Feasible Management of Archaeological Heritage Sites Open to Tourism

Home , Archaeological tourism, Khami, Sensory tourism

Douglas C. Comer · Annemarie Willems Editors Feasible Management of Archaeological Heritage Sites Open to Tourism

www.TourismB.ir Feasible Management of Archaeological Heritage Sites Open to Tourism

www.TourismB.ir Douglas C. Comer • Annemarie Willems Editors

Feasible Management of Archaeological Heritage Sites Open to Tourism

www.TourismB.ir Editors Douglas C. Comer Annemarie Willems Cultural Site Research and Management Friends of ICAHM Baltimore, MD, USA Baltimore, MD, USA

The United States National Committee AW Heritage Consultancy for ICOMOS (US/ICOMOS) Jyväskylä, Finland Washington, DC, USA Helsinki University The International Scientific Committee Faculty of Arts for Archaeological Heritage Management Helsinki, Finland (ICOMOS/ICAHM) Baltimore, MD, USA

ISBN 978-3-319-92755-8 ISBN 978-3-319-92756-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92756-5

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018949609

© The Author(s) 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

www.TourismB.ir Acknowledgements

This publication draws from sessions that addressed the issues associated with archaeological heritage and tourism which were organized at several conferences by, amongst others, the ICOMOS International Scientific Committee for Archaeological Heritage Management (ICAHM). These include the European Association of Archaeologists’ (EAA) Annual Meetings in Istanbul (2014), Glasgow (2015) and Vilnius (2016) as well as the Society for American Archaeology Conference in San Francisco (2015) and the ICAHM Annual Meeting in Salalah (2016). We are thankful to our colleagues: Cynthia Dunning, Ben Thomas, Sonja Jilek, Chris Corlett, Gavin MacGregor, Christopher Prescott, Peter Biehl and Hilary Soderland, for (co)organizing these sessions.

www.TourismB.ir Contents

1 Introduction: Feasibility as the Cornerstone of Effective Management of Public Archaeological Sites �� 1 Douglas C. Comer and Annemarie Willems 2 Cultural Value and Sustainable Development: A Framework for Assessing the Tourism Potential of Heritage Places �� 7 Chris Landorf 3 Managing Herculaneum in Context: Measuring Benefits for People and Places �� 21 Sarah Court, Ascanio D’Andrea, Francesca Del Duca, Paola Pesaresi, and Jane Thompson 4 Vikings and World Heritage: Towards New Strategic Synergies? �� 35 Herdis Hølleland 5 The Tyranny of Materiality: Sacred Landscapes, Tourism and Community Narratives �� 45 Ashton Sinamai 6 Sustainable Archaeological Tourism Through Standards for Good Practice �� 57 Cynthia Dunning Thierstein 7 Archaeotourism, Archaeological Site Preservation, and Local Communities �� 69 Ben Thomas and Meredith Langlitz 8 The Curse of the Betrothed: Evaluating the Relationship Between Archaeology and Tourism in Croatia AD 2017 �� 79 Sanjin Mihelić

vii

www.TourismB.ir viii Contents

9 Archaeology and Tourism in Ireland: Bridging Two Cultures �� 89 Ian W. Doyle 10 Archaeologist for a Week: Voluntourism in Archaeology �� 105 Katharina Möller 11 Archaeotourism Spaces in Present-Day Poland: Thoughts on Reconstruction and Re-enactments �� 115 Michał Pawleta 12 The European Route of Megalithic Culture: Pathways to Europe’s Earliest Stone Architecture �� 129 Daniela Stefanie Hauf 13 Westphalian Megaliths Go Touristic: Archaeological Research as a Base for the Development of Tourism �� 141 Kerstin Schierhold 14 Archaeology and Tourism – Problems and Possibilities: An Example from West Sweden �� 151 Tony Axelsson 15 The eScape Project: Combining Archaeology and Art to Merge the Past with the Present �� 159 Lene Høst-Madsen, Marianne Purup, and Nina Bangsbo Dissing 16 Conclusion: Feasibility Assessment at Public Archaeological Heritage Sites �� 171 Douglas C. Comer and Annemarie Willems

