Hans Beerekamp. In 2017 she created “Legacy of Silence”, an independent, mixed-media installation at the Sound Image Culture workplace in Brussels. Janine is active also as an education professional in the Netherlands and leads workshops and lectures throughout Europe, including venues such as Utrecht School of the Arts, Stenden University, and the Netherlands Film Academy. In 2011 she founded “Stichting Docuprins”, a cultural charity foundation operat- ing on the intersection of art, education and science. Jen Ross is a Senior Lecturer in Digital Education at the University of Edinburgh, UK. She is Co-Director of the Centre for Research in Digital Education, Deputy Director (KE) of Research and Knowledge Exchange in the School of Education, University of Edinburgh, and former Programme Director of the fully online MSc in Digital Education. She has been working on digital learn- ing and engagement projects with the cultural heritage sector since 2007, when she was part of the research team for the National Museums Online Learning Project. Her research interests include online distance education, digital cul- tural heritage learning, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), digital cul- tures and futures and online reflective practices. Amalia Sabiescu is a Research Associate at the Institute for Media and Creative Industries at Loughborough University, London. Her research explores the
- 21. xvi Contributors interdisciplinary areasituated at the interface between information and com- munication technology (ICT), culture, education and development studies. She has been involved in several research and design projects that explored ICT adoption, appropriation and use in situated spaces – from museums and cultural institutions to local communities and schools – looking at the emer- gence of new patterns of social and human – computer interaction, and novel forms of cultural production and expression. Questions of agency in technol- ogy usage, collaboration, creative engagement with digital media and narrative forms of expression are important topics in her research transcending disci- plinary boundaries. Prior to joining Loughborough University, Amalia held research positions at RMIT University, Australia, Coventry University, UK, and the University of Lugano, Switzerland. Amalia holds an MSc and a PhD in Communication Sciences awarded by the University of Lugano. Susan Shay is a PhD Candidate at the University of Cambridge, UK in the Heritage Sector of the Department of Archaeology. She is investigating how indigenous culture impacts the law in Hawai’i, and how, in turn, changes in the law are impacting heritage values of the indigenous Native Hawaiian com- munity. She has had an extensive career as a Registered Architect, specialising in historic preservation and adaptive reuse. Her practice, which encompassed design as well as construction oversight, ranged from large-scale commercial projects and residential renovations to disaster-recovery of historic resources and disaster mitigation planning for community recovery. Susan’s organi- sational experience, likewise, has ranged from being Chief Architect for a multi-branch national corporation to running her own private practice. Her bachelor’s degree in architecture is from Penn State University and she fulfilled her desire for a deeper exposure to the contemporary issues and technologies of historic preservation through her MS from Columbia University in Historic Preservation. She also pursued graduate studies in Real Estate Development at New York University to learn how to effectively use historic preservation as an economic vehicle to enhance community development. Claire Sowton is a Research Assistant and Teaching Fellow at the University of Edinburgh, UK. With a background in the creative industries and cultural sector her research is practice-focused. Her PhD considered how (and why) beliefs about the transformative power of the arts might be acknowledged when evaluating the arts. Recent research, collaborating with a range of local and national galleries and museums, has explored innovative (digital and mobile) approaches to arts evaluation. Claire also holds an MBA. in Cultural Management and MAs in Educational Research and Sociology. Chris Speed is Chair of Design Informatics at the University of Edinburgh, UK where he collaborates with a wide variety of partners to explore how design provides methods to adapt, and create products and services with a networked society. He especially favours transgressive design interventions, to help identify and promote the values we care about most, including cups that
- 22. Contributors xvii only holdcoffee when you talk to someone else in the queue, an application for sham marriages using the blockchain and an SMS platform for shoplifting. Current funded projects include partnerships with Oxfam, RBS and GCHQ. Chris is co-editor of the journal Ubiquity and co-directs the Design Informatics Research Centre that is home to a combination of researchers working across the fields of interaction design, temporal design, human geography, software engineering and digital architecture, as well as the PhD, MA/MFA and MSc, and Advanced MSc programmes. Colin Stanley is a Lecturer at Namibia University of Science and Technology (NUST). While employed at NUST he has been involved in several national projects in Namibia, namely the Bush Encroachment Decision Support System for farmers in Namibia, Namibian Corridor Economic Impact Database and part of the research team implementing the Namibia’s national database to host Indigenous Knowledge (IK). On an international level, he has developed a Data Record System for the House of Solidarity (http://www.hds.bz.it), Italy. Colin Stanley holds a BTech Software Development Honours degree from NUST and has obtained his MSc in Computer Science specializing in Software Engineering from the Free University of Bolzano, Italy. His MA thesis was about finding the successful characteristics of Free/Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) projects. He is currently in the final year for his PhD dissertation at the University of Cape Town (UCT), South Africa. His PhD topic is Community-Based Co-Design of a Task Request Management Interface to preserve IK layering with Crowdsourcing, on which he has pub- lished at international conferences such as ICTD 2013 in Cape Town, IFIP 2015 in Sri-Lanka, and PDC 2016 in Denmark. Arnold Vermeeren is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering at TU Delft, the Netherlands and the Director of the Faculty’s Museum Futures Lab: a design research lab that focuses on connecting muse- ums to the world outside the museum (institutes, daily practices, communities, etc.) and the role novel technological developments such as DIY technology, Maker Movement and the Internet of Things can play in that. Arnold was educated as an industrial designer and holds a PhD from TU Delft on meth- odological aspects of usability testing. He has been involved in and published much-cited studies on fundamental aspects of user experience (defining user experience, methods for evaluating user experience), and has been involved in various EU-funded projects on User Experience (UX) as well as in a large variety of museum experience-related projects. In 2016 he organised a design research workshop on Museum Experience Design at CHI 2016, the leading conference in Human – Computer Interaction. Leon A. Watts (University of Bath) researches the effects of digital mediation on human communication, towards the facilitation of positive and equitable contributions to joint activity. His work has particular concern for contexts in which feelings are material to the creation of valued outcomes. He takes an
- 23. xviii Contributors interdisciplinary approachto communication contexts, combining psychologi- cal and computational expertise in his analytical and design work. Heike Winschiers-Theophilus has lived, lectured and researched in Namibia since 1994. Her current research and community development activities cen- tre on co-designing technologies with indigenous and marginalised communi- ties mostly in Namibia and Malaysia. Her research has been on cross-cultural issues in Human – Computer Interaction (HCI), cultural appropriation of design and evaluation concepts and methods, representation and retrieval of indigenous knowledge, participatory design, technologies supporting local content-creation as well as community-researcher engagements. She promotes a dialogical and community-based participatory design approach following principles of action research in the development of technologies with rural com- munities. In 2008, Heike established a niche-area research cluster, at the then Polytechnic of Namibia, aiming at implementing an Indigenous Knowledge Management System. A number of prototypes have been developed and are being integrated in the national system. In 2011 she co-chaired the inaugural Indigenous Knowledge Technology Conference, in Windhoek, which initiated a worldwide dialogue on the tensions in digital representations of Indigenous Knowledge, which resulted in a co-edited book published in 2015. She also co-chaired the Participatory Design Conference 2014 in Windhoek, which led to several spin-off collaborations such as joint PhD supervisions, projects focus- ing on Namibian challenges such as enhancing the reading culture, combating gender-based violence and youth unemployment, especially among marginal- ised youth. Martin Woolley is currently an Emeritus Professor in Design Research at Coventry University, UK. With an early background in design, his research interests now include technology transfer, innovation models, the crafts and environmental sustainability, across which he has published widely. He has supervised and examined numerous research degrees and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. Professor Woolley has been Principal Investigator on an EU Fifth Framework project on sustainable pedestrian routes, a UK EPSRC/ AHRC project on interpersonal communication through smart textiles and contributed to a major project to digitise the BT Archive. Prior to Coventry, personal research was combined with the challenge of directing art/design research at Goldsmiths College and Central Saint Martins, London. He has also conducted consultancy for several global academic institutions. Professor Woolley has extensive knowledge-transfer experience, participating in six successful programmes with industrial partners. He was a Council member for the Design Research Society and is now a Fellow. He also chaired two subject associations, obtained his PhD for a thesis entitled “Design, Product Identity and Technological Innovation”, served on the UK Government Research Assessment Exercise panel twice, and was a member of the Arts and Humanities Research Council panel.
- 24. Contributors xix Tom Wrigglesworthis a Research Engineer from the University of Bath who is conducting research in collaboration with the Imperial War Museums, UK. His work is centred on the community activities surrounding the American Air Museum’s crowd-sourced online archive. He is interested in studying the sense making of historical information and in the development of tools that support meaningful engagement with online museum collections.
- 25. This page intentionallyleft blank
- 26. Introduction Luigina Ciolfi, AretiDamala, Eva Hornecker, Monika Lechner and Laura Maye The complex interweaving of heritage, communities and technology This book brings together diverse experiences of community involvement with heritage by means of digital technologies, viewed from a variety of perspectives and disciplines. As scholars and practitioners in museum studies, digital heritage, human-centred computing and interaction design, we are examining examples of the challenges in community engagement with heritage, and of the varied set of concerns, interests and motivations that characterise them. The broad view of her- itage that the book adopts includes memory institutions such as galleries, libraries, archives and museums, but also the cultural wealth of communities themselves. Our goal in editing this volume is to bring to the fore the multiple relationships between heritage, communities and technologies as a focus of study and reflection, and to do so in an inclusive way through contributions that touch upon different disciplines, cultures, methods and goals. This opening chapter provides a critical discussion of the state of the art regarding communities’ engagement with cultural heritage and their use of technologies. We also introduce the themes and issues arising from the ten chapters included in this volume and reflect on them to sug- gest new directions for research and practice. Heritage is everything we value and want to pass on to the following genera- tions. These things are usually objects, places, and practices that we use to tell stories about ourselves, and play a central role in shaping our sense of identity as individuals and as communities. (Giaccardi, 2011, p. 17) The complex interrelationship between cultural heritage and a variety of stake- holder communities has been the subject of investigation for a long time: key issues have ranged from the understanding of visitor communities and their various motivations, background and interests, to the self-reflection by the professional heritage community on their own practices and strategies. Participation of communities in heritage interpretation, communication and preservation has become a key topic and been increasingly debated in recent
- 27. 2 L. Ciolfiet al. years. For example, Nina Simon’s “The Participatory Museum” and more recently “The Art of Relevance” have proposed ways to engage communities with heritage in the context of museums at various levels. The rise in availability and adoption of digital technologies by increasing num- bers of different age and interest groups in recent years has impacted significantly on both the relationship between cultural heritage and relevant communities, and the strategies put in place to facilitate community engagement and participation. The label “digital technologies” refers to a wide range of tools and instru- ments that can support community practices around heritage. Museum studies and practice paid much attention to what these tools can bring to the domain: from static websites of the early nineties enabling heritage institutions to com- municate to large audiences for the first time and to offer digital information, to digitally displaying their collections, to two-way communication via web 2.0 and social media and fully developed digital strategies for many museums and heritage institutions around the world. Conversely, interested communities and involved groups of volunteers have also adopted digital technologies out of their own initia- tive in order to raise awareness, support, campaign and share “their” heritage: examples are the use of social media to foster “friends” and volunteer groups, or community-run websites dedicated to specific places, collections or forms of intangible heritage. Digital technology in the studies reported on in this collection ranges from scanners and printers used to share memorabilia (Chapter 3), to social media platforms (for example (Chapter 9), laser cutters and 3D printers (Chapter 2) and bespoke wearable devices enhancing a site visit (Chapter 10). Similarly, cultural heritage has long been an established domain of study for human-centred computing – from the digitisation of heritage collections and resources, to the design of technological interventions at heritage sites to offer novel visitor experiences, to the analysis and evaluation of the role of shared and of personal technologies in heritage settings (see for example vom Lehn et al., 2010; Grinter et al., 2002; Hornecker, 2010; Ciolfi and McLoughlin, 2012). While the technological lens on heritage has become increasingly concerned with how to locally involve related social groups in dialogue, encourage participation and active involvement of visitors and other stakeholder communities, it set the stage to also broaden the view of heritage beyond museums and other memory institu- tions to encompass new audiences that in the past were not necessarily deemed a direct target group for heritage, but are today: communities of interest. Reexamining the relationship between heritage and the common categories of individual visitor versus group visitors (such as, for example, families and/or school field trips, which are a more common focus in museum and heritage audi- ence research), it is important to stress the focus on communities – and this is what is at the core of this collection. Besides an understanding of community based on geographical, social, his- torical or cultural characteristics (Albert et al., 2012), we also include in our defi- nition what Lave and Wenger have termed “communities of practice” (1991), referring to communities that are formed not only by (self) identification, but by
- 28. Introduction 3 people participatingtogether in a process of collective learning and doing. Both perspectives on communities are relevant for readers of this book as lenses to reflect on the multiplicity of community involvement in heritage, and on the chal- lenges and opportunities that digital technologies can bring to it. A community has a set of common goals, engages in interpersonal and col- laborative interactions and typically has a network of informal learning and sup- port established in its midst. It is usually content-driven and has thus an intrinsic focus on the interest that forms the core of the community – that which drives and motivates its members to act and become part of the community in the first place, and around which the members identify. However, members are not always aware or concerned about the established heritage institutions they share an inter- est with and may lack the professional knowledge about care and conservation guidelines, be it for on- or offline collections, additional resources or the content they produce. This is where established heritage institutions and communities of interest can particularly profit from interacting with each other, and where digital technologies can facilitate – for instance – the dialogue and knowledge exchange between both. While the field of heritage recognises the value of this discourse, its expertise about how to best use digital technologies for engagement can be limited. This is where the fields of human – computer interaction and, more broadly, human- centred computing can provide valuable insights. Thus, when examining and dis- cussing the ways in which communities can participate in heritage through digital technologies, we propose that these two perspectives – that of heritage studies and practice and that of human-centred computing – come together. These trends should also be examined within the context of a recent major shift in museum research and practice – one that wants museums passing from a state of “being about something, to being about somebody” (Weil, 1999). Museums are indeed transforming the way they engage with their public, meaning individual visitors as well as the communities in which they are grounded, and society as a whole. Museums, as strongly established and highly visible institutions, are thus in a privileged position for making a difference in the life of individuals, communi- ties, societies as well as to our built and natural surrounding environment. The complex landscape of relationships between museums and communi- ties has been recently discussed in a number of important publications. Museums and Communities: Curators, Collections and Collaborators (Golding and Wayne, 2013) focuses on several issues related to control and power (including empowering communities) between museums and different communities they may serve, and on how museums can potentially impact on wider issues of equality, human rights and social justice. Museums, Society and Inequality (Sandell, 2002) empha- sises the interrelations between the cultural and the social, and those museum practices that can assist museums fulfilling their role as agents of social change. Museums and Their Communities (Watson, 2007) provides a wide range of case stud- ies of museums working with communities at a local, regional or national level. There also exist other writings that describe the implications digital technologies
