INDUSTRIAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW, XXVII: 1, 2005
Industrial Heritage and National Identity —
Sharing Data, the Importance of Context and
Strategic Priorities
MILES OGLETHORPE
BACKGROUND
In 2002, the Association for Industrial
Archaeology chose to hold its annual confer-
ence in Scotland. This occurred at a time
when Scotland was beginning to feel its way
following the re-establishment of its parlia-
ment, so it seemed appropriate to choose
national identity as a theme for the ‘Profes-
sionals’ Seminar’. It also followed the 2000
conference of The International Committee
on the Conservation of the Industrial Heri-
tage (TICCIH 2000) held in the UK, the
Scottish portion of which had sold out,
attracting delegates from all over the world.
As those who know TICCIH can testify, it
is an organisation which brings together a
wide range of nationalities and professional
interests in sometimes strange but always
stimulating circumstances. Perhaps its great-
est role is the provision of context, assisting
the process of dismantling artificial national
barriers and providing a more reliable basis
for comparison and context. For this reason,
it was decided that it would be a good idea
to invite two key international speakers to
the AIA conference in order to add an extra
dimension to the seminar. The funds neces-
sary to achieve this were generously provided
by a grant from Historic Scotland.
Amongst the many themes to have arisen
in recent TICCIH conferences has been the
emergence of new areas of excellence, particu-
larly in Germany and Catalunya, where
impressive networks of industrial museums
have been established. For this reason, Eusebi
Casanelles, Director of the Catalan Museums
of Science and Industry, and coincidentally,
President of TICCIH, was invited to attend
as a principal speaker.1 A second overseas
speaker, Irina Iamandescu, from the Ministry
of Culture and Religious Affairs in Romania,
also accepted an invitation to attend.
Both speakers portrayed contrasting sce-
narios in their home countries. Catalunya’s
history exhibited clear parallels with Scot-
land, both nations enduring the indignity of
having been absorbed by their neighbours
before experiencing a powerful renaissance,
driven by spectacular industrial success and a
flourishing associated culture during the 19th
and 20th centuries. Romania, on the other
© The Association for Industrial Archaeology
hand, was one of a group of former commu-
nist countries in Eastern Europe currently
undergoing traumatic and rapid change. The
onset of capitalism is having a devastating
effect on once protected industries, with inevi-
table consequences for the often extraordi-
nary industrial heritage. Indeed, this process
has been one of the reasons why the Roma-
nian Ministry of Culture and Religious
Affairs has been organising annual work-
shops on industrial heritage to which interna-
tional delegates have been regularly invited.
In the face of such rapid change, there is a
desperate need for guidance on how other
countries have protected and recorded their
industrial heritage when faced with similar
rapid change, and in particular, how they
prioritised their activities when faced with
inadequate resources. Furthermore, there is
a hope that the preservation of some of the
industrial heritage in Eastern Europe might
encourage tourism, thereby reversing the
economic decline in some areas.
The seminar was reinforced by speakers
from the UK, all of whom had differing views
and interpretations of the importance of
national identity to industrial heritage, some
stressing national differences, and others,
such as Keith Falconer of English Heritage,
emphasising linkages and the multi-national
nature of technology and industrialisation,
especially in the UK. The immense inter-
nationalising mercantile and military influ-
ences of the British merchant and Royal
Navies was also raised by Christopher Mason
of the Clyde Maritime Trust.
The seminar concluded with a toxic inter-
lude during which delegates were invited to
consider the iconic power of Scottish single-
malt distillery architecture whilst being plied
with three different whiskies, each in a special
tasting glass (with a lid), both the glasses and
the whisky having been generously provided
by Glenmorangie plc.
Once the alcoholic mists had subsided, it
was clear that the importance of sharing
information had been reaffirmed. In the
international context, the greatest activity has
so far centred around the work of TICCIH,
whose formal links with ICOMOS and
UNESCO have been especially significant in
recent years. However, many of these issues
apply just as much to the situation in the UK,
DOI: 10.1179/030907205X50450
28 OGLETHORPE: INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE AND NATIONAL IDENTITY
where the home countries have until recently
maintained entirely separate heritage institu-
tions, and where different tiers of government
frequently do not communicate as well as
might be expected. With this in mind, the
purpose of this paper is to discuss briefly the
potential for broader collaboration and
the sharing of data both at a national and
international level, the ultimate aim being
to provide a more strategic view from which
new priorities for a research framework in
Industrial Archaeology might be defined.