Index �� 179

www.TourismB.ir Contributors

Tony Axelsson Department of Historical studies, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden Nina Bangsbo Dissing Kunstråd Skanderborg, Skanderborg, Denmark Douglas C. Comer Cultural Site Research and Management, Baltimore, MD, USA The United States National Committee for ICOMOS (US/ICOMOS), Washington, DC, USA The International Scientific Committee for Archaeological Heritage Management (ICOMOS/ICAHM), Baltimore, MD, USA Sarah Court Herculaneum Conservation Project, Rome, Italy Ascanio D’Andrea Herculaneum Conservation Project, Aosta, Italy Francesca Del Duca Herculaneum Conservation Project, Ercolano, Italy Ian W. Doyle The Heritage Council of Ireland, Kilkenny, Republic of Ireland Cynthia Dunning Thierstein ArchaeoConcept, Biel/Bienne, Switzerland Daniela Stefanie Hauf Straubing, Germany Herdis Hølleland The Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research (NIKU), Oslo, Norway Lene Høst-Madsen Museum Skanderborg, Skanderborg, Denmark Chris Landorf School of Architecture, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Meredith Langlitz Archaeological Institute of America, Boston, MA, USA Sanjin Mihelić Archaeological Museum in Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

www.TourismB.ir x Contributors

Katharina Möller School of History and Archaeology, Prifysgol Bangor University, Bangor, UK Michał Pawleta Institute of Archaeology, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland Paola Pesaresi Herculaneum Conservation Project, Milan, Italy Marianne Purup VisitSkanderborg, Skanderborg, Denmark Kerstin Schierhold LWL-Commission for Westphalian Antiquities, Münster, Germany Ashton Sinamai College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, Flinders University, Australia Ben Thomas Archaeological Institute of America, Boston, MA, USA Jane Thompson Herculaneum Conservation Project, Rome, Italy Annemarie Willems Friends of ICAHM, Baltimore, MD, USA AW Heritage Consultancy, Jyväskylä, Finland Helsinki University, Faculty of Arts, Helsinki, Finland

www.TourismB.ir About the Authors

Douglas C. Comer is principal, Cultural Site Research and Management, Inc. (CSRM) (www.culturalsite.com). CSRM operates in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Africa, South America and Central America. Dr. Comer is president of the Unites States Committee for ICOMOS (US/ICOMOS) and immediate past president for ICOMOS-ICAHM. Dr. Comer specializes in planning for the management and interpretation of archaeological sites and landscapes and in the use of aerial and satellite remote sensing for archaeological research and resource protection. He is a recipient of NSF, SERDP, NCPTT, NASA, ESRI, Kaplan Fund, GeoEye and other grants and has published extensively on cultural resource management and the use technology in archaeology. Dr. Comer has served as the chief of the US National Park Service Applied Archaeology Center, a Fulbright scholar in cultural resource management, chair of the Maryland Governors Advisory Committee on Archaeology, a research fellow at the Southeast Asian Center for Archaeology and the Fine Arts (SPAFA) in Bangkok and the American Center for Oriental Research (ACOR) in Amman, chair of the nominating committee for the Register of Professional Archaeologists (RPA) and a trustee for the United States Committee for the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS).

Annemarie Willems is the executive director for Friends of ICAHM, an organization that has been created to support the mission of ICAHM through the dissemination of information concerning world heritage. Since 2016, Annemarie Willems has her own consultancy practice in heritage management, AW Heritage Consultancy (www.awheritageconsultancy.org). Annemarie Willems holds an MA in cultural heritage from the University of Utrecht, the Netherlands. Upon obtaining her master’s degree in 2007, Annemarie became active at the Centre for International Heritage Activities (CIE) in Amsterdam (currently in Leiden), the Netherlands, as ‘project officer in cultural heritage’. From 2011 until 2015, she lived in Switzerland where she was responsible for international projects at a private company called

www.TourismB.ir xii About the Authors

ArchaeoConcept in Biel that specializes in (archaeological) heritage management. She is co-founder and former president of the association ArchaeoTourism2012 which has the main objective to organize conferences and workshops on themes related to archaeology and tourism. Mrs. Willems is also a PhD student in History and Cultural Heritage at Helsinki University, Finland. Her research focuses on the development of heritage management education.

www.TourismB.ir Chapter 1 Introduction: Feasibility as the Cornerstone of Effective Management of Public Archaeological Sites