- 29. 4 L. Ciolfiet al. have on engagement and safeguarding of heritage (Parry 2010; Cameron and Kenderline, 2007). While all of these resources examine the relationships between prominent memory institutions and communities, there is still a gap in the literature regard- ing how digital technologies can facilitate or empower institutions and communi- ties in undertaking common ventures, working together, encouraging a two-way communication, setting the foundations for diversity, inclusion and change locally as well as globally. This book fills such gap, as it makes a new contribution to an established, yet still underexplored, body of scholarship, and addresses questions and issues related to the role of digital technology for cultural heritage communities and the challenges in supporting cultural heritage communities with such technology in meaningful ways for both. Chapters overview The collection of chapters in this volume has us identify a number of key concerns. For instance, a common theme across the studies presented is the difficulty of ensuring or creating long-term sustainability of cultural heritage community prac- tices; a second theme is how cultural heritage and its interpretation are dynamic and evolving, while institutions and their curatorial approaches can often be more concerned with establishing a long-term interpretation strategy and with preserv- ing tradition. In all these examples, digital technologies take up different and often multi-faceted roles: from a means to documentation and preservation, to com- munication, participation and often dialogue linking diverse concerns and views. While these overarching themes appear in all chapters, the contributions are presented in three groupings: the first three chapters show different forms of com- munity makeup and the strategies and challenges for their engagement through digital technologies. 2D and 3D visualisation techniques are becoming more common and wide- spread for the documentation and interpretation of Cultural Heritage. However, we know little as to whether these techniques and technologies in archaeologi- cal practice can be embraced or supported by the general public, citizens and their communities. In Chapter 1, Kevin Barton and Daniel Curley provide an account of local community projects making use of remote sensing technologies linking these practices with the broader thematic of community archaeology. Five different case studies from Ireland are presented in context, giving an over- view of the different tools, techniques and procedures local communities have successfully engaged with. These ranged from investigating the topography of still hidden or unearthed monuments up to updating and renewing the displays of the Rathcroghan Visitor Centre in Ireland, based on the findings of these remote sensing and visualisation investigations, all by encouraging community involvement and interdisciplinary collaboration. The picture is completed by visiting the practices of two adult cultural heritage community groups as well as two projects that sought to involve school children in archaeological remote
- 30. Introduction 5 sensing projectsand that adopted a learning by doing approach. The authors share lessons learned from remote sensing as a non-invasive yet hands-on way of practising and planning for community archaeology, underline its importance as a tool for appreciating our built and archaeological heritage and take notice of the many challenges still faced in legislation governing relevant archaeological resources management in Europe. In Chapter 2, Amalia Sabiescu et al. discuss how online maker communities create new spaces of engagement with cultural heritage in crafts-based areas. Different from earlier revivals of craft that saw technology as alienating, the con- temporary maker movement embraces digital technology by using it for sharing and communication in new online communities that engage with heritage, as well as with new craft practices that mix digital tools with traditional techniques. This chapter emphasises that one needs to understand the values, aspirations and ide- als- the craft ethos of such maker communities – to engage with them. Based on an analysis of online maker communities in knitting, weaving and crocheting they identify a tension and oscillation between the ideals of faithfulness to historic form, and creative appropriation or interpretation as different ways of realising cultural heritage. Moreover, the notion of the “maker” emphasises autonomy, self-edu- cation and empowerment via a do-it-yourself ethic while highlighting sharing, mutual support and egalitarian collaboration in maker communities and spaces. These maker communities have reinvented a craft ethos which values expressive power, striving for excellence, and fulfilment through creative work. This chapter focuses on traditionally highly gendered crafts, which are re-interpreted via their uptake by international online communities. The authors discuss how cultural institutions can engage with craft and with online maker communities. The dis- cussion raises various issues that can inspire future research. These include how craft is repositioned in a social context, the change of gendered images of spe- cific crafts, as well as notions of value. This concerns in particular the role of tradition versus creative appropriation, and the role of technology in crafts. Does machine use such as laser-cutting and 3D printing lower the value of objects? Can these technologies provide new tools for a new form of crafts? Furthermore, by re-interpreting and appropriating heritage creatively, the new maker communities turn heritage into living practices. In the case study presented in Chapter 3, Gabriela Avram discusses how, as a researcher, she joined and supported a community-initiated and -run project in Limerick (Ireland), focusing on adjusting technological support to user needs, resulting in simple, low-key technology in a bricolage approach. The Limerick Dance Hall Project was co-created and run by local communities to bring back to life the dance hall era through conversations and dance lessons. It culminated in an outdoors dance event and an exhibition of photos and memorabilia. In this chapter, Avram reflects on her experiences as a volunteer supporting the exhi- bition preparation and running, in particular assisting with technology support, focusing on issues around project ownership and the role of ‘discreet’ technol- ogy. This included a video booth for collecting oral histories, which had to be redesigned and shifted to allow for convivial and shared storytelling, and mobile
- 31. 6 L. Ciolfiet al. scanning and printing technology used to copy people’s memorabilia on the spot, which was further repurposed to enable visitors to take home exhibition material relevant to themselves. Neither would be considered novel technologies, but were essential in enabling collecting and archiving and publishing artefacts. Digitisation here enabled remediation of old technology, such as photographs. Avram empha- sises the need for long-term engagement and the need for the researcher to remain in the background, in a serving role. The second set of three chapters details three cases of participatory approaches in different contexts with respect to culture, expertise and concerns. Chapter 4 by Edel Jennings, Milena Dobreva and Anna Devreni-Koutsouki reflects on how engagement models can help understand and support partici- pation in citizen science in cultural heritage. This is based on experiences from a pilot project involving intergenerational groups to collect oral local histories around local placenames in Ireland. The project engaged teenagers to record and document stories around placenames and place-based memories from elderly citizens. The project further sought to explore whether an intergenerational citi- zen science digital toolkit for these recordings could be developed in a co-design process. The authors identify that ownership of the materials collected is an issue, especially when eliciting stories of personal relevance, and the question of how to remain respectful to informants in editing and curating material. In the project, it was found easiest if teenagers interviewed family members. An added advantage for the local community is the creation of an incentive for intergenerational con- versations and knowledge exchanges which otherwise might not occur. A central problem for such projects is how to create long-term engagement from a sustain- able community of members. The authors discuss the role of user experience and design of social technologies and other digital tools used. The chapter further highlights the importance of enlisting and involving gatekeepers to gain access to participants and illustrates the potential of collecting local knowledge and sto- ries to deepen personal and cultural connections and to enhance social capital within communities. Chapter 5 focuses on a different cultural and geographical context. Here, Colin Stanley et al. describe the co-design challenges and process of a crowdsourcing management system with ovaHerero and ovaHimba indigenous communities in Africa. The authors discuss the considerations for designing crowdsourcing tools amongst participants from those regions. In doing so, this chapter reveals the dif- ferences of crowdsourcing practices between these communities, and also discuss how these practices may be different to those in Western cultures. Notably, the chapter references how the community learned about, as well as organised, their crowdsourcing tasks during the research. The chapter also indicates the chal- lenges of designing crowdsourcing applications for these communities, indicating they have specific requirements on interface and content design of crowdsourc- ing technology that are unique to these communities. Some of these require- ments can only be identified when the features are implemented; as the authors argue, this may require modifying the co-design process for working with these indigenous communities.
- 32. Introduction 7 Aside fromvisitor communities, professional communities also face challenges in keeping up to date with digital innovations. In Chapter 6, Arnold Vermeeren and Licia Calvi propose a research approach for engaging small museums in digital innovation as part of the “Hidden Gems” project. Visitor communities, particularly those of younger generations, are increasingly expecting museum artefacts and the stories surrounding them to be, in some way, enhanced by digital technology. Moreover, the growing trends in museums to embrace more community-centred approaches mean that also small Museums need to go beyond using technology only for digitising their collection: they need to be able to make it usable, relevant, and sustainable to engage and communicate with visitors. These are amongst the many difficulties that small museums encounter when participat- ing in digital innovation. Based on the lessons they learned from a previous project at the Mauritshuis museum, the authors recommend small museums to adopt design techniques and methods that encourage participation from younger generations and other com- munities in designing visitor experiences. For example, they suggest considering factors beyond the museum visit itself, for instance, visitors’ prior interests, motiva- tions and intentions, when engaging the community. With their design-inclusive proposal, the authors’ intention is to aid small museums in creating closer ties with visitors and thus creating digitally enriched heritage experiences that are relevant for them. The final grouping of four chapters includes examples of experimentations and explorations about how digital technology can mediate communities’ experiences and practices around heritage, particularly dealing with open-ended (and even controversial) topics. Beyond documentation and communication, what is the role emotions can play in assisting individuals as citizens and communities in connecting with cul- tural heritage? Tom Wrigglesworth and Leon Watts report in Chapter 7 on two exploratory studies carried out at the American Air Museum at IWM Duxford, England. The studies focused on the interrelations among on emotions, learning and meaning-making and were designed in such a way so as to evoke thoughts, feelings and interpretations of images related with Europe’s conflicting past and more specifically on the Second World War. The authors examine the role of the personal, social and physical context, highlighting the unique and very per- sonal ways visitors make sense of information, with a specific focus on emotions. More importantly, they provide insights on the impact their findings may have in navigating in cultural heritage narratives and content both onsite and online and argue that personal, emotional and empathetic connections may serve as a mech- anism for engaging individuals as well as communities with the past. Furthermore they share their reflections on how the lessons learned from the onsite study could be applied to online resources and repositories, suggesting that new models of access and reflection could and should be made available and that online digital contents can become both more accessible as well as personal and relevant to the public. This could further encourage community engagement and sustainability for relevant crowdsourcing, community projects.
- 33. 8 L. Ciolfiet al. From a mobilities perspective, Chapter 8 explores a new digital and mobile form of arts evaluation. Aiming to challenge existing evaluation practice, Jenn Ross et al. present a digital platform enabling visitors to make connections between art, place and time, thus intending to broaden and question what arts evaluation could be like in response to the evolving contemporary art culture. With a focus on the ARTIST ROOMS exhibition, the chapter further details the opportuni- ties and challenges of conducting contemporary arts evaluation in this explora- tory manner. Particularly, it discusses the benefits it may provide, which include provoking new avenues of thinking about evaluation and new ways of imagining a gallery visit. However, it also discusses a number of complexities that extend beyond the scope of the chapter, including the challenges of reassessing evalu- ation practice in the cultural heritage sector, where evaluation procedures are well-established, but may not be appropriate for evaluating all relevant elements of contemporary art exhibitions. In Chapter 9, Susan Shay examines how a community of Native Hawaiians used online platforms and social media as a means of cultural protection and indigenous empowerment to challenge political agendas that were unaware of tra- ditional indigenous values in Hawai’i. The community developed a digital media strategy for the protection of the sacred mountain of Mauna Kea and to battle the construction of a large telescope on site. Shay details earlier experiences of indig- enous activism making use of online tools to campaign for heritage and cultural preservation as since the 1990s indigenous Hawaiians have participated in initia- tives for the cultural preservation and promotion of indigenous knowledge and heritage. The process of “decolonising the mind”, where the native population and its self-identity are empowered through education, communication and pres- ervation of their history, language and cultural values, is discussed in this chapter. The Mauna Kea campaign is particularly significant as it involved a generation of Native Hawaiians that has grown up immersed in their cultural heritage, language and history, as well as being knowledgeable about digital media. The success of the Mauna Kea campaign was linked to the success of spreading the importance of heritage protection at international level, gathering support also from parts of the scientific community. Shay argues that access to the Internet has changed indigenous lives, empowering native communities not only to run successful spe- cific campaigns, but to maintain a long-term commitment to decolonizing views of their heritage and to appropriating their own traditional knowledge. Shay’s con- clusion regarding the effectiveness of social media is more open-ended: she argues that these tools have not yet demonstrated their effectiveness in the long term. In the final chapter of the book, Chapter 10, Anna Pisetti, Elena Not and Daniela Petrelli document the efforts by Museo Della Guerra (Museum of War) in Rovereto, Italy in connecting a variety of local communities to the historical heritage of the First World War. The museum is careful in developing a number of engagement initiatives aimed at specific communities, from volunteer groups, to schools and tourists. The authors describe three case studies where interactive dig- ital technologies were employed in support of interpretation at two sites that the museum manages. The first example is an augmented walk around the trenches of