THE WORK OF THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMITTEE ON THE CONSERVATION OF THE
INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE (TICCIH)
Amongst its many activities, TICCIH defines
its priorities as being the promotion of preser-
vation, conservation, investigation, docu-
mentation, research and interpretation of our
industrial heritage, as recently laid down in
the ‘Nizhny Tagil Charter’ (TICCIH 2003).
To this end, it is striving to break down
national barriers and prejudices, and to estab-
lish international standards and objective
comparisons. This involves tracing and
documenting international links, such as the
flows of people, technologies and products. It
also entails extending activities and making
contacts in hitherto neglected areas such as
Eastern Europe, and in particular, further
afield beyond Europe to the Americas, Asia,
India and Australasia.
To date, TICCIH’s most substantial
achievements have been associated with its
links to the International Council on Monu-
ments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organisation (UNESCO), for whom a num-
ber of international thematic assessments of
industrial sites have already been compiled,2
such as that for collieries by Stephen Hughes
(2003). These studies have greatly assisted
the promotion of industrial heritage as part of
the implementation of the World Heritage
Convention (UNESCO 1972), and in the
case of coal, resulted in the inscription by
UNESCO of Blaenavon in Wales (in 2000)
and Zolverein in Essen, Germany (in 2001).
In the last four years, a further four major
British industrial sites have been inscribed,
commencing in 2001 with the three textile
centres of New Lanark in Scotland, and
Saltaire and Derwent Valley in England. The
Department of Culture, Media and Sport and
English Heritage have continued to prepare
nominations for sites on the UK ‘Tentative
List’, many of the sites being strongly indus-
trial in nature (DCMS 1999). Liverpool
was inscribed in 2004 as a ‘Maritime and
Mercantile City’, the nomination document
and associated management plan for ‘The
Cornish Mining Industry’ has recently
been completed, and future potential UK
nominations include Manchester and Salford
(Ancoats, Castlefield and Worsley), ‘The
Great Western Railway: Paddington-Bristol
(selected parts)’, and ‘The Forth Bridge’.
It is, however, worth noting that the better-
represented nations such as the UK are now
restricted by UNESCO to only one world-
heritage-site nomination per year, and that
this includes dependencies and colonies. The
queue of British candidates for inscription is
therefore unlikely to shorten significantly in
the short term.
TICCIH, meanwhile, is also in the process
of establishing specialist groups to permit
ICOMOS and UNESCO to consider the
inscription of other types of industrial monu-
ment, and to promote the recognition of
industrial heritage throughout the world. So
far, the two most active groups have been
the ‘Textiles’ and the ‘Mining and Quarrying’
sections. Both have had small conferences
at which prorities have been identified. The
most important of these is perceived to be
the need to establish a characterisation of
the industries in question, and to build
international databases into which national
correspondents can enter data on their most
important extant sites. Recent papers relating
to the work of the TICCIH Textiles Section
can be found in Volume 11 of Patrimoine de
L’Industrie — Ressources, Pratiques, Cultures
(Falconer 2004, and Watson 2004).
In the case of mining, for example, the
idea is that an international database can be
established within which data can be depos-
ited and organised, ultimately with a variety
of potential uses. These include the promo-
tion of important sites within countries where
their significance, (and therefore provisions
made for their protection), has so far been
insufficient. It also follows that, where such
comparative data becomes available, it may
be possible to desist from the promotion of
some sites in the knowledge that better
examples exist elsewhere.
Sharing Data over the Web
The technical means by which data can
efficiently be shared has of course existed for
many years, having been pioneered by univer-
sities and the financial sector. However, the
astonishing success and expansion of the
internet has provided an entirely new range of
potential technical solutions to data sharing
problems, and could theoretically be applied
to the establishment of thematic international
databases.
In the UK context, just such a situation
arose in 2001 when a conversation between
Rebecca Jones of RCAHMS and Hilary
Malaws of RCAHMW (and former President
of the AIA) inadvertently spawned a project

that has changed radically the parameters
governing the way heritage information can
be routinely exchanged between heritage
institutions. They discussed the possibility
that various core data management opera-
tions carried out by the two Commissions
could be harmonised and achieved collec-
tively over the internet, using the same
systems. So it was that ‘Shared Information
Systems for Heritage’ (SWISH) was born.