Douglas C. Comer and Annemarie Willems

The management of archaeological heritage faces substantial challenges when the public visits archaeological sites, but at the same time visitation, or tourism, opens many doors. Among them are opportunities to present to the public the history of the site, the contributions that archaeology has made to what we know about it and its place in history, its relevance to many contemporary issues from climate change to wealth inequality and the authoritarian regimes that often follow, and even the means by which to provide economic and social benefit to communities around the site that might lessen inequality. Effective, sustainable management of archaeological sites is necessary as well in order to deal with threats that might degrade the material of the site or disturb the context in which it was deposited or debase the experiences available to the visitor. The focus of this publication is on the concept of feasibility, more specifically, the feasibility of establishing sustainable management at archaeological sites open to the public, and management that deals effectively with the concerns described in the paragraph above. There are a myriad of issues that must be examined by means of studies and plans that should be used to assess the feasibility of establishing management which preserves the scientific, historic, social, and economic values of an

D. C. Comer Cultural Site Research and Management, Baltimore, MD, USA The United States National Committee for ICOMOS (US/ICOMOS), Washington, DC, USA The International Scientific Committee for Archaeological Heritage Management (ICOMOS/ICAHM), Baltimore, Maryland, USA e-mail: [email protected] A. Willems (*) Friends of ICAHM, Baltimore, MD, USA AW Heritage Consultancy, Jyväskylä, Finland Helsinki University, Faculty of Arts, Helsinki, Finland e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

www.TourismB.ir 2 D. C. Comer and A. Willems archaeological site that invites visitation. These are listed in the concluding chapter of this book, and the reader is also directed to the ICOMOS doctrinal text entitled Salalah Guidelines for the Management of Public Archaeological Sites,1 which deals with them in greater detail. The 14 chapters from 13 different countries that follow offer case studies relevant to feasibility. Many different approaches and concepts are presented about the sustainable development of archaeological sites for tourism. Many of the sites considered are of national, regional, or even local importance, as opposed to those known globally, and so attract international visitors. The contributions of Hølleland, Landorf, Court et al., Sinamai, and Mihelić do deal, however, with some of the over 1000 World Heritage Sites. Sinamai and Court use the World Heritage Sites of Great Zimbabwe and Herculaneum to address issues of sustainability and monumentality and argue for greater attention to a people-centered approach in heritage management. Mihelić contribution to this volume focuses on theoretical and practical considerations of the relationship between archaeology and tourism in Croatia; he uses the World Heritage Site of the Grad Plain as one of his examples. Hølleland discusses feasibility issues when nominating a site to the World Heritage List, drawing from her experiences from the Viking Age sites of the “Vestfold Ship Burials.” Landorf’s case study deals with Broken Hill, which is not a World Heritage Site, but the five- dimensional evaluation instrument is tested on three comparable World Heritage Sites as well as Broken Hill. Landorf’s chapter is the only one that is not explicitly about archaeological heritage, but it is clearly related to it. The chapters by Høst-Madsen et al., Axelsson, Hauf, Schierhold, and Doyle discuss specific regional or national cases and projects. The Hauf and Schierhold chapters are very complimentary. Hauf discusses the greater European Route of Megalithic Culture Project, and Schierhold considers a specific element of that project: the Westphalian Megaliths. Doyle presents the position of heritage and tourism in Ireland. He presents what he calls “boutique archaeological” sites to illustrate the current state of affairs. Moeller and Pawleta both deal with ways of opening a site to the public. Moeller presents voluntourism and the feasibility aspects of this form of opening a site to the public. Pawleta discusses the role and value of archaeological reconstruction and historical reenactment for archaeological tourism currently in Poland. The focus of Dunning’s chapter is on the formulation for guidelines to prevent “worst-case scenarios” and offer a solution of quality control for the development of archaeological sites for tourism. Thomas and Langlitz also address the need for guidelines; in their case it is the answer to a request from the tourist industry itself, wishing to “better prepare tourists, tour operators, and site managers for the specific nature or “archaeotourism”.” The authors also present an initiative that supports projects that employ more sustainable methods of site preservation. What stands out from all the chapters is: the emphasis on tailor-made solutions, because every site is different and each site has its specific cultural, social, eco-

1 https://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts

www.TourismB.ir 1 Introduction: Feasibility as the Cornerstone of Effective Management of Public… 3 nomic, and political circumstances; active community involvement, not just focus on the preservation aspects but focus on the other values and functions that the site can have for the community and wider surroundings of the site; the importance of hard data, knowing the specifics of your site and the wider landscape in which it is situated, having insight in the demographic of your (potential) visitors; realistic expectations about the benefits of tourism; closer cooperation between archaeologists and tourism industry; and interdisciplinary approach, because archaeologists and tourism experts are not the only disciplines that have an interest in and contribute to the sustainable management of an archaeological site for tourism (anthro- pologists, ethnologists, historians, etc.).