- 34. Introduction 9 the FirstWorld War on the mountains surrounding the town of Rovereto, where visitors could listen to evocative historical content at specific locations in order to identify with the experiences of the soldiers. The exploration of these locations and of the sounds were controlled by visitors through a wearable interface. The second example is an interactive exhibition, installed in the museum’s artillery section, focusing on the effects of war. Here visitors can choose different themes and dif- ferent digital audio-visual content through a portable device, the “pebble”, which was designed to resemble a stone from the mountains. Post-visit engagement was also supported in this case study through a personalised souvenir. Pisetti et al. dis- cuss how various aspects of these installations, from the choice of content to the tangible features of the interactive components, were perceived and appropriated by the various communities who experienced them.The authors’ main conclusion is that technology and content must be designed in close connection in order to provide engaging visitor experiences. In this case, the museum’s own strong rela- tionship with its local context empowered the designers to both design evocative and powerful content and physical devices that captured the visitors’ attention and imagination. These ten chapters provide rich insights on community engagement with herit- age mediated by digital technologies. They present various types of communities: from professional, to volunteer and local ones, and in different geographical and cultural contexts. They examine a variety of digital tools for heritage preservation and documentation, for communication and interpretation, and for community building. The analyses and discussions proposed by the authors also highlight the multiple lenses that can be applied to understanding cultural heritage commu- nities and their challenges: from long term and wide-spanning political agendas surrounding both heritage preservation and community identity, to nuanced and in-depth examinations of meaning-making, identification and understanding of heritage. The chapters also provide an overview of the opportunities and limitations of a wide range of digital tools, from commercially available ones, to open source, and to bespoke hardware and software solutions. Furthermore, these contribu- tions should provide inspiration for future initiatives and projects by illustrating narratives of engagement, adoption and appropriation of digital tools for a variety of heritage settings. Disentangling communities, technologies and cultural heritage After outlining this book’s contribution to ongoing efforts to describe and reflect on communities, digital technologies and cultural heritage, let us now try to estab- lish how the issues raised by the authors can be placed in the ongoing discourse on these themes. Increasingly, a wealth of research is focusing on community participation in interpreting artefacts at heritage sites and institutions (Kidd, 2011). Technology can facilitate visitor communities to contribute interpretation to heritage artefacts
- 35. 10 L. Ciolfiet al. and provide opportunities for them to co-create content. Giaccardi and Palen (2008) discuss how these communities can be supported in participating in the social construction of heritage in place and the importance of sustaining commu- nity connections over time. Russo (2012) highlights that social media can act as a platform between museums and communities in supporting many-to-many par- ticipation both within and beyond the walls of the museum. However, museums may need to alter their practice to encourage and sustain community contribu- tions to heritage (Russo, 2012). In this volume Jennings et al. detail how participa- tion can be mediated through a co-design approach. This is key as the co-constructed meanings that visitors provide can also aid insti- tutions in understanding their visitors’ expectations, as discussed by Wrigglesworth and Watts in Chapter 7. However, passing over control requires placing a great deal of trust on the visitor community to provide adequate information (Carnall et al., 2013). Crowdsourcing is another approach to community engagement that has gained the attention of the heritage world. Nonetheless, difficulties surround- ing the quality of participation and knowledge provided are also prevalent in these projects (Oomen and Aroyo, 2011). These are issues that resurface in some of the projects described in the contributions to this collection (see, for example, Chapter 3 by Avram and Chapter 9 by Shay). Furthermore, there is an increasing attention on civic community-led herit- age: tangible or intangible heritage holdings are identified, championed and often managed by civic communities where institutional support is not present through the use of easily available technologies such as social media. Heritage stops being only about memory and becomes, in Giaccardi’s words, “living practice” (Giaccardi, 2011; p. 17). Many of these communities are using web 2.0 technologies to sustain the sharing of memories and the creating of stories relating to heritage artefacts. Ridge (2014) examines practices of crowdsourcing in various cultural heritage set- tings and their impact on audiences and also on institutions and Gregory (2015) indicates how social media facilitate communities to reminisce lost heritage and encourages them to take action to preserve existing heritage. These are important tools for facilitating active community engagement. Community-contributed heritage can also serve as a means for people to expe- rience local history (Han et al., 2014). Some of the chapters in this book indeed touch upon issues of visitor-generated contributions, both from the point of view of the challenges surrounding their involvement in crowdsourcing and social media participation, and of the issues to do with the relationship between these types of content and the work of profes- sionals (see, for example, Chapter 4 by Jennings et al. and Chapter 3 by Avram). These forms of community engagement have had positive impact on institu- tions. Yet the main issue to reflect upon when taking stock of what shapes the relationship between heritage and stakeholder communities is the role that herit- age institutions take when establishing these relationships: for a long time, the view was that of an official institution offering visitors certain (and institutionally- approved) content, and interaction opportunities for interpretation and education purposes. However, cultural heritage is in fact a much more fragmented domain
- 36. Introduction 11 where differentinstitutions operate in very different ways, and where communities can play a significant role also in defining what is of value to them, and where new socially inclusive and participative ideas of heritage have become widespread also within the walls of memory institutions (Simon, 2010). We see in Chapter 1 by Barton and Curley how community initiatives can spearhead heritage docu- mentation and preservation projects before institutions; in Chapter 8, Ross et al. talk about how institutions can embrace exploratory and critical ways to evaluate exhibits and audience participation. Even within established institutions such as museums (rather than, say, volun- teer groups) different communities of stakeholders are involved in the preserva- tion, communication and sharing of heritage holdings: from the community of professionals managing them, to the communities of volunteers, of special interest groups and of “friends” and supporters of the institution engaging with them. Technology can feature in a number of activities for all these groups, as well as a tool to support visitors in their experience of heritage. On a related topic, co-creation of interactive exhibitions in museums and gal- leries is also growing, and communities can be of benefit to this process, as well as perceiving their contribution as valuable to the process of exhibition design (Smith and Iversen 2014; Bossen et al., 2012). In Chapter 10 Pisetti et al. discuss how designers, museum staff and local communities were involved in a series of technology design project, and how different concerns were embodied in the final designs. On the other hand, challenges can arise in these co-creation projects, particularly since the participating communities may need to learn how to work together efficiently to ensure effective involvement in the design process. Along with visitors, growing attention is also being placed on involving pro- fessional communities (for example, at heritage and memory institutions such as museums and archives) in the development of interactive exhibitions. At a rapid pace, professional communities working at heritage institutions are learning how to portray interpretive information as technology becomes further embedded in their practices. However, as Marty (2006) notes, doing so requires building the skills necessary to present content effectively using new information technology. Due to the evolving role of technology in heritage practice, that these communities will need to learn how to feature technology in their activities to sup- port visitor interpretation (Duff et al., 2009). In Chapter 6, Vermeeren and Calvi argue how small museums in particular could benefit with support in developing these skills. Overall, we can see how nowadays the roles, characteristics, motivations of communities involved in heritage and the mutual relationships among them is a variegated and complex topic. Particularly, the participation of non-professional communities takes multiple forms. Ciolfi (2013) identifies a set of open issues related to the “work” of communities in cultural heritage, which the chapters in this book help to further investigate: · · The participation of external communities of interest in acquiring and docu- menting cultural heritage holdings for museums and other institutions;
- 37. 12 L. Ciolfiet al. · · The participation of various communities of interest in generating commen- taries and discussions around shared heritage; · · The role of civic communities in identifying, preserving and communicating heritage. Communities of interest and of practice around heritage (with different degrees of formality and training) are increasingly defining and taking ownership of what is of value for them, thus not only responding to institutional discourses and policies around heritage holdings, but defining and reconfiguring heritage as lived prac- tice. From cases where an established institution and a community of enthusiasts work together to consolidate and communicate heritage to a wider public – for example the successful “Saving Bletchley Park” campaign in the UK (http://sav- ingbletchleypark.org), through which the work of the British code breakers dur- ing the Second World War has been brought to public attention and recognition (Black, 2016), to examples where ordinary citizens create an informal group for the preservation of what they consider to be of value, no matter how local or small – such as the Cassiar community initiative in Canada (http://www.cassiar. ca) for the preservation of the history of a now abandoned asbestos mining town and its people, we see that community work in heritage creates rich relationships between members and with other stakeholders (Albert et al., 2012). The European project “Europa Nostra” (www.europanostra.org) aims to involve citizens in the safeguarding of European cultural heritage. We see a powerful example of com- munity participation in safeguarding heritage in Chapter 9, where Shay discusses how indigenous communities in Hawai’i actively use social media to convey and preserve traditional knowledge. Conversely, established heritage institutions are increasingly open to community outreach (Maye et al., 2014). Situated in the complex context we have delineated, this book brings together important examples of such multifaceted community involvement in cultural her- itage and of related technology design and use. Underlying all contributions are reflections over the challenges and opportunities for community involvement in cultural heritage with and through technology and the lessons learned as part of these experiences. They also introduce and inspire a set of open issues and discus- sion topics. Place and sense of place What does it take to activate a community to get into action? Almost all the chapters in this book underline the importance of place and of sense of place in the relationship between cultural heritage and communities. Place is a key concern in the sense that people and their heritage are bound to a certain place, by memory, meaningful events or other personal ties. Such has also been shown in new media art projects (McKinley and Damala, 2013), such as the Museum of Modern Art “invasion” – a community and participatory art project inspired by Augmented and Virtual Reality (see: http://www.sndrv.nl/moma/) – as well as in activism, such as, for example, Occupy Wall Street or the recent “Standing Rock” protest against the
- 38. Introduction 13 Dakota accesspipeline – whether to protect or question a place (and the culture it represents). Certain places can trigger the engagement of a community, due to the fact that memories are coined in connection to a location and place “stamp”. Individuals who are linked to a certain place, are more likely to form communities and engage with others that have the same connection to this place, that makes them interact and engage with the heritage there. And as we can see in Jennings et al. (Chapter 4), cultural heritage community activities may benefit the local com- munity itself, by strengthening local ties and fostering knowledge of and pride on the local heritage. Technologies, offline as well as online ones, are important means to facilitate and organise the help of the community, such as is shown by Shay (Chapter 9). The relationship between the (physical) place of heritage and digital engagement, and between physical and virtual communities (which often overlap) is an interde- pendent one. Sense of place is equally important as it engages communities that might be geographically dispersed. In the Saving Bletchley Park campaign, the physical location was seen as the “home” of the code breakers and the embodi- ment of a part of British history and heritage that had been overlooked. Saving Bletchley Park and rendering it a well-known and funded place of heritage was inevitably tied to saving the memory and legacy of the codebreakers, and thus the community of supporters and campaigners went well beyond the “local”. The way in which digital technologies support and/or mediate the creation, life and practices of communities means the emergence and reconfiguration of relationships to place and of senses of place, and of how heritage value becomes attached to places and their digital representations. In Chapter 7, Wrigglesworth and Watts reflect on such place-oriented ways of sensemaking around museum artefacts and exhibits and find that emotional and empathic connections are key to this. Additionally, time is an important factor: heritage institutions need to get to know the individuals and workings of the community. Time of course is a crucial dimension of heritage, as it often defines heritage value. Furthermore, a commu- nity needs time to learn how to efficiently work with the technologies that allow them to engage, record, preserve, or advocate for the heritage they value (see for example Stanley et al., in Chapter 5). Personal heritage values vs. object-oriented collections Community engagement with cultural heritage is very much based on personal values. Whatever moves a person or community, motivates them to act and to become engaged. Therefore heritage institutions have great interest in knowing and assessing what kind of heritage is valued most and by whom. With this knowl- edge they can better target communities and craft tools for engagement. However, as Giaccardi (2011) argues: “Who we are and what we value never stay the same. One way to expand this understanding is to look at the stories we tell about our- selves. We craft these stories through the things we preserve and pass on: objects and practices standing in for knowledge and values that are still meaningful to us”
- 39. 14 L. Ciolfiet al. (Giaccardi 2011, p. 17). The importance of these personal connections is discussed in several of the chapters in this book (see, for example, the chapters by Pisetti et al., Avram, and Wrigglesworth and Watts). Personal and community engage- ment is moved by meaning and values: these change, grow and evolve as individu- als and groups do. Communities are fluid and often different types of community operate on different motivations, think, for example, of the differences between professional communities and local or volunteer groups. In relation to this, Giaccardi makes another key point, also highlighted throughout the chapters in this book: most museums are object-oriented, whereas non-professional communities are mostly not. Communities tend to relate more strongly to the stories that lie in cultural heritage artefacts and that have personal meaning and value for them. As Sabiescu et al. put it (Chapter 2 in this book), “In recent decades cultural institutions have undergone profound changes in practice and have reconsidered their role from being object-centred to people-centred in developing their public engagement strategies and in building relationships with their audience” (p. 54). Memory institutions will increasingly be concerned with being “community-centred”, focusing not only on understanding their visitors as individuals, but also the communities that can become key in supporting and sus- taining them, being mindful of the fact that communities emerge from strongly felt values and concerns. The relationships that institutions and stakeholder com- munities will establish, how they will be maintained and grown, and how digital technology will play a role in this are issues that will be at the centre of the debate for the foreseeable future. To support cultural heritage communities, in our view we should find inspira- tion from earlier work on communities of practice, which are defined by having shared values, practices and activities, resulting in shared stories and experiences. While specific tools may play a role, these do only so in the context of a shared practice. Moreover, this perspective may help understand what renders it diffi- cult for comparatively short-term research projects to lead into self-sustaining on- going efforts undertaken by a steady heritage community, thus overcoming some of the challenges of long-term engagement with stakeholders. Cultural Heritage as Dynamic Chapter 2 by Sabiescu et al. raises also an important question regarding what makes up heritage (what is established heritage and what is innovation in how and what we identify as heritage), and how creative appropriation of heritage chal- lenges traditional views of curation and conservation. Contemporary makers rep- licate, but also interpret and transform traditional motifs and crafts practices.This has implications for cultural heritage professionals, whose role it is to curate and interpret heritage. Furthermore, it echoes discussions about visitor participation in museums and the changing role of the curator (see, for example, Simon, 2016). Moreover, such creative adaptations illustrate that heritage needs to be kept alive and does so best when it is allowed to evolve, rather than just being transmitted or described in a static and closed way.