The technical realisation of this concept
was initially taken forward by Jo McCoy
(RCAHMS ICT Manager), who realised
that it should be possible to operate shared
information systems across the web using
java-based applications. The result has been a
major collaboration between the two Royal
Commissions which has greatly enhanced the
routine operations of the associated National
Monuments Records, and which has also
massively improved the on-line services pro-
vided by both organisations (Malaws et al.,
2004).
In practice, the staff at RCAHMS and
RCAHMW have collaborated to exploit
the strengths of their two systems, creating
parallel but almost identical services. The
significant feature of this arrangement is
that the computers on which the National
Monuments Record data is stored and made
available to staff and the public all reside
at RCAHMS in Edinburgh. Both Scottish
and Welsh staff use their systems on a routine
basis via internet browsers (Microsoft
Internet Explorer) which replicate enhanced
Oracle-based versions of their database
screens, interacting via the internet with the
servers in Edinburgh. Thus, anyone using
their database in Aberystwyth appears to be
plugged into their local-area network and its
associated server, which one would normally
expect to be in the same building. In reality,
they are interacting with a computer 600km
away in Scotland.
An additional facet to this facility has been
provided by the introduction of a map-based
(GIS — Geographic Information System)
browser facility first in Scotland, and then in
Wales, which allows members of the public
to search for information geographically
by zooming in on their chosen parts of the
country. This too is operated through servers
situated at RCAHMS in Edinburgh, and is
proving to be very popular with a broad range
of users.3
Establishing International Databases
The Scottish and Welsh experience demon-
strates that it is technically possible for a
database to be established at a single location,
and for correspondents from all over the
world to add data where appropriate. Such a
facility would, for example, enable members
INDUSTRIAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW, XXVII: 1, 2005 29
of TICCIH to compile databases with com-
parative information on a variety of indus-
trial monument types. This would not only
be useful in assessing candidates for World
Heritage Status, but would also allow
national and local planning authorities to
assess the merits of individual sites with much
greater confidence. If opened up for public
consumption, it could also provide the basis
of an excellent educational resource.
There are inevitably, however, a number of
major considerations which must be tackled
before any such project is contemplated.
Apart from basic decisions such as the choice
of software and hardware, the design of the
database must potentially cope with different
languages and, most fundamental of all, the
establishment of consistent data standards
and editorial control. In particular, there will
need to be agreed site classification systems
and a thesaurus that can accommodate the
many types of site to be found in countries
across the globe. One of the most pressing
technical issues is that of security, and protec-
tion of the systems against unwanted mali-
cious intrusions. This type of requirement is
likely to increase the capital and maintenance
costs of any venture.
The issue of costs leads to the question of
who might be able to host such a database.
Ideally, it could be an established institution
with existing technological expertise in shar-
ing data across the web, along with associated
computer infrastructure. An initial input of
capital would be required to establish the
system, after which the costs of maintenance
would need to be supported on an indefinite
basis. There are a number of national and
international institutions that are suitably
placed to fulfil these requirements, but such
a scheme would require concerted efforts
by TICCIH and its national activists and
affiliated organisations to make it happen.
It would, however, be a fantastic achieve-
ment if a database could be established, in
effect acting as an international industrial
archaeology portal. At a recent TICCIH
Mining and Quarrying Section conference
held at Velenje in Slovenija, it was suggested
that a pilot database for historic mining sites
should be devised, possibly with a map-driven
GIS interface. This proposal will be discussed
further at future TICCIH gatherings, and if
successful, could be rolled out to other types
of industrial monument.
BROADER APPLICATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Web-based data sharing technologies also
have the potential to revolutionise work in a
number of other situations, especially in the
UK. For example, there have been a number
of initiatives in the past aimed at gathering
data on industrial sites on a systematic basis,
30 OGLETHORPE: INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE AND NATIONAL IDENTITY
one of the first being the National Record
of Industrial Monuments (NRIM), which
involved the collection of data on Council for
British Archaeology field cards throughout
the UK. More recently, the Association for
Industrial Archaeology embarked upon the
IRIS project (Index Record for Industrial
Sites) in 1993, the aim of which was to encour-
age industrial archaeology activists to collect
data using standard data forms and a pre-
defined classification system and associated
word list (AIA 1993). Although the results
were patchy across the UK, one resoundingly
successful project was that of the Greater
London Industrial Archaeology Society
(GLIAS), whose resulting database is now
available on line.4
Throughout the UK, but particularly in
England, data on industrial archaeology is
scattered through local Sites and Monuments
Records (SMRs), as well as in the National
Monuments Record Centre (of England) in
Swindon (NMRC). In addition, the former
Royal Commission on the Historical Monu-
ments of England (RCHME) and English
Heritage, whose thesaurus has been crucial in
the imposition of data quality standards, have
gathered information and records relating to
industrial heritage from a variety of sources,
some of the most useful bodies of data being
compiled in Monuments Protection Pro-
gramme (MPP) industry-based reports.
