We’ve written many times in the past about situations where, whether by arrangement with the site custodians, or illegally via vandalism, ancient sites have been damaged (temporarily in most cases) in the name of ‘marketing’.
Over the past couple of weeks, a new furore has arisen in Tintagel Cornwall, over a new carving of the ‘face of Merlin’ into the cliff face below Tintagel Castle.
Apparently, the sculpture is not much larger than life size and takes some effort to locate, being seen only from the base of the cliff. “So what?” you may ask? Well, English Heritage (EH) say this is
“part of ongoing re-interpretation and investment at the site. The new artwork is the first part of a project by English Heritage to re-imagine Tintagel’s history and legends across the island site. Further works will be revealed late this spring.”
The ‘further works’ planned include a large statue of Arthur, a Sword in the Stone sculpture and a scultured stone bench commemorating the legend of Tristan & Yseult. Leaving aside the artistic merit of the sculptures, the moves are being seen locally as ‘false history’, an attempt at further ‘Disneyfication’ of the village and castle site in a direct move to increase tourist footfall, maximising tourism income, and to hell with any authenticity as to historical fact.
Regardless of the local opposition, there is a much bigger issue to be resolved here. Cornish historian (and friend of the Heritage Journal) Craig Weatherhill commented:
“this is just one of 28 visual display proposals for the site, one being an 8.5ft statue of Arthur in late (not early!) medieval gear, to stand on the clifftop on The Island! The Cornwall Archaelogical Unit assess that 9 of these will have a neutral effect on archaeology and visual amenity, but that 19 have minor to moderate negative impacts. ANY negative impact on the archaeology and visual amenity of such an iconic, important and spectacular site should have been refused permission… Of the carving, the CAU says that it will have an irreversible physical impact on the natural environment. i.e. vandalism.”
With the withdrawal of government funding and the need for EH to become ‘self-sufficient’, should they be allowed to sacrifice or change the authenticity of a site in this way in the search for additional income? And if so, where does that leave our heritage, not only at Tintagel but at all the other sites up and down the country that EH are responsible for?
Further Info:
English Heritage: Merlin’s Face
Cornwall Archaeological Unit: Environmental Impact Assessment
English Heritage: Tintagel Castle
Daily Telegraph: EH accused of vandalism 18 Feb 2016
The Cornishman: Vandalism, or Art? 17 Feb 2016
Archaeodeath: Putting Merlin to Death? Tintagel, Art and the Death of Imagination 15 Feb 2016
Kernow Matters To Us: Campaign group web site
The Heritage Journal 
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
24/02/2016 at 09:27
georgenash
I find this type of brandism very dangerous. If English Heritage had all the answers to this site – fair enough. But they don’t and it appears that they are writing the history of this site rather than leaving visitors to work it for themselves. I am becoming increasing uncomfortable with English Heritage (and Historic England) and the way they are controlling our past. There are a number of sites throughout England that should be left well-alone – Tintagel is one of these sites. By all means excavate and publish the facts but don’t play story-teller – someone might begin to believe you EH.
24/02/2016 at 12:11
Juamei (@juamei)
In 20 years it’ll look nice and old and they can start claiming the origins of this carving are lost in time but its almost certainly a true representation.
24/02/2016 at 13:08
chirkmabel
I believe that there is plenty of room for using art as part of an interpretation of a site, but it needs to be clearly signposted as such, should be authentic, about the reality of what is known about the site,and function by getting visitors to look harder at what is in front of them. That’s the opposite of Disneyland. This carving has nothing to indicate that it is not an original feature (for the casual visitor) so will only cause confusion.
24/02/2016 at 18:59
Diana Baur
Agree with George Nash and Chirkmabel – Brandalism is a Capitalist disease, and English Heritage/Historic England are pandering to their paymasters. It’s all about profit and money – before we know it Tintagel will be owned, run and marketed by Virgin -or worse!
26/02/2016 at 20:56
Jonathan Polkest -Melioramentum
I find this permanent intervention of fictional and mythological iconography quite at odds with Cornwalls authentic version of history, Tintagel is an historic place with an exceptional Cornish cultural past which should not be shrouded in Anglicised myth but should be given a voice long before any decisions to modify or tamper with what has quite naturally remained.