- 40. Introduction 15 In Chapter10 of this book, Pisetti et al. give important examples of how a more person-centred approach to presenting historical information can engage local communities in heritage by making them personally connect to places and histo- ries. Such approaches that envision degrees of appropriation and original elabo- ration hold much promise in facilitating “living” heritage. Work by communities engaged with intangible heritage can be of inspiration. An important example is “The Full English” project by the English Folk Dance and Song Society (www. efdss.org/efdss-the-full-english): the largest collection of UK folk manuscript has been made available digitally to all, and communities of both amateur and profes- sional musicians and performers, scholars and music lovers have been encouraged to develop activities that use this resource. This initiative provides a good example for how openness to appropriation and digital technology can revive traditions and communities. Understanding the nuances of specific communities and their practices A diverse range of specific communities are discussed in the chapters in this book; together, they provide a snapshot of the opportunities and challenges of engag- ing these communities in the safeguarding, interpretation and communication of heritage. What do these cases tell us about initiating and fostering community participation in heritage preservation in various cultures and contexts? No com- munity is the same and there is no universal approach for supporting commu- nity engagement in heritage. For some communities, understanding the purpose of participating in the preservation of heritage may prove challenging (see for example Chapter 5 where Stanley et al. discuss similar issues). Moreover, as Shay indicates in Chapter 9, sustaining participation in heritage, and not only initiating it, is a key consideration. While community participation in heritage is increas- ing, it is important that specific communities are supported appropriately to pre- serve and contribute to their local heritage. It is also important to remember that non-professional communities can hold a significant wealth of knowledge and expertise, whether about heritage (for example amateur historical communities) or other important practices, such as, for example, fundraising or social media management. In Chapter 3 Avram describes how the community involved in the Limerick Dance Halls project included local historians, musicians, concert organisers and dance instructors as well as other interested citizens. The researcher herself was part of the community offering her social media and digital documentation exper- tise. The unique makeup of the group and the ingenuity that members contrib- uted with made the project a success. It goes without saying that professional communities also need to engage with emerging technological developments. What steps might these professional com- munities need to take to embrace these advances? Current trends indicate that museum and heritage professionals may require developing further skills to under- stand how digital innovations may serve visitor engagement (Duff et al., 2009) and
- 41. 16 L. Ciolfiet al. to also be in a position to learn and develop new skills in an evolving information society (Marty, 2006). In Vermeeren and Calvi’s Chapter 6, we see a potential avenue for supporting professionals working in small museums to build collabora- tions with local communities to help form understandings and skills for engaging in digital heritage projects. How might museums and local communities work together so that museums can gain the knowledge required to help local commu- nities engage in heritage; that museums can use this knowledge to design engag- ing experiences for visitors; and that local communities and other visitors obtain knowledge that is of value to them? Regardless of how museums embrace these technological advances, this may require revising strategic approaches for engag- ing with local communities (Marty, 2006), and thus the policies that underpin museum practices. Technology and technological know-how The role of technology in the diverse projects discussed throughout our book’s chapters is diverse. This ranges from technological tools for collecting and curat- ing heritage data (Barton and Curley) and evaluation data (Ross et al.), simple technologies such as scanners and printers used to replicate mementos and to record stories (Avram; Jennings et al.), as well as communication tools that sustain the community, enable sharing (Sabiescu et al.; Shay), and reinvent the heritage itself (Sabiescu et al.; Pisetti et al.). What do these examples tell us about the role of technology-savvy facilita- tors/designers? We see technological experts in a variety of roles: from facilitators (Stanley et al.; Barton and Curley), to enablers (Pisetti et al.), to innovators (Ross et al.). But we also see that in some cases, no specialised or specific technical knowl- edge is needed as technological literacy has increased for some communities. The technological landscape has become more varied and more extensive in recent years, with a significant increase in widely available and affordable tools for non experts. Social media platforms are a prime example of this, enabling digital com- munication and the establishment of online groups and fora. However, beside the tools themselves, this has also increased digital literacy. We see an example of this in Shay’s chapter. In Barton and Curley’s chapter we see how more specialised toolkits can also be adopted and appropriated by communities with some support. Technical and technological know-how is therefore evolving from a resource that is called upon (usually from experts) to address specific problems and deliver spe- cific results, to an enabler of community’s active involvement and participation. The role of technical and technological expert may be therefore becoming closer to that of facilitator, tutor or advisor. However, it is still important to allow room for experimentation with novel technologies that might require specialised handling: for example, Pisetti et al. describe an example where the technology used for the visitor experiences around the Museo della Guerra is novel in terms of form and interaction. Here the role of communities (the professional community of the Museum of war, and the local community of visitors) is that of informing design and providing feedback on the
- 42. Introduction 17 result ofthese innovations while the design, development and maintenance are still in the hands of experts. While the specific need for specialised technical know-how may be different depending on the remit of the project and the communities involved, it impor- tant to consider not only the practical skills that are needed, but also the type of relationship to be established between technology professionals and heritage communities. Sustainability A recurrent theme of chapters in this volume, and indeed in other literature exam- ining community involvement with heritage, is the difficulty of fostering long- term, sustainable engagement. A common situation is that of research projects or other forms of dedicated short-term funding that enable community participation for a fixed term: after the funding ends, infrastructure is often abandoned, goes unmaintained, and central events, institutions, or people around whom activities revolved cannot maintain their role. Jennings et al., for example, discuss in Chapter 4 how a memory institution stakeholder that continues to manage activities in the long term is essential to enable the very existence of a stakeholder community. Long-term sustainability of audience engagement initiatives is a well-known challenge for heritage and memory institutions, and therefore it may be even more so for communities that are not relying on established organisational structures. Could digital technologies help on this front? While it is certainly easier to main- tain a record of community initiatives by digital means, and make these more visible and recognised long-term, it might still be a challenge to sustain continuous active participation. This can be certainly linked to infrastructural issues such as funding, however it can also be due to the fluid nature of community practices. In our view, awareness and consideration of such fluidity and of the ever- evolving nature of heritage might help tackle these challenges: being constantly mindful of the “living” nature of heritage and of stakeholder communities means adapting engagement and participation strategies to such changes. As the importance of community practices around heritage grows, we hope for greater support of these practices by local authorities, memory institutions, fund- ing bodies and policy bodies. The examples of work presented in this book show the potential and value of such initiatives. Furthermore we envision that these themes and open issues will feature in the debate in the years to come. In this scenario, we hope that the material collected in this book leads to new examples of inspirational work and to new communities actively engaged around heritage. Acknowledgements This book originates from presentations and discussions during the workshop “Cultural Heritage Communities: Technologies and Challenges”, organised by the editors at C&T 2015 – The 7th International Conference on Communities
- 43. 18 L. Ciolfiet al. and Technologies held in Limerick (Ireland) during June 2015. The editors wish to acknowledge all the participants and presenters in the workshop who shaped the themes and issues featuring in this book. The editors also acknowledge the support of the EU FP7 project meSch – Material EncounterS with Digital Cultural Heritage (http://mesch-project.eu), under Grant Agreement 600851. References Albert, M.-T., Richon, M., Viñals, N. J., and Witcomb, A. eds. (2012). Community Development Through World Heritage, Paris: UNESCO. Black, S. and Colgan, S. (2016). Saving Bletchley Park: How #socialmedia Saved the Home of the WWII Codebreakers, London: Unbound. Bossen, C., Dindler, C., and Iversen, O.S. (2012). ‘Impediments to User Gains: Experiences from a Critical Participatory Design Project’, in Halskov, K., Winschiers-Theophilus, H., Lee, Y., Simonsen, J. and Bodker, K., eds., Proceedings of the 12th Participatory Design Conference: Research Papers, ACM, New York, pp. 31–40. Cameron, F. and Kenderdine, S. eds. (2007). Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Carnall, M., Ashby, J., and Ross, C. (2013). ‘Natural History Museums as Provocateurs for Dialogue and Debate’, Museum Management and Curatorship, 28(1), pp. 55–71. Ciolfi, L. (2013). ‘The Collaborative Work of Heritage: Open Challenges for CSCW’, in Olav W. Bertelsen, O. W., Ciolfi, L., Grasso, M. A., and Papadopoulos, G. A., eds., Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW ‘13), Springer, London, UK pp. 83–101. Ciolfi, L. and McLoughlin, M. (2012). ‘Designing for Meaningful Visitor Engagement at a Living History Museum’, in Malmborg, L. and Pederson, T., chairs, Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Human – Computer Interaction: Making Sense Through Design, ACM, NY, pp. 69–78. Duff, W., Carter, J., Dallas, C., Howarth, L., Ross, S., Sheffield, R., and Tilson, C. (2009). ‘The Changing Museum Environment in North America and the Impact of Technology on Museum Work’, in Cirinná, C. and Long, M., eds., Proceedings: Cultural Heritage On-line. Empowering Users: An Active Role for User Communities, Firenze University Press, Florence, pp. 103–107. Giaccardi, E. (2011). ‘Things We Value’, Interactions ACM, 18(1), pp. 17–21. Giaccardi, E. (2012). Heritage and Social Media, London: Routledge. Giaccardi, E. and Palen, L. (2008). ‘The Social Production of Heritage through Cross‐media Interaction: Making Place for Place‐Making’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 14(3), pp. 281–297. Golding, Viv, and Wayne Modest, eds. (2013). Museums and Communities: Curators, Collections and Collaboration, London: Bloomsbury. Gregory (2015). ‘Connecting with the Past through Social Media: The “Beautiful Buildings and Cool Places Perth Has Lost” Facebook Group’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 21(1), pp. 22–45. Grinter, R.E., Aoki, P.M., Szymanski, M.H., Thornton, J.D., Woodruff, A., and Hurst, A. (2002). ‘Revisiting the Visit: Understanding how Technology can Shape the Museum Visit’, in Churchill, E.F. and McCarthy, J., chairs, Proceedings of the 2002 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, ACM, NY, pp. 146–155.
- 44. Introduction 19 Han, K.,Shih, P.C., Rosson, M.B., and Carroll, J.M. (2014). ‘Enhancing Community Awareness of and Participation in Local Heritage with a Mobile Application’, in Fussell, S., and Lutters, W., chairs, Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW ‘14), ACM NY, pp. 1144–1155. Hornecker, E. (2010). ‘Interactions Around a Contextually Embedded System’, in Coelho, M. and Zigelbaum, J., chairs, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, ACM, NY, pp. 169–176. Iversen, O.S. and Smith, R.C. (2014). ‘Connecting to Everyday Practices: Experiences from the Digital Natives Exhibition’, in Giaccardi, E., ed., Heritage and Social Media: Understanding Heritage in a Participatory Culture, London: Routledge, pp. 126–144. Kidd, J. (2011).‘Enacting Engagement Online: Framing Social Media Use for the Museum’, Information Technology and People, 24(1), pp. 64–77. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. McKinley, R. and Damala, A. (2013). ‘ARtSENSE and Manifest.AR: Revisiting Museums in the Public Realm through Emerging Art Practices’, in Proctor, N., and Cherry R., eds., Museums and the Web 2013, Silver Spring, MD: Museums and the Web, available: http://mw2013.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/artsense-and-manifest-ar-revisiting- museums-in-the-public-realm-through-emerging-art-practices/ [Accessed 14/11/16]. Marty (2006). ‘Finding the Skills for Tomorrow: Information Literacy and Museum Information Professionals’, Museum Management and Curatorship, 21(4), pp. 317–335. Maye, L.A., McDermott, F.E., Ciolfi, L., and Avram, G. (2014). ‘Interactive Exhibitions Design: What Can we Learn from Cultural Heritage Professionals?’, in Roto, V., and Häkkilä, J., chairs, Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human – Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational (NordiCHI ’14), ACM, NY, pp. 598–607. Oomen, J. and Aroyo, L. (2011). ‘Crowdsourcing in the Cultural Heritage Domain: Opportunities and Challenges’, in Foth, M., chair, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Communities and Technologies, ACM, NY, pp. 138–149. Parry, R. ed. (2010). Museums in a Digital Age, Abingdon: Routledge. Ridge, M. ed. (2014). Crowdsourcing our Cultural Heritage, Farnham: Ashgate. Russo, A. (2012). ‘The Rise of the “Media Museum”: Creating Interactive Cultural Experiences Through Social Media’, in Giaccardi, E. ed., Heritage and Social Media: Understanding Heritage in a Participatory Culture, London: Routledge, pp. 145–159. Sandell, Richard, ed. (2002). Museums, Society, Inequality, London: Routledge. Simon, N. (2010). The Participatory Museum, Santa Cruz: Museum 2.0. Simon, N. (2016). The Art of Relevance, Santa Cruz: Museum 2.0. vom Lehn, D. (2010) ‘Examining “Response”: Video-based Studies in Museums and Galleries’, International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4(1), pp. 33–43. Watson, Sheila, ed. (2007). Museums and their Communities, London: Routledge. Weil, S. E. (1999). ‘From Being about Something to Being for Somebody: The Ongoing Transformation of the American Museum’, Daedalus, 128(3), pp. 229–258.
- 45. 1 Archaeological remotesensing Some community engagement in Ireland Kevin Barton and Daniel Curley Introduction The ArchaeoLandscapes Europe Project, now Arcland International (Arcland International 2016), has provided us with a network and support to explore and develop aspects of community engagement in archaeological remote sensing. One aim of the five-year European Commission-supported ArcLand project, which was completed in 2015, was to address imbalances in the knowledge and use of modern archaeological surveying and remote sensing techniques. This is particularly the case in the Republic of Ireland in some community-run museums, within community- based local archaeological and historical groups and in schools. This chapter will outline progress on a number of case studies at different stages in their project devel- opment. They all have the common theme of communities using archaeological remote sensing to explore and harness their cultural heritage, to the ultimate gain of the local area as a result. This work has been carried out against the background of academics and professional practitioners beginning to recognise, address and debate challenges in a growth of community archaeology in Ireland. Archaeological remote sensing techniques Remote sensing techniques provide a non-invasive, non-destructive means of inves- tigating the topography of the ground surface and/or sub-surface features which may be interpreted to indicate hidden or buried archaeology. Techniques may be deployed on elevated platforms such as satellites, aircraft, drones, balloons and kites or on the ground or in water depending on specific archaeological questions, meas- urement type, terrain, scale and the spatial resolution required. These techniques do not replace conventional excavation which may be classified as invasive and non- destructive if sub-surface features are preserved in-situ, or invasive and destructive if the features are fully excavated and removed. Remote sensing techniques can minimise the area to be excavated by defining pre-excavation targets. Multiple-technique remote sensing using different platforms to survey at dif- ferent landscape scales is well-established internationally (Hadjimitsis et al. 2013). Large-scale projects often use remote sensing tools for reconnaissance using satellite-mounted sensors to capture high spatial resolution data. These data can be computer-processed to provide photographic images, derivative maps and
- 46. Archaeological remote sensing21 indices showing contrasts, variations or anomalies in the area under investigation. These anomalies can be detected due to variation, for example in topography, near infra-red reflectance of crops, and thermal, radiometric and electrical proper- ties of soils and rocks. Integration of a number of techniques using a Geographic Information System (GIS) can result in interpreted maps and images showing pos- sible human activity such as settlement, industrial activity and monument building which has impacted the area under investigation. Techniques using sensors mounted on aircraft or drones can be used to follow- up or better define anomalies or features identified using satellite reconnaissance data or can be used in an initial archaeological investigation. The main airborne techniques used at present for archaeological surveys are aerial photography and LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). Aerial photography is a remote sensing technique that has been in use since the nineteenth century and has developed rapidly in recent times using different types of high- and low-level platforms with digital sensors (Barber 2011). Hidden archaeology can be revealed in oblique or vertical daylight or near infra-red pho- tographs taken annually in different seasons. Daylight photographs can show crop marks that are caused by differential crop growth/ripening over possible buried archaeological features. Buried features such as walls and ditches can respectively reduce or increase the moisture content of the soil and hence affect the growth or height of plants in the area of the features. Near infra-red photographs are largely influenced by the chlorophyll content of individual plants in a crop (Verhoeven 2012). A healthy green leaf producing chlorophyll will reflect near infra-red com- ponents of daylight which are captured by a sensor or a filter mounted on a cam- era. Crop marks similar to those seen in daylight photography can be produced and thus can be interpreted in terms of possible buried archaeological features. LiDAR has revolutionised the study of archaeological landscapes and sites since it was recognised as a possible archaeological tool in 2000 (Crutchley and Crow 2010). It can be deployed on airborne, ground and waterborne platforms and pro- vides a means of recording micro-topography by scanning the ground or structures using a dense swath of laser beams which are reflected back to a sensor or detector array mounted on the platform. The reflected signal can be analysed using software to isolate and visualise signal components which are reflected from built structures, the ground surface or from vegetation growing on it. Depending on the density and type of vegetation, coupled with the time of year the survey was carried out, a micro- topographic model or image of the ground surface can be produced. One type of visualisation is termed a “bare earth” or digital terrain model (DTM). A DTM can show topographic variation at a centimetre scale which, using further computer processing, can visualise low-topographic-profile archaeological sites and features. Depending on the type of processing and visualisation, LiDAR data can also be used to create 3D models of visible monuments such as built structures and mounds. Ground-based remote sensing techniques, often referred to as geophysical techniques, provide a means to follow-up or better define anomalies or features identified using satellite reconnaissance, aircraft and drones or can be used in an initial archaeological investigation. Since the 1990s there has been much develop- ment in these techniques and in the software used to process, visualise and hence
- 47. 22 Kevin Bartonand Daniel Curley interpret and present the images produced (Hadjimitsis et al. 2013; Clark 1997; Gater and Gaffney 2003). For most archaeological projects there is a basic suite of geophysical techniques available (Landscape and Geophysical Services 2016a). The choice of technique depends on the archaeological questions being addressed integrated with site- specific characteristics which include topography, geology, soils, vegetation cover and rural or urban location. Each technique measures or responds to contrasts that visible or buried archaeological features may have with the soil or sediments in which they lie. These contrasts can be in properties which include magnetism, electrical resistance and electrical conductivity. Surveys are carried out on high spatial resolution grids with measurement intervals typically at 0.25 metres along lines up to 1 metre apart. Depending on the technique used, the depth of investi- gation can be from 0.1 metres up to 10 metres. It is difficult to predict likely con- trasts in advance of a survey and it is best practice to use a number of techniques in series or parallel in reconnaissance and detailed follow-up survey phases. The latter is termed multi-method geophysical survey with the data and an interpreta- tion being presented or visualised in the form of maps and digital images. For sites where topography may be an important influence on the results, and detailed topographic data are not available in digital form such as that provided by LiDAR, then a topographic survey using a differential Global Positioning System (dGPS) or a total station can be carried out. A reconnaissance topsoil magnetic susceptibility survey can be used to detect zones of susceptibility enhancement caused by burnt debris or midden material which may indicate the presence of a settlement and/or industrial site. The latter survey could be followed up with a magnetic gradiometer survey which can detect contrasts between the magnetic properties of archaeological features and their host soils. An earth resistance sur- vey largely detects contrasts in the moisture content of soils and archaeological features that may be buried in them. Depending on their configuration, both the latter techniques are capable of detecting buried walls, floors, ditches and pits from 0.5 metres to 2 metres below the ground surface. Where depth information up to 10 metres is required Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) and Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) (Landscape and Geo- physical Services 2016a) can be used. These may be needed to investigate the internal structure of a site. ERT measurements can produce sub-surface depth models which show contrasts in electrical resistivity. These can be due to high- resistivity stone fill, stone walls or compacted material hosted by low-resistivity soils such as that found in buried foundations or stone chambers found in burial mounds. These techniques collect data along transects and produce depth-sections which can be visualised as vertical depth-sections or combined to create horizontal depth-slices that can be animated to produce a virtual excavation. The increasing availability of open-source satellite data, aerial photographs, LiDAR data and the software to process, visualise, interpret and present the data is providing low-cost tools for communities to investigate their local landscape. Combined with the latter, certain types of ground-based geophysical instrumenta- tion and software are beginning to become available at low cost, thus enabling com- munities to carry out low-cost surveys with minimal interaction with professional
- 48. Archaeological remote sensing23 remote sensing specialists. An example of low-cost instrumentation is the TR/CIA Mk1 earth resistance meter (Figure 1.2a) with integral digital data logger and pro- cessing software (Council for Independent Archaeology 2016) designed and pro- duced by the Council for Independent Archaeology (CIA). The CIA provides a forum for and largely represents community heritage groups based in Britain. Issues concerning communities engaging in remote sensing and their relationship with academics and professional practitioners are reviewed in the discussion section. Remote sensing and a community museum Rathcroghan Visitor Centre (RVC) (Rathcroghan Visitor Centre 2016), Tulsk, County Roscommon, opened in 1999 as a community-run interpretive experience and resource hub for the Rathcroghan Archaeological Complex. Rathcroghan is one of a number of provincial royal sites in Ireland. It is traditionally seen as the symbolic capital of Connacht and the site of great communal gatherings or aénaige. It is also currently part of a serial nomination for inscription to the UNESCO World Heritage Site (WHS) list (UNESCO 2016). To gain a full understanding of the Rathcroghan Complex involves interacting with two intertwined elements. On the one hand, Rathcroghan is the location of a vast array of visible and invisible archaeological monuments, ranging in date from the Neolithic to the late Medieval period, with the Iron Age (c. 500 BC to c. AD 400) serving as a period of particularly focused activity. Each period is represented in the archaeological record at Rathcroghan, and includes funerary monuments, set- tlement sites, ritual enclosures, ceremonial linear embankments and even a reputed entrance to the Irish “Otherworld”. On the other hand, there is the Rathcroghan that is attested in the manuscript tradition. Rathcroghan is often referred to as Cruachan Aí in the literary and historical sources, where it also serves as a central location for an extensive corpus of medieval Irish epic literature (e.g. Dooley and Roe 1999). Chief among these medieval tales, which in some cases may hold veiled ancestral truths on the use of many of these monuments in the prehistoric period, is the Táin Bó Cúailnge, or Cattle Raid of Cooley (Kinsella and Le Brocquy 2002). The epic literature provides Rathcroghan as the location and residence of the great warrior Queen Medb, and setting for a number of the stories that comprise what is known as the Ulster City of tales. The combination of these two elements served as the inspiration for a community project which came to fruition in 1999. The Rathcroghan Complex consists of over 240 visible archaeological sites, 60 of which are recorded as National Monuments. These monuments are scat- tered over a landscape of approximately 6 square kilometres. The interpreta- tion of the Complex presents a challenge for the RVC in Tulsk Village, which is located some 4 kilometres from the core area of the Complex. When the Museum opened in 1999, the display relied heavily on the presenta- tion of material from traditional archaeological and historical academic sources. These included work in the 1980s by Gormley (1989), Herity (1984, 1985, 1988, 1989) and Waddell (1983). The only archaeological excavation to have taken place at Rathcroghan to date was a test excavation undertaken by Waddell (1988) on a monument known as Dathí’s Mound.