Terminology

Sustainability and authenticity are terms that are frequently used by all authors. Different contributions to the volume assume different meanings of these words and sometimes apply it differently in practice.

Authenticity

Authenticity is used here for the most part as it is when a site is considered for inscription on the World Heritage List. The UNESCO Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (UNESCO 2016)2 are concerned with both original fabric and the credibility and accuracy of sources that provide information about the values of a monument or site. The latter gained prominence with the Nara Document on Authenticity that recognizes intangible cultural values as well material preservation in evaluating authenticity. In truth there is now much discussion about the term. Dunning tells us that (after McKercher and du Cros 2010: 73) authenticity should be thought of in a different manner, according to them: a variable of which its comprehension differs from one person to another in relation to their knowledge and education. Therefore, the archaeologist or site manager needs to determine what authenticity in the case of his site means, and how it can be communicated. Doyle uses authenticity as “a means to maintain heritage quality and as a benchmark for safe guarding the resource.” As does Dunning, he points out that authenticity poses different meanings and that opposed to the former narrow way of approaching authenticity there is now space for ideas of plurality and multi-vocality (after Winter 2013: 176). This is different from the Nara approach, which is concerned mainly with tradition and the perpetuation of intangible culture. Axelsson describes authenticity as the domain of the archaeologists, but he also says that

2 https://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/

www.TourismB.ir 4 D. C. Comer and A. Willems fictional stories that formed the starting point of his case study were invoked by a question of the tourism industry and argues that for many readers these are authentic in some sense too. Landorf addresses authenticity in the physical values dimension of her five-dimensional evaluation instrument. This dimension determines the accessibility and physical quality of a site in terms of interpretation, intactness, and state of repair. Pawleta in his chapter talks about “hot authenticity,” or the authenticity of experience, which is what the visitor feels in contact with the past. According to Pawleta, in this context “the represented past does not have to be genuine in the sense that it depicts what once really happened, but it needs to be credible as a past that might have happened.” This idea of authenticity fits with the multi-vocality mentioned by Doyle. This form of authenticity is about emotions, and this is also addressed by Dunning when she states that “not only scientific facts and tangible objects contribute to authenticity and that the first impression of a visitor, the emotions he feels, can also be considered as an expression towards authenticity (after McKercher and du Cros 2010: 77). Doyle also notes that authenticity in Irish tourism guides has a very different meaning and that apparently for the tourism industry authenticity relates more to ‘authentic experiences,” which is closely connected to emotions.

Sustainability

A sustainable tourism at archaeological sites takes into account the social and environmental impacts of tourism infrastructure development, the interaction between local populations and visitors, and the opportunity to present the public with information that a science-based archaeology can provide about the past. Court et al. describe two levels of sustainability that can be applied to the chapters in this volume. The first level is “sustainability on the scale of a site,” and the second level is sustainability on a bigger scale, also taking the wider surroundings of the site into consideration and all its values; at this level it’s not just about how the heritage can be preserved, interpreted, and enjoyed but also how the heritage can contribute to society, defined by Courts et al. as “reciprocal heritage benefits.” As part of this second-level approach, Court et al. appeal to the heritage community to wider their vision and move away from the exclusive focus on the site, and this approach corresponds to Sinamai’s criticism on the monumentality as the cornerstone of tourism. The worldwide site preservation initiative of the Archaeological Institute of America, as described by Thomas and Langlitz, approaches sustainability as “preserving sites by combining traditional conservation with robust outreach and engagement initiatives that raise awareness of preservation issues and involve local communities in the stewardship of cultural heritage.” In terms of its holistic approach and attention for community involvement, this can also be characterized as a second- level sustainability approach.

www.TourismB.ir 1 Introduction: Feasibility as the Cornerstone of Effective Management of Public… 5

