In this paper we propose the concept of taboo heritage as a way to describe a legacy of war so sensitive that it never undergoes heritage creation. Attempts at creation, such as heritage listing, renovation or excavation, are blocked by local authorities. We also examine the transition from taboo heritage to sensitive heritage, the next step along the 'heritage continuum', which we propose can only occur through the combined efforts of the passage of time, the role of activists and official authorisation. We take as our case study two of the British Channel Islands of Jersey and Alderney, occupied by German forces from 1940 to 1945. Labour camps were built in both islands, where the dead were also buried locally. We explore how the existing legacy of these events is still taboo heritage in Alderney, but has achieved partial progress in the transition to sensitive heritage in Jersey.
What evidence do we have for the change in identity (whether ethnic, local or individual), of the native, non-elite Britons from the later Iron Age to the early Roman period? I propose here that such a change in identity may be examined by following the use of four different 'Roman' 'body-related' artefact types through time. Related to this, I hope to be able to gain insight into whether the categories of 'Roman' or 'native' (in any hybrid or creolised combination, cf. Webster 1997a, 2000) held any meaning to the native Britons in terms of how they structured or expressed their identities. My four categories of 'body-related' artefacts (taken from a total of 37 sites from Essex and Hertfordshire) have all traditionally been interpreted as 'Roman' artefacts. They comprise hairpins; toilet instruments; brooches; and cosmetic grinders. These are all currently assumed to be representative of the Roman practices of grooming and adornment and general identity construction; e.g., for the creation of Roman hairstyles; for grooming in a Roman manner; for holding up or holding together Roman-style clothes; and for the application of Roman-style cosmetics respectively. In this paper I wish to address the questions: were they were used by the Britons? If so, for what purposes, and did they structure their ethnic identity by the adoption, adaptation or rejection of these tools? These artefacts are especia.lly useful for the determination of the aims of this paper because they are all relatively common in the archaeologica.l record; most of them have a typology and chronology; and all of them are connected with appearance and, thus, identity.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.