- 49. 24 Kevin Bartonand Daniel Curley The traditional source material presented in the display was supplemented by the results from the ArchaeoGeophysical Imaging Project (AGIP), the Republic of Ireland’s first large-scale, multi-method archaeological remote sensing survey that commenced in 1994. The project, undertaken by the National University of Ireland, Galway, with Heritage Council funding, carried out a programme of intensive topographical and geophysical survey at eleven monuments in the Rathcroghan area. The objective was to demonstrate the purpose and significance of these diverse monuments through non-invasive, non-destructive and cost-effec- tive geophysical means that might also identify future targets for possible excava- tion or more refined remote sensing survey. The main results are discussed and illustrated in a monograph published in 2009 (Waddell et al. 2009). However, AGIP also had a number of unexpected positive outcomes in the local community. During the course of the AGIP remote sensing fieldwork, the landowners at Rathcroghan were happy to grant permission for land access to the research pro- ject. They enthusiastically offered their time in aiding survey data collection, as well as taking great interest and pride in considering the results recorded for the monuments on their land. One aspect of this was the use of remote sensing tech- niques which are non-invasive and non-destructive in terms of the landscape and any sub-surface archaeological features. The techniques did not impact the fields or crops grown as might be the case with excavation. The digital images and visu- alisations produced showed the farmers what lay beneath the soils of their fields. The establishment of the Tulsk Action Group Ltd. (TAG) in 1996, as AGIP was drawing to its conclusion, was the coming together of a section of the local community in order to use the Rathcroghan narrative as an economic and tour- istic resource for the area. The objective was to use the archaeological landscape as a resource to develop a long-term revenue and employment enterprise in the village of Tulsk. This local interest in harnessing the area for cultural tourism built upon interest generated by the academic work in the 1980s and 1990s as well as the results from AGIP. The community decided there was a need to pre- sent the Rathcroghan Complex in a museum context. After much endeavour, TAG obtained funding from the Irish Tourist Board, who saw the provision of a Museum as a flagship project in an area which had had little tourism development. The first iteration of the Museum was called the Cruachan Aí Heritage Centre. The exhibition largely utilised graphic panels narrating local mythology and folk- lore, traditional landscape ground and aerial photography and some of the AGIP remote sensing results. It presented the current understanding of the archaeologi- cal and mythological landscape through the panels, some audiovisual presenta- tions and innovative display of some of the more surprising and intriguing results of the remote sensing investigations. However, the first interpretive expression of the remote sensing results was rather soberly presented, playing a secondary role in contrast to the more “popular” epic literature and mythological connections. In the period from 1999 to 2016, continued academic investigation of the monuments in the Rathcroghan Complex has been undertaken almost exclusively through the use of a suite of remote sensing techniques. Advances in technology have resulted in the use of new techniques and repeat surveys at higher spatial
- 50.
- 51. 26 Kevin Bartonand Daniel Curley resolution. Recent work by academic researchers and professional practitioners has assisted in the visualisation and presentation of Rathcroghan mound and sur- rounding landscape in new ways (Figure 1.1). The availability of more detailed survey techniques, coupled with embrac- ing new techniques, provided the foundational data when the heritage centre, renamed Rathcroghan Visitor Centre (RVC), embarked on an upgrade of the public presentations in the Centre in 2014. The impetus for this upgrade had a number of direct aims, chief among them the requirement to replace what was a fifteen-year-old interpretive space which had received few updates over such an extended period. Another aspect that required improvement was the aforementioned sober presentation of the archaeology, which was pitched to a narrow, more academic audience. This slightly alienated, more general visitors to the Rathcroghan Complex, and by extension, the younger demographic. Indeed general visitor feedback on the first iteration of the exhibition found that the high dependency on ground and aerial photography was difficult to relate to and gain a meaningful impression of the Rathcroghan Complex. Due to these issues, as well as an academic desire to bring the display into line with up-to-date research, an approach was arrived at which allowed the new interpretive exhibition to be a platform to bring Rathcroghan to a wider and more diverse demographic of the community. This in turn served as a stimulus to rein- vigorate the Centre and its services. This involved using it as a platform from which to re-engage with tourism markets which had moved away from the area, as well as attempting to interact with new markets. The reinvigoration of the Centre occurred in a number of ways. The displays were developed directly through collaboration between the staff of the Visitor Centre, aca- demic researchers and professional practitioners that have brought forward knowl- edge of the Rathcroghan Complex informed by historical sources and remote sensing techniques. The active involvement of the Centre’s staff in the redevelopment of the interpretive facilities created a sense of ownership over the public presentation of the Rathcroghan Complex. This ownership and associated strive for quality has had a practical effect over the other services that the Centre provides, from the guided site tours, through to the production of information panels and archaeological trail booklets. The unique value of this approach is borne out when interested and proac- tive individuals and community groups visit RVC and the Rathcroghan Complex. This provides an understanding of the organisation and work of the Centre due to the presence and ownership of the staff in the ongoing development of the Centre. The planning of the facility also allowed for the Visitor Centre to actively engage with school groups from primary level up, a situation in which we can tell the unique mythological and archaeological story of Rathcroghan while also introducing the next generation to the remote sensing technology which is help- ing us to sustainably progress the archaeological discipline. Establishing this level of engagement with technology in an indirect fashion also opens the door to the school and community-based engagement discussed later. The RVC is striving to expand its engagement to be more than that provided in the static environment of the indoor interpretive exhibition. This is achieved by organising and hosting a number of outreach events throughout the year.
- 52. Archaeological remote sensing27 It is with the annual Rathcroghan Archaeology Above Below Conference that the RVC most actively seeks to engage with community archaeology and remote sensing, attempting to increase awareness and understanding of their merits and uses in Ireland and further afield. Since 2014, the Conference has sought to har- ness and embrace the two central themes that have sustained the RVC; those of community input and of remote sensing to visualise and interpret the monuments and surrounding landscape (Figure 1.1). The focus of the Conference, that of com- munity archaeology, fits perfectly under the new title of “Archaeology Above and Below” (Rathcroghan Conference 2016a). The non-adversarial conference format comprises a combination of talks, workshops and practical demonstrations on the use of remote sensing, primarily in a community setting, and the visualisation, analysis and presentation of results. It is delivered by community group representatives, academics and professional practitioners alike, which in turn creates a vibrant and refreshing forum for three, sometimes divergent, areas of the discipline to interact, discuss, and progress. This format has a number of benefits. It provides an opportunity for com- munity groups to “cut their teeth” in terms of presenting their projects to a new audience of interested conference-goers. This plainly has a role to play in order to grow the confidence and experience of the presenters, and has led to a number of the previous community contributors to go on to speak in a number of profes- sional lecture and conference environments, both nationally and further afield. Due to the range of contributors who generously give their time to the Conference each year, from backgrounds of amateur interest, academia and through to the professional archaeological spectrum, who generously give their time to the Conference each year, it serves as a unique melting pot for ideas and progressing projects. This goes some way towards providing an avenue for “tradi- tional” academic researchers and professional practitioners to see the invaluable work being undertaken by motivated community groups. They are essentially serv- ing a vital purpose for the discipline in a manner that “traditional” archaeology cannot, due to various constraints such as possible difficulty in access to private land, lack of funding and access to remote sensing resources. The Conference also serves as an effective networking opportunity and sounding board between con- tributors and attendees in order to discuss and enlighten one anothers’ projects, as well as the opportunity for possible future collaboration and assistance. Finally, the Conference also helps to foster and inspire interested parties from within the audience to engage with remote sensing and a desire to develop their own community remote sensing projects. The Conference provides knowledge of the remote sensing tools with which to achieve these aims. Combining cost- effective remote sensing techniques with ready and, in some cases, intimate access to local information on the areas that are being surveyed, allows for community groups to explore their own localities. This can have a number of direct and indi- rect benefits for a community group and the local area as a result. Community engagement at Rathcroghan is developing out of an interest in harnessing the physical archaeological resource that exists in the area in a very deliberate manner. The experience of the Rathcroghan Complex for the general- interest visitor is currently best achieved through an exploration of the indoor
- 53. 28 Kevin Bartonand Daniel Curley exhibition, coupled with a guided tour of a select number of the important visible monuments that comprise the archaeological landscape. However, a number of ideas have recently converged in order to inspire a different way of enjoying and understanding the archaeology of Rathcroghan. One of these ideas is that the 6 square kilometre Rathcroghan landscape can be thought of as an “Outdoor Museum”, with the “exhibits” being the visible and invisible sub-surface monuments in the Complex. These monuments range from enclosures to burial mounds, and ringforts to linear earthworks. This results in a new way to appreciate the broad and varied narrative which is presented in the RVC. The idea of the “Outdoor Museum” is one that intrigues those seeking to develop this resource. The unique challenge that faces the small museum con- cerns the need to ensure that the exhibition remains relevant to visitors, particu- larly, the younger “digital native” generation (see for example Chapter 6 in this book). There is also a need to create a link between the outdoor visible and invis- ible sub-surface archaeology visualised by remote sensing and the narrative and interpretation offered indoors in the RVC, which is some 4 kilometres from the Rathcroghan Complex. One idea developed from the use of QR codes on a poster which displayed a unique code with each displayed 3D model of a monument made from LiDAR data. The code provided a link to the Museum website which displays archaeological and historical information on each monument. The poster was first displayed at the final ArcLand Conference in Frankfurt, Germany (Barton et al. 2015). The positive recep- tion of this method of interpretation at the Conference was evidence of the value of the use of QR codes. An implementation of this feature is currently being rolled out for a set of new outdoor information panels located in the Rathcroghan Complex. Georeferenced 3D LiDAR models are being used with draped remote sensing data which present an interactive image of the sub-surface archaeology. When displayed on a smartphone or tablet, it will be possible to create walking trails that will allow the visitor to walk over to a selected monument or part of the landscape and interactively “see” the sub-surface archaeology visualised by remote sensing techniques as they move on or between the visible monuments. These are our first steps in using LiDAR and remote sensing technology as a resource for the visitor to interpret the visible and invisible Rathcroghan landscape as part of their own personal experience of the archaeological landscape as they walk in the Outdoor Museum. Engagement with schools is being fostered by the RVC making sub-sets of the LiDAR data available for use in teaching and in projects to create simple 3D models of the principal monuments in the Rathcroghan landscape. In addition, the data lend themselves to the creation of interpretive animations and to 3D printing of the monuments for the community to study and enjoy. Remote sensing by local heritage groups There are a number of community archaeology projects being carried out in Ireland that solely use remote sensing techniques. The work of two groups is pre- sented here (Kilberry Amenity and Heritage Group 2016; Sliabh Coillte Heritage Group 2016). Initial work by a professional practitioner involved field-based
- 54. Figure 1.2 Remotesensing techniques. a: The TR/CIA Mk1 earth resistance meter (Kevin Barton), b: Oblique aerial photograph of Rathcoon Mound, County Meath (Rhys Kellett), c: Electrical resistivity tomography section across Rathcoon Mound, County Meath, d: An earth resistance training session with the Sliabh Coillte Heritage Group (John Flynn), e: Earth resistance image from Kilmokea Enclosure, County Wexford showing buried ditches (black) and foundations (white), f: Kite aerial photography at Mayo Abbey National School, County Mayo (Kevin Barton), g: 3D wireframe LiDAR model of Rathmore Mound, County Roscommon made with QuikGrid software, h: Visualisation of a 3D LiDAR model using QuikGrid software.