The eScape example presented by Høst-Madsen et al. is also an example of a “second-level” suitability approach. From the start this program has been interdisciplinary with the inclusion of many different stakeholders. A very good example of the reciprocal heritage benefits is that attention to heritage by the developer yielded economic benefit because the articulated history of the site appealed to the buyers. In her chapter, Landorf develops a five-dimensional evaluation instrument for the assessment of industrial heritage as a potential and sustainable tourist attraction. Landorf uses it for industrial sites, but it can also be used for archaeological sites. She has expanded the evaluation model with the element of sustainability. By adding the sustainable development dimension, this tool could be used as tool in assessing feasibility before an archaeological site is opened to the public. This fifth dimension “examines the use of a long term and holistic approach to tourism planning, and the extent of stakeholder participation in that planning process.” This fifth dimension could perhaps also be referred to at the “feasibility” dimension. The “physical values dimension” can be described as the suitability, including authenticity and integrity, dimension. Landorf notes that “the sustainable development dimension examines the use of a long term and holistic approach to tourism planning, and the extent of stakeholder participation in that planning process. These two strategies are identified in the literature as contributing to sustainable development.” This corresponds with the wider second-level approach of sustainability introduced by Court et al. Doyle understands sustainability in the development realm as the “likely commercial success balanced with the risk of degradation or compromise of the archaeological resource.” In Court’s terminology this the narrow approach of suitability focused at the site. Pawleta also is more focused on the narrow explanation of sustainability; he describes sustainability as “giving visitors the opportunity to fully experience ancient sites while minimizing the negative impact of tourism, ensuring both protection of the site and continued enjoyment of it by tourists”.

Feasibility

When opening a site to the public, the underlying expectation is often that this will automatically attract tourists, and tourists are often understood as international tourists. The contributions in this volume have shown that, with exceptions for world famous sites, most tourists at archaeological sites are local or regional. This is an important information to have before opening a site to the public; know your audience and determine based on surveys and data from the tourism agency’s if there is an audience at all. The importance of knowing your site, its attributes, and the different values that are associated with a site is crucial. Assessing feasibility involves examining tourism potential by considering the demographic sectors from which visitors to the site are drawn or might be in the future and identifying preservation

www.TourismB.ir 6 D. C. Comer and A. Willems issues associated with hosting visitors from the various demographic sectors and the possibility and means by which local communities might be engaged in identifying issues and generating long-term support for effective management. Hølleland, Court, Axelsson, and Landorf specifically address the importance of visitor surveys. The belief exists that inscribing a site on national or World Heritage Lists will bring economic and social benefit to the city, region, or country of the site. Landorf, Hølleland and Thomas and Langlitz in this volume argue that is not always the case. Economic and social benefits of “archaeotourism” depends on many factors which should be addressed beforehand, a process that we describe as the feasibility check. Government tourism policy is addressed in all chapters of the volume. The belief that tourism can contribute the economic welfare of the nation or region holds true in many cases, but the negative effects that can arise from tourism need to be taken into account as well. As Hølleland and Landorf describe, the expectations of listing a site and developing it for tourism are high, but this is mostly based on assumptions rather than hard facts that might indicate that opening a site for tourism will not guarantee for economic and social welfare. The feasibility check starts already at the overarching governance level; are expectations reasonable and are the related actions feasible in the long term? Only in the case of Broken Hill (Landorf) and Vestfold (Hølleland) have performed what can be described as an initial assessment of effective and sustainable management feasibility before inviting the public. The latter writes “in order to create a strategy one needs an accurate understanding of current visitation patterns.” In the case of the Herculaneum (Court), a feasibility study has been performed many years after inviting the public. Now they are in the process of determining the degree to which access to the site can be permitted without irreversible damage to the site and the qualities that make it important. Adding the sustainability dimension to the instrument described by Landorf makes it interesting to use to assess the degree to which the elements essential to sustainable management are present and are integrated into a functioning system and if the site should be opened to the public at all.

References

McKercher, B. & du Cros, H. 2010. Cultural Tourism: The Partnership Between Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management. New York and London: Routledge. Winter, T. 2013. ‘Cultures of interpretation’, in Staiff, R., Bushell, R. & Watson, S. (eds) Heritage and tourism: place, encounter, engagement, London and New York

www.TourismB.ir Chapter 2 Cultural Value and Sustainable Development: A Framework for Assessing the Tourism Potential of Heritage Places

