In what ways are heriatage and history simaler
In what ways are history and heritage similar, and in what ways are they deferent? For many years the deference between heritage and history has been confused. Often the line between the two Is merged creating a general measure of difficulty when It comes to separating the two. ‘The relationship between heritage, history and memory has been subject to much debate recently among geographers, historians and cultural criticism . However It Is clear, that ‘Heritage Is not holsters and that ‘Heritage should not be confused with history.
History seeks to convince by truth -ћ Heritage exaggerates and omits, candidly admits and frankly forgets, and thrives on Ignorance and error’3 . Despite their differences, nonetheless, It would be Impossible to say that they did not have similarities and at time clearly rely on each other, ‘Recent work has emphasized that heritage tourism is not just a set of commercial transactions, but the ideological framing of history and identity. But to discover the similarities and differences between heritage and history, we must define the two as appropriately as possible.
Heritage can sometimes be seen ‘as a concept, [that] begins with the highly individualized notion of personal inheritance or bequest (e. G. Through family wills and legacies)’5 this could indeed be said where the idea of heritage began. But a broader, modernized and more accurate definition is that heritage is ‘virtually anything by which some kind of link, however tenuous or false, may be forged with the past’6. Although, from using this definition we can see that history and heritage indeed differ, it also emphasizes how they are familiar as history also gives us ‘opportunities to connect past and present in powerful ways.
Thus giving us the chance to define history. Defining history as the study of [the] past’8 Is the general description of what history Is, however this has limitations. ‘That definition would include all physical events and occurrences. It would also seem that the definition of history would be synonymous with a definition of the past-?the sum total of all things that have ever happened. However Williams more accurately states that Just because It Is In the past It does not mean It Is history. Our past Is massive and not everything Is observed or recorded. History Is, therefore, only a subset of the past. As a discipline, history Is a duty of the past, but It will only reveal a portion of the past, and should be done so as objectively as possible’. From this we can understand that although the two have some similarities, they both enlighten us of our past for one, ‘Heritage is not historic 1 One deference between heritage and history is that heritage is more substantial and some heritage assets may have remained relatively unaltered over a long period and closely resemble the setting in which the asset was constructed or first used’12.
This makes heritage more stable and permanent then history. Because heritage consists f valuable primary sources, which we aim to protect, whereas history is documented through Journals and mostly written sources, which are secondary sources, and although ‘Secondary sources offer broader perspective on a topic’13 it is important to remember that ‘ when reading written things from the past, it often has a bias point of view, like in newspapers, books, and articles, which will often have prejudice attitude against any non Euro-Canadian group, therefore, information contained in these sources can be misleading.
History changes over time because it is constantly eyeing reinterpreted due to different factors such as the discovery of new evidence, whereas heritage has a more stable story. This is a difference between the two. An example of history changing due to new discoveries would be the finding of Richard the Ills remains. For instance we now know more about the ‘portrait of the man himself – not least because it turns out that the Tutors weren’t completely lying about his physique’14 and we also now know the correct sight where the battle of Bowwow’s took place which is ‘in a field a mile from where historians have always lived it happened’1 5.
Therefore history and interpretations has to be re- evaluated, where as a piece of heritage such as Mont Roguery Castle, situated in Jersey has remained physically unchanged for over 600 years. History and heritage go hand in hand because they both deal with the past. When one talks about history, most likely there is an inference to a heritage of some sort’16. Whether it be an old diary or building, historians still need heritage (a primary source) to back up their interpretations and opinions.
It is clear much of history could to be fully exploded or sustained without the evidence of heritage, and much of heritage would not be understood without historical knowledge ‘our history is reflected in heritage’17. From this we can see that the two clearly rely on each other in some cases. Because of this it is difficult to separate history from heritage, proving some similarity between the two. Another reason in which there similar is in the fact the History matters because it reminds us who we are, what we’ve done and what we might do better.
It’s central to our sense of place and identity whether we learn from he past as we go forward into the future. Heritage also does this, reminds us of our once and sometimes lost identity, for instance the mass old of churches and cathedrals around England illustrate how important religion once was more so then in modern England. It is clear that Heritage has a history of its own. Every part of heritage has a history behind it explaining the creation and story of heritage, whether this be a piece of art or a tradition.
Although this is not a similarity as such, it shows that there is a relationship between the two. For instance Mont Roguery castle is a heritage site, however if someone was to write about a battle that took place there, the castle itself would become part of history. It is evident from this that heritage and history will always interlink, with history leading to heritage and heritage leading to identity and culture which often becomes part of history again. It seems to become a never ending cycle, where one could not be without some been recorded or written about.
Whereas heritage is something that has to have been started, more like a tradition that is passed down through cultures or enervation. Heritage suggests the start or origin of something (a place within a community, a piece of art, tradition, belief etc. ). However this still concurs that heritage has a history. However due to this, it would suggest that history is open to interpretation more so than heritage. Heritage is a broad subject you could include ‘human landscape, documents and oral evidence as well as structures and prehistoric as well as historic relics’18. Similarly history is Just as broad.
You can have ‘histories within a history 19 such as, the history of woman in America prior to forage or the history of banking, to Just mention a few. The possibilities of history are endless Just as heritage is. It is clear that heritage and history share many similarities and differences. Some of the connections may be vague, but there is no doubt that history and heritage share an integral relationship. They continue to highlight aspects with one another as well as making better of each other. Heritage makes history more factual and source based rather than work composed of Just interpretation and opinion.