- 55. Another Random ScribdDocument with Unrelated Content
- 56. do. To arosting piece of beef 0 6 6 do. To a rost pigg 0 2 6 do. To 2 rost gease 0 3 0 do. To 1 rost turkey 0 4 0 do. To a calf’s head stwed wt wine and oysstars 0 3 6 do. To 2 dish of neats’ tongues 0 8 0 do. To 2 dish of capons and fowls 0 6 0 do. To a passtie 0 7 0 March 6th. To a dozn. of tearts 0 6 0 do. To 2 dozn. of mincht pys 0 8 0 do. To 1 quarter of rost mutton 0 3 6 do. To rost veal 0 3 6 do. To 1 barrel of oysters, 6 limmons, and other pickels 0 4 0 do. To eating for Tennents and Servants 1 0 0 The following is a note of some of the items of expenditure at the funeral of the notorious Sir Robert Grierson of Lag himself:— 1733. Decr. 29th. 2 bottles small clarit £0 3 0 do. 2 flint glasses 0 1 4 Decr. 30th. 4 bottles small clarit 0 6 0 1734. Janr. 1st. 12 bottles strong clarit 1 4 0 do. 3 bottles ffrantinak 1 6 0
- 57. do. 3 bottlesshirry 0 5 6 do. 1 bottle more brandy 0 1 6 Janr. 7th. 18 double flint glasses do. 1 £ double refined shugar Janr. 8th. 4 dozn. strong clarit to the lodgeing 4 16 0 do. 6 bottles ffrantinak do. 0 12 0 do. 6 bottles shirry do. 0 11 0 do. 6 more double flint glasses to ye lodgeing do. 12 bottles strong clarit sent out to the burying place 1 4 0 do. 12 bottles more strong clarit at night to the lodgeing 1 4 0 Janr. 9th. 4 wine glasses returned from Dunscore Janr. 12th. 2 bottles strong clarit to the lodgeing 0 4 0 do. 10 bottles strong clarit wt Carriel more Gentelmen 1 8 0 Janr. 14th. 2 bottles clarit wt Carriel 0 4 8 8 dozn. empty bottles returned The Wines amounts to 14 5 5 The Entertainments to 6 10 0 1734. Accompt. of Horsses. Janr. 9th. 2 horses of Lord Stormonds, 2 nights’ hay, oats, beans £0 5 0
- 58. do. 2 horses2 nights, hay, oats, beans, Sr Thomas Kirkpatrk 0 5 0 do. the smith for Sr Thomas’ horsses 0 2 0 Pyd. to Charles Herisse, smith, for iron work to the Hearse 0 5 6 Mr Gilbert’s horsses 1 4 6 Grim legend clings around the account of Lag’s last illness and his funeral. “During the latter part of his life Sir Robert had taken up his abode in his town-lodging in Dumfries. It was an ancient pile of building of singular construction, facing the principal part of the High Street of the town, known as the ‘Plainstones.’ This old house was called the ‘Turnpike,’ from the spiral staircase, a characteristic of it, as of many of the old Edinburgh houses; it was situated at the head of what was called the Turnpike Close, and little more than two hundred yards from the Nith. The best known of the many legends regarding Lag is this: that when he came near his end, and was sorely tormented with gout, he had relays of servants posted so as to hand up from one to another a succession of buckets of cold water from the Nith, that he might cool his burning limbs—but the moment his feet were inserted into the water it began to fizz and boil. In this old Turnpike house[38] Sir Robert died on the 31st December, 1733. It is related that on this occasion a ‘corbie’ (raven) of preternatural blackness and malignity of aspect, perched himself on the coffin, and would not be driven off, but accompanied the funeral cortège to the grave in the churchyard of Dunscore. Moreover, when the funeral procession started, and had got some little way on the Galloway side of the Nith, it was found that the horses, with all their struggles, and dripping with perspiration, from some mysterious cause could move the hearse no further. Sir Thomas Kirkpatrick, of Closeburn, the old friend and comrade of Lag (and his relative), who was believed to be deep in some branches of
- 59. the Black Art,was one of the mourners. This gentleman, the stoutest of Non-jurors, on this occasion swore a great oath that he would drive the hearse of Lag ‘though —— were in it!’ and ordered a team of beautiful Spanish horses of his own to be harnessed in place of the others. Sir Thomas mounted and took the reins, when the horses instantly dashed off at a furious gallop that he could in no wise restrain, and abated nought of their headlong pace till they reached the churchyard of Dunscore, where they suddenly pulled up —and died.”(76) When the funeral cortège did start, as already indicated, curious though quite consequent sequels were far from uncommon. Solemnity and deep drinking only too frequently ended in unaffected hilarity or even dissension. MacTaggart, in his Gallovidian Encyclopædia, has caught and well recorded the boisterous spirit of this grim funeral festivity, as the following graphic description amply shows:— “At last the Laird o’ the Bowertree Buss gaed his last pawt, was straughted, dressed, coffined and a’; and I was bidden to his burial the Tuesday after. There I gaed, and there were met a wheen fine boys. Tam o’ Todholes, and Wull o’ the Slack war there; Neil Wulson, the fisher, and Wull Rain, the gunner, too. The first service that came roun’ was strong farintosh, famous peat reek. There was nae grief amang us. The Laird had plenty, had neither wife nor a wean, sae wha cud greet? We drew close to ither, and began the cracks ding- dang, while every minute roun’ came anither reamin’ service. I faun’ the bees i’ my head bizzin’ strong i’ a wee time. The inside o’ the burial house was like the inside o’ a Kelton-hill tent; a banter came frae the tae side of the room, and was sent back wi’ a jibe frae the ither. Lifting at last began to be talked about, and at last lift we did. ‘Whaever wished for a pouchfu’ o’ drink might tak’ it.’ This was the order; sae mony a douce black coat hang side wi’ a heavy bottle. On we gaed wi’ the Laird, his weight we faun’ na. Wull Weer we left ahin drunk on the spot. Rob Fisher took a sheer as we came down the green brae, and landed himself in a rossen o’ breers. Whaup-
- 60. nebbed Samuel fellaff the drift too. I saw him as we came across Howmcraig; the drink was gaen frae him like couters. Whan we came to the Taffdyke that rins cross Barrend there we laid the Laird down till we took a rest awee. The inside o’ pouches war than turned out, bottle after bottle was touted owre; we rowed about, and some warsled. At last a game at the quoits was proposed; we played, but how we played I kenna. Whan we got tae the kirkyard the sun was jist plumpin’ down; we pat the coffin twice in the grave wrang, and as often had to draw’t out again. We got it to fit at last, and in wi’ the moulds on’t. The grave-digger we made a beast o’.” A notable exception to the practice of the period was the funeral of William Burnes, father of the National Bard, who was borne from Lochlea to Alloway Kirkyard, a distance of twelve miles, not a drop of anything excepting a draught of water from a roadside stream being tasted. The funeral festivities, however, did not end with the lowering of the dead into the grave. There yet remained the final entertainment at the house of the bereaved. If within reasonable distance at all the funeral party returned from the churchyard to partake of the entertainment known as the “draigie,”[39] or “dredgy.” Again the drinking was long and deep, with results that can only too readily be imagined. But it must not be assumed that such scenes and proceedings passed without protest on the part of the Church and those who had the welfare of decency and morality at heart. The Presbytery of Penpont, for example, in 1736 issued the following warning to their own district:— “Yet further how unaccountable and scandalous are the large gatherings and unbecoming behaviour at burials and ‘lake-wacks,’ also in some places how many are grossly unmannerly in coming to burials without invitation. How extravagant are many in their preparations for such occasions, and in giving much drink, and driving it too frequently, before and after the corpse is enterred, and
- 61. keeping the companytoo long together; how many scandalouslie drink until they be drunk on such occasions; this practice cannot but be hurtfull, therefore ought to be discouraged and reformed, and people that are not ashamed to be so vilely unmannerly as to thrust themselves into such meetings without being called ought to be affronted.” Despite protest and counsel, however, the custom of supplying refreshment to mourners in the form of “services” lingered until well into the nineteenth century. Much good was, however, done in the south-west district of Scotland by the firm position taken up by Dr Henry Duncan of Ruthwell, Dumfriesshire, a personality whose memory is still held in the highest esteem and respect. The method adopted was characteristic of the man, and is described by himself in the Statistical Account of his Parish:— “The present incumbent fell on a simple expedient by which this practice has been completely abolished. Having engaged the co- operation of some of the leading men in the parish, he drew up a subscription paper, binding the subscribers, among other less important regulations, to give only one service when they had the melancholy duty of presiding at a funeral themselves, and to partake of only one service when they attended the funeral of a neighbour. This paper was readily subscribed by almost every head of a family in the parish, and whatever was injurious in the practice was abolished at once, ... and, speaking generally, may be said to have effectually rooted out the former practice throughout the whole surrounding district” (March, 1834). After the funeral, certain old rites and customs were carried out. On the death of a tenant the mart, or herezeld (heriot, or best aucht) was seized by the landowner to substantiate his title. The bed and straw on which the deceased had lain were burned in the open field. Concerning this practice Joseph Train in a note to Strains of the Mountain Muse, describes how, “as soon as the corpse is taken from
- 62. the bed onwhich the person died, all the straw or heather of which it was composed is taken out and burned in a place where no beast can get near it, and they pretend to find next morning in the ashes the print of the foot of that person in the family who shall die first.” A short reference may here be made to the custom of burial without coffins. The spirit of economy went far indeed in these older days, for burial, particularly of the poor, took place either without a coffin at all, or they were carried to the grave in one of common and general use, from which they were removed and buried when the grave-side was reached. A doubtful advance upon this method was the introduction of the “slip-coffin,” which permitted of a bolt being drawn when lowered to the bottom of the grave. A hinged bottom was in this way relieved, which left the poor dead body in the closest of contact with mother earth. The motive, of course, was economy, and its use practically restricted to paupers. On the authority of Edgar, author of Old Church Life in Scotland (1886), it is gratifying to note that none of these uncoffined interments had taken place in the South of Scotland for at least 150 years. In this connection a story somewhat against the “cloth” may be given:— “A worthy Galloway minister, feeling that the newly-passed Poor Law Act with its assessments was burdensome to his flock, seriously proposed to the Parochial Board of his district that to narrow down the rates a ‘slip-coffin’ should be made for the poor, out of which the body could be slipped into its narrow home. The proposal met with scant consideration, and during the rest of his lifetime the well- meaning man was known as ‘Slip.’”(77)
- 63. A Galloway Funeralof Other Days. Sketch by J. Copland, Dundrennan. Before the days of hearses the coffin was borne to the grave on two long poles or hand-spokes. Over the simple bare coffin the “mort- cloth” was spread, for the use of which the “Kirk-Session” made a charge, the money received being devoted to the relief of the poor of the parish. As superstitious custom refused the rites of Christian burial to those who died by their own hand, so was also the use of the “mort-cloth” withheld. Until comparatively recent days the bodies of suicides were buried at the meeting of four cross roads, or at all events at some lonely, unfrequented spot, the remains having not unusually the additional indignity of being impaled by a stake practised upon them. It is of
- 64. interest to notethat the name of the “Stake Moss,” Sanquhar, may be traced to this callous practice. A superstition of the churchyard itself that still lingers and is worthy of notice, is that the north side is less hallowed than the other portions of “God’s Acre.” The origin of this comes from the Scriptural description of the last judgment (Matthew xxv.), which tells how “He shall set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on His left.” A recent local writer has thus embodied the idea and its probable derivation:— “This superstition (he says) is said to have originated in the New Testament story of the Day of Judgment, when the Lord on entering His house (the entrance of the old churches being at the west end, or on the south near the west) would separate the sheep from the goats—the former to His right hand, the south; and the latter to his left, the north. Our forefathers would not see their dear ones among the goats, ‘for evil,’ said they, ‘is there.’ This credulous imagining is not exemplified in the kirkyard alone. Many of our old pre- Reformation churches exhibit evidence of the superstition in the entire absence of windows in their north walls; and in general it would appear that in mediæval times there was a common belief in the evil influence of the north, and that thence came all kinds of ill. “In Sanquhar Kirkyard it is evident that the superstition prevailed until comparatively modern times, for there are no headstones on the north side of the kirk earlier than the beginning of the last century, all the older monuments being to the south of the kirk, and at its east and west ends.”(78) To the simple earnest dweller in the country there comes at times the thought that brings with it a comfort all its own, that after “life’s fitful fever” they will be quietly laid to rest underneath the green turf, within the shadow of the kirk itself. Of this the origin of Carsphairn parish, in the uplands of Galloway, gives telling proof; for in the year 1645 complaint was made to the Scottish Parliament that
- 65. in the parishesof Dairy and Kells numbers of people had to be buried in the fields, because the houses in which they lived and died were twelve miles from a churchyard. The issue of this was, that the district of Carsphairn was erected into a separate parish, and the indignity of such burials came to an end. Before closing a chapter devoted to “death custom” and “funeral ceremony,” the use of the “dead bell” must certainly be referred to. In these old days when methods of conveying news and information were restricted, it was the routine practice when a death occurred for the “beadle” (sexton) to go, bell in hand, around the district, pausing at intervals to ring the “passing bell”[40] more particularly in front of the houses of friends of the deceased, announcing at the same time not only the death but also the day of burial. The usual form of his intimation which, with uncovered head, he delivered was: — “Brethren and sisters,—I hereby let ye to wit that our brother (or sister), named (name, address, and occupation), departed this life at —— of the clock, according to the pleasure Almighty God, and you are all invited to attend the funeral on ——.” Particular reference to this custom in the town of Dumfries is given in the Itinerary of John Ray, naturalist, who visited the town in August, 1662:— “Here (he says) ... we observed the manner of their burials, which is this: when anyone dies the sexton or bellman goeth about the streets, with a small bell in his hand, which he tinkleth all along as he goeth, and now and then he makes a stance, and proclaims who is dead, and invites the people to come to the funeral.” On the day of the funeral it was again customary for the “beadle” to ring the bell, walking in front of the funeral procession ringing it as he went. This is also noticed by Ray, who notes that “The people and ministers ... accompany the corpse to the grave ... with the bell before them.” This usage has passed to a form, common enough to
- 66. this day, particularlyin the country, of tolling the church bell as the funeral cortège approaches the churchyard. In the scarce Book of Galloway it is recorded how “the beadle had rung the ‘passing bell[41] on the bellknowe of Penninghame,’ and it was heard again when the mourners approached the graveyard.” The ringing of the “dead bell” had its origin in the superstitious idea that by this means evil spirits were held at bay.