The latter are being superseded in English
Heritage by thematic ‘Strategy for the
Historic Industrial Environment Reports’,
the first of which on floor maltings was
completed in 2004. Much the same situation
applies elsewhere in the UK, although data
tends to be more centralised in Scotland’s
NMRS in Edinburgh, and is therefore already
available on line through its Canmore and
Canmap services.5
It is clear therefore that the technology now
exists to collate what is a huge quantity of
data on the UK’s industrial heritage. Indeed,
this aim was originally articulated in the con-
text of national and local monuments records
within the AIA’s policy document, Industrial
Archaeology: Working for the Future (Palmer
1991). There is now no reason why such
an aim cannot soon be realised. As with the
proposed international database, one of the
principal questions will be who can host and
nurture such a project, and how can sufficient
resources be acquired to maintain it in the
long term. These and other related issues were
discussed at some length in an AIA Council
working weekend late in 2004.
There is, meanwhile, still more potential for
the application of such data-sharing technol-
ogy. Currently, there is little routine contact
between planning authorities and the national
heritage bodies. Indeed, communication is
not always as good as it should be between
or within some of these institutions. There is
therefore no doubt that the sharing of data
across the web can revolutionise the manage-
ment of the built heritage. In addition to
having a much more complete and accurate
picture of different types of monument, it
should also be possible routinely to add data
on planning pressures, successful and unsuc-
cessful demolition applications, alongside
other attributes such as historic building and
scheduled ancient monument status. In time,
patterns of development pressure and system-
atic threat would be much more easily
detected, and it would also therefore be pos-
sible to manage the built heritage much more
successfully.
CONCLUSIONS
In the medium term, the research priorities
for industrial heritage must therefore include
monitoring accurately the threat to the extant
industrial heritage both in the UK and
abroad. To achieve this, sharing data will be
vital not only for the appropriate manage-
ment of and response to threat, but also in
ensuring reliable comparison and context. In
particular, it should now be possible to know
whether or not a threatened industrial monu-
ment is unique not only in a local or regional
context, but also nationally and internation-
ally. This should be good news not only for
the exceptional well-known monuments for
which protection is already assured, but may
also provide a lifeline for the ordinary once
very common more representative industrial
sites, many of which now face extinction.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1
Information on the Catalan museums can be
found at http://www.mnactec.com/eng/index.htm.
The museums also host the TICCIH website, the url
of which is http://www.mnactec.com/TICCIH.
2
A list of ‘Occasional Papers for the World
Heritage Convention’ published by ICOMOS
includes a number of thematic reports with which
TICCIH is associated, such as canals (1996), bridges
(1997), workers’ housing (2001), and coal (2003). See
http://www.icomos.org/studies.
3
The Scottish database and map-based search
services, CANMORE and CANMAP, can be found
at the RCAHMS website, rcahms.gov.uk. The
equivalent Welsh services, collectively named Coflein,
can be found at the RCAHMW website, http://
www.rcahmw.org.uk, and was launched by the
Minister of Culture, Sport and Welsh Language,
Alun Pugh, in Cardiff on 13 July 2004.
4
The GLIAS database can be found at http://
www.glias.org.uk/database/about.html.
5
Industrial archaeological information in Scotland
has benefited greatly from SCRAN (Scottish Cultural
Resource Network), which has resulted in the
scanning of 30,000 photographs of industrial sites
taken in the 1960s to 1980s by Professor John R.
Hume. These are now available through the new
RCAHMS ‘Images on Line’ facility within Canmore,
and data relating to these sites has been entered
onto the National Monuments Record of Scotland’s
database.
 INDUSTRIAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW, XXVII: 1, 2005 31

Miles Oglethorpe is Head of Industrial Survey at the Royal Commission on the Ancient and
Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS), and is the British National Representative on
The International Committee on the Conservation of the Industrial Heritage (TICCIH). Address
for correspondence: Miles.Oglethorpe@rcahms.gov.uk