Most of us I think were expecting a dissection of Games "legacy" along the lines of what has materialised, such as sports participation, elite sports funding, numbers of people volunteering. etc.

I want to take a different perspective for a moment and hopefully it's one you'll find of interest. What about the "stuff" of the Games? What is the legacy of all this stuff? And how do we, to use some policy jargon "maximise", this legacy?


By "stuff" I mean the memorabilia, the material culture of London 2012, the pin badges, the souvenirs, the tangible (and perhaps intangible) traces that are left when the Games themselves have departed. It may sound odd to think about these "things" in terms of a Games legacy but I think we should try to, as it is through this stuff that we see one of the most lasting impacts of the Games – the creation of personal and collective memories.

I'm pretty certain that anyone who attended one of the London 2012 events last year would have kept something as a memento. A ticket maybe, or a photo taken on a phone, a "check in" on foursquare, perhaps a tweet or a Facebook post (I think our digital record of the Games is also a "collection").

I am also quite certain that even if you didn't attend a London 2012 related event you will have an awareness of London 2012 or Games related "stuff" on sale in supermarkets, in department stores, decorations in town centres, posters at train and underground stations, on food packaging and clothing. We were (over)exposed to it and whether we liked it or not, the stuff of the Games created the visual landscape of London 2012.

My visit to the Spectators' Village at the Anniversary Games prompted me to think about the role of Olympics "stuff" and my conversations with some of the pin traders there started the cogs turning. If objects act as hooks on which to hang memories, and memories help shape who we are, then it follows that the "stuff" of the Games could be a very powerful resource through which to talk about cultural, national and personal identity.

A range of age groups were represented at the pin trading stalls - not least because there were some freebies available for the kids - but something that struck me were the numbers of conversations happening, extending several metres from the tables.

These weren't necessarily between people that knew each other or who were necessarily ardent collectors - although to be fair some were- but the badges acted as a common language through which to talk about "do you remember when..." or "I did [fill in the gap] during the Games...."


I am interested in museums and in what these organisations do for society, why we have them and what they contribute. A dedicated London 2012 museum is an idea that has received quite a bit of discussion but hasn't been prioritised, perhaps in part because of some serious belt-tightening across the board.

It is also true to say that setting up a new museum should not be taken lightly, indeed it seems that some local authorities looking to make cuts are only just realising that the responsibility for the collections in their local museums bring a long term commitment which can't easily be ditched.

However, it does seem at odds with the overwhelming popularity of London 2012 that a permanent home for the "stuff of the Games" can't be found and put to work. Crucially, if this were to happen the location needs to be in a place that adds an additional layer of significance to the collection. The Park, already a site of pilgrimage for many, would arguably fit the bill.

In terms of participation levels maybe policy makers are looking in the wrong place for their legacy, as collecting is, according to former IOC President Juan Antonio Samaranch, the "sport of the spectator". One year on, we need to recognise this or it might just turn out to be the metaphorical white elephant that everyone wanted to avoid.

Anna Woodham works at the Ironbridge International Institute for Cultural Heritage, University of Birmingham, UK