- 67. CHAPTER VII. Ghost Loreand Haunted Houses. “There are many ghost stories which we do not feel at liberty to challenge.” —Sir Walter Scott. ASSING now to gather up the details of superstitious vestige as they present themselves in the form of ghost traditions and memories of ghost-haunted houses, we find in the district of Dumfries and Galloway much of interest to set forth. Traversing from Western Galloway to Eastern Dumfriesshire, gleaning as we go, the legend connected with Dunskey Castle, which yet in ruined solitude stands sentinel over the rock-bound shore and restless sea at Portpatrick, first calls for mention. The story goes back to the occupation of the Castle in the fourteenth century by Walter de Curry, a turbulent sea rover, who, becoming much incensed at the outspoken and fearless utterances of an Irish piper whom he had taken prisoner and compelled to his service as minstrel and jester, condemned the unfortunate man to a lingering death from starvation in the Castle dungeons. Tradition asserts, however, that the piper found his way into a secret subterranean passage leading from the Castle to a cave on the sea- shore, from which, however, he was unable to find egress, and where he perished miserably.
- 68. Along this passagethe troubled ghost of the piper was long reputed to march, backwards and forwards, playing the weirdest of pipe music, and so indicating, as was firmly believed, to the awe-stricken listeners above, the line of direction of the secret underground passage.[42] Perhaps the best-known Galloway ghost story is that of the Ghost of Galdenoch Tower, in the parish of Leswalt. The Tower was at one time the property of the Agnews of Galdenoch, but falling on evil days their name disappeared from the roll of proprietors, when it was used as a farm-house. For this, however, it was given up, for no other reason than that it was firmly believed to be haunted. The tradition as told by Sir Andrew Agnew is as follows:— “A scion of the house had fought in one of the battles for the Covenant, and after a defeat had craved food and shelter at a house near the scene of the disaster. He was admitted by the owner, a rough blustering fellow of Royalist leanings, who allowed him to share in the family supper; and after a long crack over the incidents of the day, let him make up a bed by the ingle-side fire. The young soldier rose early, and was in the act of leaving when his host barred his access to the door, grumbling that he doubted whether he had been on the right side the day before. Convinced that he meant to detain him, the youth produced his pistol and shot his entertainer dead; then rushing to the stables, saddled up, and made his way to the west. Arrived safely at the Galdenoch, the fatted calf was killed, and having fought all his battles over again round the family board, he went to bed. But hardly had the lights been extinguished in the tower than strange sounds announced a new arrival, which proved to be the ghost of the slain malignant, who not only disturbed the repose of his slayer, but made life unendurable to all within. Nightly his pranks continued, and even after a change of owners the annoyance was continued to the new tenant and his family. One cold
- 69. winter’s night theysat round the kitchen fire playing a well-known game. A burning stick passed merrily from hand to hand: ‘About wi’ that! about wi’ that! Keep alive the priest-cat!’ The spark was extinguished, and the forfeit was about to be declared, when one of the party, looking at the hearth, which was now one brilliant mass of transparent red, observed, ‘It wadna be hannie to steal a coal the noo;’ but hardly were the words out of his mouth when a glowing peat disappeared as if by magic, leaving as clear a vacuum in the fire as when a brick is displaced from a solid archway. ‘That beats a’,’ was re-echoed through the wondering group; and but a few moments elapsed before there was a cry of ‘Fire’ and the farm-steading was in flames. In the thatch of the barn that identical ‘cube of fire’ was inserted, and no one doubted that it had been done by the ghost. The range of buildings was preserved with difficulty by the united exertions of the party. The tenant’s mother sat one morning at her spinning-wheel; an invisible power bore her along, and plunged her in the Mill-Isle burn, a voice mumbling the while, ‘I’ll dip thee, I’ll draw thee,’ till the old dame became unconscious. Great was the surprise of the family at dinner-time when grandmamma was missed. Every corner of the buildings was searched. The goodman and his wife became alarmed, while the lads and lassies ran madly about interrogating one another with ‘Where’s granny?’ At last a well-known voice was heard—‘I’ve washed granny in the burn, and laid her on the dyke to dry!’ Away the whole party ran; and sure enough the poor old woman lay naked on the dyke, half dead with cold and fright. Several of the neighbouring clergymen tried to lay this ghost, but all in vain. If they sang, the ghost drowned the united efforts of the company. Eventually, however, it was laid by the Rev. Mr Marshall of Kirkcolm, already referred to as a zealous prosecutor of witches, by the almost unclerical method of roaring and shouting it down.”(79)
- 70. On the confinesof Stoneykirk parish, in the Moor of the Genoch, there is a plantation locally known as “Lodnagappal Plantin’,”[43] concerning which report tells of an apparition in the form of a headless woman who almost invariably carried a light for the dire purpose of luring the unwary to death in the treacherous moss-holes so numerous in the neighbourhood. Fuller details are available of yet another “white woman” and her unwelcome methods. Early last century, when the mail packet crossed from Portpatrick to Ireland, a carrier, who lived at High Ardwell, regularly journeyed backwards and forwards to Portpatrick to bring supplies for the district. On his way home he was more than once alarmed and troubled by a woman in white, who stopped his horse and even caused his cart to break down. Once, indeed, the horse was so affected that it became quite incapable of moving the load, compelling the carrier in great distress to unyoke, and, mounting the horse, to make for home. His fears were not much lessened by finding that the white lady was seated behind him. The appearances of the ghost became more frequent as time went on, and eventually the white woman manifested a desire to embrace the carrier, indicating that if he yielded even only to listen once to her whispered devotion he might be freed altogether from future interference. The carrier, after a good deal of doubt and hesitation, at last yielded, but, wishing to have some substantial barrier between himself and his ghostly lover, stipulated that she should come to the little back-window of his cottage on a particular night. The appointed time came, but the carrier, still very doubtful, had planned accordingly. Cautiously and partially was the window opened. The white figure was there. Bending down to what appeared to be the man’s face—but what was really the skull of a horse held towards her—there was a swift savage thrust of the ghostly face and half of the protruding horse’s skull was severed. Thwarted in this unexpected way, the evil spirit slunk away, muttering “Hard, hard, are the banes and gristle of your face!” At least that is what the tradition tells.
- 71. Another tale concernsAuchabrick House, in Kirkmaiden, not far from Port Logan. The usually accepted story is pretty much as follows: The troth of a young lady of the house was plighted to a young gentleman whose fortune was not quite equal to his rank in life. It was the days of privateering, and to amass some means the young fellow joined an enterprise of this kind, and was fortunate enough to find himself aboard a superior and successful vessel. Whilst abroad he sent home to the lady of his heart a silk dress and a considerable sum of money. These, however, fell into the hands of an unscrupulous brother, who appropriated them to his own use. Perplexed at not receiving news from home and acknowledgment, the lover wrote again and again, but the letters were always intercepted by the brother. Disaster came, and the wanderer never reached home to learn the true state of matters, but his ghost came to haunt the place. Fasten the doors as securely as they might, it always obtained an entry, and the scratch of a ghostly pen was heard writing and rewriting the stolen letters. Different plans were tried to relieve this eerie state of affairs. On one occasion a Bible was placed behind the door through which the ghost seemed to pass, but this was followed by terrifying and distracting noises, while the house itself was shaken as if by storm and gale. It was also believed that the semblance of the ship on which the wanderer pursued his calling as a privateer was at times seen to sail along a field above the house. A variation of the main story is that it was a brother of one of the former ladies of Auchabrick whose shade haunted the place. He had fallen from his horse and been fatally injured, his ghost taking the form of a young man, booted and spurred, riding a grey horse. At Cardrain, in the same locality, there is another tradition of an apparition on horseback which time and again rode up to the house,
- 72. made fast thehorse to a rope hanging from the thatch, then wandered all through the place. In the neighbourhood of Tirally the shade of a departed medical man was believed to frequent and wander along the sea-shore. There is an authentic account of the house he occupied being of necessity given up by the tenant who succeeded him after his death, on account of the strange persistent and disturbing noises heard in it. Passing from the Rhinns of Galloway to the Machars, through the district of Glenluce, the surprising story of the Devil of Glenluce should naturally find a place. It will, however, be included in the Appendix, in all its quaintness, as it occurs in Satan’s Invisible World, published in 1685. In the history of the town of Wigtown no character stands out in stronger relief than Provost Coltran, proprietor of Drummorall. In 1683, along with David Graham, brother of Claverhouse, and Sir Godfrey M‘Culloch, he was appointed to administer the test to the people of Galloway, and was Chief Magistrate at the drowning of the Martyrs on Wigtown Sands (May 11th, 1685). His private character does not seem to have been beyond reproach, and it was commonly said that in his life time he had sold himself to the Devil. The story still lingers that at his death the windows of his house looked as if they were in a blaze of fire, clearly indicating to the popular mind that the Devil was getting his own, and for long afterwards his ghost, a terrifying figure snorting fire from his nostrils, walked the earth. Even the house where he lived and died was for many years avoided after night-fall. Not far from the village of Bladnoch, on the farm of Kirkwaugh, is a spot known as the Packman’s Grave, round which a grim story lingers:— “Tradition has it that an enterprising packman lived in or near Wigtown long ago. He had a consignment of cloth on board a vessel
- 73. which put intoa local port. The ship was plague-stricken, and the people in the district, fearing that the infection might spread by means of the packman and his cloth, seized both the merchant and his wares, and taking them to Kirkwaugh dug a deep grave, in which they were deposited—the packman alive. Even until lately people imagined they saw lights and heard knocks at the spot, which gets the name of the Packman’s Grave to this day.”(80) Near Sorbie is the farm of Claunch, concerning which there is an old- world memory of a spectral carriage and pair of horses. The origin of the tradition is unknown, but the following is an authentic account of its appearance furnished by a correspondent:— “I can, however, recall the strange experience of one who avowed that it had come within his ken. He was a blacksmith by trade, and had been doing some work at the farm. It was a fine moonlight evening when he gathered his tools together and started on his walk to Whithorn, where he lived. It chanced that the farmer by whom he had been employed during the day accompanied him as far as the entrance to the farmyard. As they were crossing the courtyard, what certainly seemed a spectral carriage and pair of horses galloped past them, and in another moment disappeared as if it never had been. ‘What in the name of wonder was that?’ ejaculated the smith; to which the farmer replied— ‘It’s mair than I can tell—but it’s no’ the first glint o’t I hae gotten, although I haena seen’t aften. But dinna ye come owre what ye hae seen—nae guid’ll come o’ talkin’ aboot it.’”(81) The old parish manse of Whithorn, which adjoined the churchyard near to its main entrance, and which was demolished a good many years ago, had rather an uncanny reputation, but nothing very definite can be gleaned to explain this. It certainly was, however, avoided after darkness fell. A little short lane off the public road, between the north end of Whithorn and the Bishopton Crofts, is associated with an appearance denoting foul play towards a very
- 74. young child. Butthe most important ghostly reminiscence that can be gathered in this locality refers to the ghost at Craigdhu, in the parish of Glasserton, on the shore-road from Whithorn to Port- William. The following account was communicated by a native of the district:— “Many rumours used to be afloat in my younger days of people being terrified by some unearthly shape or other which was believed to show itself at Craigdhu. Such stories were, however, rather conflicting, some declaring that it was a spectre of human form and proportions, while others held that it was more like a huge quadruped of an unknown species; but I confine my notes to personal testimonies of three individuals whom I knew. The first of these was a hard-working farm servant, who insisted that he had seen the something—whatever it was—not once or twice, but repeatedly. The second testifier was a wood-sawyer, who had occasion to spend a night in the house belonging to the farm. His first consciousness of the ghost’s presence was when he was ascending the stair to the sleeping apartment, which a companion and himself were to occupy. This was manifested by the distinct sound of a lady’s silk dress passing him and his bed-fellow on their way to the garret which was to be their dormitory. But that, though eerie enough, was nothing to what was to follow. As soon as they had extinguished their candle and crept into bed something leapt on the bed and dealt the unfortunate couple some well directed blows with what seemed like a heavy blunt instrument. The third witness was an ex-magistrate of Whithorn, who told that he was almost run to earth by the goblin. He was just able to evade it by reaching the farm-house door as he was actually being overtaken. Throwing himself against the door, he was admitted by the farmer himself without a moment’s delay. The latter at once conjectured the cause of his breathlessness and terror—‘Aye! come in, my frien’, come in. I ken gey weel what has happened; but ye’re safe here, an’ as welcome as I can mak’ ye, to bide till daylicht.’”(82)
- 75. The roofless ruinof the little pre-Reformation Church of Kirkmaiden (in Fernes) in Glasserton parish, so beautifully situated on the very verge of Luce Bay, has among other associations a tradition of supernatural intervention and tragedy. Many tides have ebbed and flowed since the night of a merry gathering in the old house of Moure, the original home of the Maxwells of Monreith. As the evening wore on, some harmless rallying and boasting took place concerning bravery and indifference towards darkness and things uncanny. Among the guests was a young man in the hey-day of youth and recklessness, who rashly wagered that he would that very night, and without delay, ride to the Maiden Kirk and bring away the church bible as a proof that he had been there. Amidst much careless talk and banter he galloped off. The night wore on, but the young man did not return. As it was but a short ride from Moure to the Kirk the greatest anxiety prevailed. Next day, in a bleak spot, his dead body was found, as also his horse lying stiff beside him. Of robbery and violence there was no evidence, but the entrails of both man and beast had been carefully drawn from their bodies, and were found twisted and entwined round some old thorn bushes close beside them. It was afterwards found that he had reached the church and was on his way back. Some ten miles northward, along this eastern shore of Luce Bay, are the ruined Barracks of Auchenmalg, built in the days of the free- trade as a means of suppressing the traffic. A whisper of the old building being haunted exists, but further than that the idea is associated with some deed of violence in the smuggling days nothing very definite can be gleaned. Passing from Wigtownshire, by way of Kirkcowan, towards Kirkcudbrightshire, it may be noted that Dr Trotter has preserved a ghost story concerning Craighlaw House, originally a fifteenth century square keep, now the oldest part of a mansion-house of three distinct periods. The story conveys that the ghost appeared on one occasion by the side of the large arched kitchen fire-place,
- 76. during the absenceof the cook at the well. Much alarmed at the sight on her return she screamed and collapsed. Her master, sceptical of anything supernatural, fervently expressed the wish that he himself might meet the cause of the alarm, which he actually did, and shot at it with no effect, much to his own alarm. Dr Trotter adds that “since the ghost was laid everything has been quiet.”(83) In Kirkcudbrightshire, still passing eastwards, the legends and eerie associations that cluster around Machermore Castle first meet us, and call for narration. The following details are taken from an article entitled “The White Lady of Machermore,” contributed to the Galloway Gazette some years ago by James G. Kinna, author of the History of the Parish of Minnigaff:— “Pleasantly situated on the east bank of the Cree, about a mile from the town, Machermore Castle is a prominent feature in the landscape as the traveller approaches Newton-Stewart by rail from the south. For wellnigh three hundred years the grey old Castle of Machermore bravely weathered the storms, and it would have continued to do so unscathed had not modern times necessitated structural changes. The Castle now presents a happy instance of the blending of the old and new styles of architecture—an adaptation of the past to present requirements. It is a curious circumstance that although certain spots near Machermore Castle have always been associated with the name of the White Lady no one has ever actually seen the mysterious being. And yet there are few of the older residenters in the parish of Minnigaff who have not heard their grandfathers speak of her as a reality. Machermore Castle is believed to have been built about the latter end of the sixteenth century. Tradition says that it was at first intended to build the Castle on the higher ground, a little to the north-east of the present site, but that during the night the
- 77. foundation stones werealways removed, so that what was built during the day was carried off by unseen hands and deposited in another place. As it was no use to strive against the supernatural, the Castle was eventually built where the materials were always found in the morning. In the Castle itself was a room reputed to be haunted. In this instance the particular apartment was in the north-west angle, and was always known as Duncan’s room. Projecting from the top corner of the outer wall in the same part of the Castle was the finely-carved figurehead of a man. A close inspection revealed the fact that the neck was encircled by an exquisitely-chiselled lace ruffle of the Tudor period. This piece of sculpture was always known as Duncan’s head. On the floor of Duncan’s room there was the mark of a bloody hand, distinctly showing the impress of the fingers, thumb, and palm. It was said that removing that part of the flooring had been tried so as to eradicate all trace of the bygone tragedy, but the mark of the bloody hand appeared in the new wood as fresh as before. From the history of Machermore at least this legend is ineffaceable, and the annals of the parish of Minnigaff are incomplete which do not contain a reference to this remarkable phenomenon. It is a good many years since the incident I am about to relate took place, but the circumstances are as fresh in my memory as if it had happened but yesternight; nor am I ever likely to forget my first and only visit from the White Lady. On that occasion I happened to be the sole occupant of Duncan’s room, but as usage had worn off all prejudice against the occupation of that particular bedroom amongst the members of the household, little or no importance was attached to the general belief that the room was haunted. It was a midsummer night, and I had been asleep, but had awakened, and lay wondering what time it was, just as a clock on one of the landings struck twelve. As the last stroke died away I distinctly heard a footstep coming upstairs. All being perfectly quiet in the Castle at that hour, I could hear the slightest sound. Nearer and nearer to the door of my room came the midnight visitant, until
- 78. it seemed toenter; but although the room was flooded with moonlight I saw no one come in, yet I was perfectly conscious that some mysterious presence was near me. I was not in the least frightened at the time. Although wide awake I could see nothing. A peculiar sound resembling the opening and shutting of a stiff drawer now came from the corner of the room where was the impress of the bloody hand. I then sat up in bed and called out, “Who’s there? what do you want?” but got no answer. After this I must confess to feeling uncomfortable, a state which changed to something like positive fear as a rustling sound resembling that made by a silk dress passed out of the room. All this time the door remained closed. Nothing, therefore, possessing a material body could either have entered or left the room without its entrance or exit being noticed, but although I looked in the direction from which the moving sound proceeded nothing could be seen. It was with a sense of relief that I listened with bated breath and palpitating heart to the retreating footsteps as they slowly descended the stairs and gradually died away in the distance, and then all was silent again, ... and here the mystery rests.” There is a tradition that somewhere about Machermore Castle there is buried under a flat stone a kettle full of gold: “Between the Castle and the River Cree Lies enough o’ gold to set a’ Scotland free.” The spell of the White Lady for good or evil is exercised no longer in the ancestral home of the Dunbars of Machermore. Between Kirkdale House and Cassencarry, on the beautiful sea-girt road leading from Creetown to Gatehouse, there stood many years ago a little cottage in a sequestered situation among the woods, where a young girl was murdered by her sweetheart under the saddest of circumstances.
- 79. In and aroundthe cottage immediately afterwards unaccountable noises were heard, and the ghost of the unfortunate girl seen, which curiously enough, as the tradition tells, at once ceased when the young man was brought to justice. There is also a further tradition about a gypsy killing a woman near Kirkdale Bridge. At twelve o’clock at night, it is said, the ghost of a woman with half of her head cut off, and all clad in white, appears at Kirkdale Bridge, and slowly wends its way along the road and disappears by the wooded pathway leading to Kirkdale Bank.(84) This apparition is firmly believed in by folks in that locality. The district of Dalry has furnished us with tales of witch and fairy lore. Of ghost tradition there are also authentic details, of which the most important concerns the old mansion-house of Glenlee. The following details are extracts from a paper on the subject contributed to the Gallovidian (Winter, 1900):— “In the north of Kirkcudbrightshire, in the beautiful district of the Glenkens, on the banks of the Ken, nearly opposite to the village of Dalry but on the other side of the river, stands the fine mansion- house of Glenlee Park, at one time the residence of Lord Glenlee, one of the Judges of the Court of Session. Silent and solitary, and untenanted for years now except by a caretaker, this eligible residence has the reputation of being haunted by a lady who walks about dressed in grey silk. A lady, who is still alive, tells how the grey lady appeared to her one evening as she was sitting in front of her dressing-glass waiting on her maid to come and do up her hair. While looking into the mirror she became aware of someone or something behind her, and then saw a lady enter by the door of her room, pass across the floor, and disappear through a door which communicated with a dressing- room. As the house was full of company at the time she wondered whether some of the strangers had mistaken the way to her room; but she waited in vain for her return, and just as she was thinking of going to explore the mystery it occurred to her that there had been
- 80. no sound ofdoors opening or of footfalls on the floor, nor was there any sound in the direction in which the lady had disappeared, and finally it struck her that the lady was not dressed like anyone in the house. On another occasion the same lady was sitting up with her husband, who was seriously ill, and during the night a kind of rap was heard on the door, or about the door, which roused her to go and see what it was. Upon opening the door a face stared at her, but spoke not, and passed silently along the dimly-lighted corridor out of sight. A guest at Glenlee, before going off to some entertainment one evening ran up to his bedroom for something or other, and to his surprise there was a lady standing at his dressing-table putting some finishing touches to her toilette. He at once withdrew, thinking that some of the ladies in the hurry of the moment had gone into the wrong bedroom. When he came down again they were all upon the point of departure, and called to him to come along—but before getting into the carriage he said, ‘You have forgotten one of the ladies.’ ‘Oh, no!’ they said, ‘everyone is here, and but for your lingering we should have been off.’ One evening at dark the butler was hastening down the avenue on some errand to the lodge-keeper’s, when suddenly a lady hurried past him, and he heard nothing but a faint rustle as of her dress, or the faint flickering of the remaining autumn leaves in the breeze overhead. As it was at a time when all the ladies were supposed to be indoors curiosity piqued him to follow her and watch her movements. She hurried on without once looking round, and finally disappeared through a disused cellar door which he knew to be locked and rusted from want of use. Not till then did it strike the butler that there was anything uncanny about the lady that had hurried past him in the gloom of the evening.
- 81. No satisfactory explanationof these unpleasant experiences has ever been established. Mr Blacklock, in his notes on Twenty Years’ Holidaying in the Glenkens, makes mention of the Glenlee ghost, and adds that Lady Ashburton was said to have poisoned her husband, who was afflicted with morbus pediculus. ‘Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap’—and there is a further tradition that Lady Ashburton’s butler poisoned her in turn, in order to possess himself of some valuables which he coveted. The Headless Piper of Patiesthorn. Sketch by J. Copland, Dundrennan.
- 82. The disturbances arechiefly connected with the old part of the house, the bedroom and dressing-room previously mentioned, which seem to be the chief haunts of this yet unlaid ghost.” In the village of Dalry itself there stood a row of houses called Bogle-Hole, on the site now occupied by the school. In one of these houses a man was said to have poisoned his wife, and the ghost of the murdered woman has, according to credible authority, appeared even within recent years. The following singular story is connected with the lonely district of the Moor of Corsock: “Many years ago a drover, while making his way north and crossing that wild and thinly populated district which lies between the head of the parish of Parton and the Moor of Corsock had the following uncanny experience: He had left the Parton district late in the afternoon with the intention of reaching a farm-house some miles north of the village of Corsock. By the time he reached the path over Corsock Hill, however, it had become dark, and occasional flashes of lightning foretold that a storm was at hand. With loud peals of thunder, vivid flashes of lightning, and a downpour of rain the storm at last broke. The only shelter near at hand was some thorn bushes by the roadside, under which the drover crept and stayed for fully an hour, while the storm raged and the darkness increased. When the storm had somewhat abated the drover set out once more, hurrying as fast as the darkness would allow him. He had reached a very desolate part of the moor when his collie gave a low whine and crept close to his master’s heels. The drover stood up for a moment to try and find a reason for the dog’s behaviour, when down in the glen between the hills he heard what at first appeared the sound of bagpipes, which increased quickly to a shrill piercing wailing that struck terror to his heart, the collie creeping closer and closer to his heel whining in a way that showed he was as much frightened as his master.
- 83. Standing irresolute, ablaze of blue light flashed right in front of him, in the centre of which appeared the figure of a piper, his pipes standing like horns against the background of blue light. The figure moved backwards and forwards playing the wildest of music all the time. It next seemed to come nearer and nearer, and the drover, now transfixed to earth with terror, saw that the piper was headless, and his body so thin that surrounding hills and country could be seen right throught it. A blinding flash of fire, followed by an ear- splitting clap of thunder, brought matters to a close for the time being, and the drover fell prostrate among the heather. When he recovered his senses the strange light had gone, and with it the headless piper. The storm had cleared off, and in due time he reached the farm, where he was put up for the night. When he told his story no one spoke for a moment or two, then the farmer’s aged father broke silence: ‘Aye, aye, lad, ye hae seen the ghost o’ the piper wha was murdered on his wey frae Patiesthorn.[44] I hae had the same fearsome experience myself, tho’ its mair than saxty years syne.’”(85) In the Dundrennan district of Kirkcudbright a persisted belief lingers concerning a headless lady haunting the Buckland Glen. The following narrative which has been handed down lends an increased interest to the tradition:— Long ago a Monkland farmer, accompanied by one of his farm-lads, was on his return from Kirkcudbright at a very late hour. The farmer was riding a small Highland pony, the boy being on foot. It was about midnight when they got to that part of Buckland Glen where a small bridge crosses the Buckland Burn. They had just crossed the bridge when the pony suddenly stood up and swerved, almost throwing the farmer out of the saddle. “What’s wrang wi’ ye the nicht, Maggie—what’s tae fricht ye, my lass?” “Eh, Maister, did ye see that?” whispered the lad. “See—yonner it’s again!”
- 84. The old manlooked, and muttering to himself whispered, “Aye, it’s there, laddie! It’s a’ true what hes been mony a time telt! That’s the ghost o’ the headless leddy wha was murdered in the glen in the aul’ wicked times. We’ll no gang by, but gang doon the lane and slip hame by Gilroanie.” Turning the quivering pony they wended their way along the woods which thickly fringe the Buckland Burn, as it leads to the shore at the Manxman’s Lake, and reached home without further difficulty than keeping in hand the frightened pony. The curious fact was a week later discovered that two disreputable characters had lain in wait, for the purpose of robbery or perhaps worse, at a lonely turn on the Bombie road about a quarter of a mile from Buckland Brig. They had learned that the farmer had been to Kirkcudbright to draw a sum of money, and, had the sudden appearance of the Buckland ghost not turned their path, another tragedy might have been that night enacted in the Buckland Glen.
- 85. The Ghost ofBuckland Glen. Sketch by J. Copland, Dundrennan. Concerning the parish of Rerwick the account of “A true relation of an apparition, expressions, and actings of a spirit which infested the house of Andrew Mackie, in Ringcroft of Stocking, in the parish of Rerwick, in the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright in Scotland, 1695, by Mr Alexander Telfair, Minister of that parish, and attested by many other persons who were also eye and ear witnesses,” will be found in its original form in the Appendix. One of the most interesting weird stories connected with Galloway, centres round a mansion-house in the neighbourhood of Castle- Douglas.
- 86. A lady rentingit for a few years tells how she was twice or thrice disturbed in the night by hearing a horse trotting round to the front door, and on getting up to look out of the window always found there was nothing to be seen, and nothing to be done but to return shivering to bed. Several years after, returning to the neighbourhood, she met the owner of the house, who asked her to go and see the improvements he had recently effected. On being shown over the house she was told that the room she had slept in had had the partition taken down between it and the dressing-room next it to make a large room, and strangely enough, when taking down the wall, a horse’s skull was discovered built into the wall. The only connecting link to the above curious circumstance is that a former proprietor paid a hurried visit to the town of Dumfries at the time of the terrible epidemic of cholera (1832), the journey being naturally accomplished in these days on horseback. Unfortunately, he contracted the disease and died shortly after his return. Until some years ago a huge boulder lay at the roadside on the way from Dalbeattie to Colvend, not far from the cottage known as the “Wood Forester’s.” The story was, that this was the scene of foul play long ago, the victim being a woman, whose ghost afterwards haunted the neighbourhood in the black hours of the night. Bearing upon this, an exceedingly graphic account has been furnished the writer of such an apparition having been seen by the captain of a local coasting vessel[45] late one night as he was walking from Kippford to Dalbeattie. It made its appearance near Aikieslak, which is the next house to the “Wood Forester’s,” and not very far away. The figure walked in front, stopped when he stopped, and finally disappeared, to his intense relief, in the wood to the left. The parish of Kirkbean is particularly rich in ghostly record, no fewer than six haunted, or once haunted localities having been noted.(86) Traversing the parish from Southwick towards Newabbey, the first eerie place of note is a field above Torrorie known as the “Murder
- 87. Fall.” The ghostin this instance was that of a man who came to an untimely end by hanging. Between Mainsriddel and Prestonmill there is a sequestered part of the road known as “Derry’s How,” once reputed to be haunted by an evil spirit in the form of a black four-footed beast. The third uncanny place was a farm-house in this same immediate neighbourhood. The ghostly manifestation was here that of sound—well-defined sounds of footsteps passing along a passage to the foot of a staircase, pausing, then seeming to return along the passage again. The sound persisted for many years, and was recognised and described by different individuals always as footsteps, which of themselves were so natural as to give rise to no alarm. Between Prestonmill and Kirkbean—midway between the two villages—there is a small plantation, with, on the other side of the road, a larger wood. The road itself at this particular part forms a hollow. This natural arrangement of wood and road, known locally as the “Howlet’s Close,” was the reputed domain of a “lady in white,” but so little can be gleaned concerning her appearance that even the origin of the tradition seems to be quite forgotten. The “Three Cross Roads” near Arbigland is the next spot of ghost- lore association, round which there lingers a rather romantic tale. A young lady, a member of the well-known family of Craik (of Arbigland) had fixed her affections upon a young groom in her father’s employment, a lad of good physique and manners, but, of course, apart in social status. The course of true love, however, did not run true, the romantic attachment having a most tragic ending. One day a single report of fire-arms was heard, and soon afterwards the lifeless body of the young man, whose name was Dunn, was discovered. The law took the view of suicide having been committed, but it was generally believed in the district that a brother of the young lady, incensed at her devotion to one he thought so far beneath her, had himself taken the young man’s life. This deed of violence took place at the “Three Cross Roads,” and this was the
- 88. Welcome to ourwebsite – the perfect destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world, offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth. That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to self-development guides and children's books. More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and personal growth every day! ebookbell.com