Chris Landorf

Introduction

In 2015, Broken Hill became the first city to be inscribed on the Australian National Heritage List. The city is situated in a remote and arid location and does not confirm to the stereotypical image of an aesthetically pleasing heritage landscape (Figs. 2.1 and 2.2). However, since 2005 the city council’s strategic plans have reflected an expectation that tourism will increase with inscription, arresting the 40-year post- mining decline in population and employment. To date, academic studies have considered the role of heritage in economic regen- eration (Hospers 2002; Jones and Munday 2001) and sustainable tourism (Chhabra 2009; Pomering et al. 2011). Studies also have examined governance (Wang and Bramwell 2012), inter-organisational collaboration (Wilson and Boyle 2006), stakeholder participation (Aas et al. 2005; Jamal and Stronza 2009), strategic planning (Currie and Wesley 2010; Fonseca and Ramos 2012; Lo Piccolo et al. 2012), sustainable management (Darlow et al. 2012; Fullerton et al. 2010; Hughes and Carlsen 2010) and tourist behaviour (Vargas-Sánchez et al. 2013) at heritage sites, all of which are strategic contributors to sustainable development (Landorf 2009). While the literature is extensive, studies that consider methods for the assessment of industrial heritage as a potential and sustainable tourist attraction are limited. This chapter develops an assessment instrument to address this void. Firstly, characteristics unique to industrial heritage are defined in terms of their impact on tourism potential. Based on this understanding, and drawing on previous work by McKercher and Ho (2006), a five-dimensional instrument for the assessment of industrial heritage sites as sustainable tourist attractions is presented. The chapter concludes with a conceptual application of the instrument to Blaenavon Industrial

C. Landorf (*) School of Architecture, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia e-mail: [email protected]

www.TourismB.ir 8 C. Landorf

Landscape, Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape and Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site in the United Kingdom and the Australian mining city of Broken Hill.

Identifying the Characteristics of Industrial Heritage

A review of the World Heritage List reveals several distinguishing characteristics of industrial heritage sites. They tend to be a complex mix of disused or underutilised industrial structures and extensive human-made landscapes. Boundaries blur into the surrounding landscape, and sites are typically associated with worker housing and community infrastructure. Many sites are in remote locations and contain haz- ardous features such as disused mine shafts and contaminated waste. Industrial heritage landscapes include layers of technological innovation and expansion, links to

www.TourismB.ir 2 Cultural Value and Sustainable Development: A Framework for Assessing… 9

Fig. 2.2 Aerial view of Broken Hill with surface workings that bisect the city, 2013. (Photo by author)

Table 2.1 The unique characteristics of industrial heritage Heritage values Defining characteristics Tangible values Extensive infrastructure and/or extensive human-made landscapes Interlinked industrial, residential and community functions Indistinct site boundaries Geographically or perceptually remote locations Limited economic and functional options for adaptive reuse Intangible values Innovative technological, socio-economic and organisation systems Layers of technical innovation and industrial processes Links to broader economic, environmental and social networks Links to multiple and diverse stakeholder groups A utilitarian aesthetic perceived to be of limited value

broader regional and international networks and a utilitarian aesthetic associated with periods of rapid change and social deprivation (Table 2.1). The more immediate effect of these characteristics for tourism is on the cost and complexity of conservation and maintenance and the provision of safe visitor access and adequate interpretation at industrial heritage sites. A less obvious impact comes from having extensive and varied interest groups who complicate the stakeholder

www.TourismB.ir 10 C. Landorf engagement process, while the utilitarian aesthetic influences perceptions of value with a public used to a more visually pleasing heritage. With these characteristics in mind, of primary concern is the ability of industrial sites, particularly in remote locations, to generate sufficient income from tourist visitation and other commercial uses to operate sustainably.

Developing a Sustainable Tourism Assessment Instrument

As a consumerist phenomenon, dependent on cultural commons but driven by capi- talist tendencies, the sustainable social enterprise aspect of heritage tourism has come under increasing scrutiny (Avrami 2016; Darlow et al. 2012; Gullino et al. 2015; Poulios 2014; Wang and Bramwell 2012). The following framework for assessing tourism potential is developed from a three-stage investigation undertaken between 2010 and 2014. In line with a previous study by Landorf (2009), three World Heritage sites in the United Kingdom were selected as the basis for comparative analysis with Broken Hill. The three World Heritage sites were selected because they represent an accepted pinnacle of heritage significance based on criteria for the assessment of ‘Outstanding Universal Value’ (UNESCO 2016, pp. 77–78). The assessment of significance at the World Heritage level is also subject to independent evaluation by recognised bodies of experts. Best international practice, therefore, is assumed to inform the management of these three sites, including the strategies employed to develop sustainable heritage tourism. Stage one of the study commenced with a review of the World Heritage List to establish a representative sample of industrial sites that were comparable to Broken Hill in terms of physical scale, complexity and governance arrangements. The selected sites were Blaenavon Industrial Landscape inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2000, Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape inscribed in 2006 and Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site inscribed in 1986. All three sites are located in the United Kingdom. Documents related to the specific history and management frameworks in operation at each location were analysed to provide an appreciation of the key features of each site. The documentary evidence, particularly the management plans for each World Heritage site, and city council strategic plans for Broken Hill also were used to inform an understanding of the key tourism management and sustainability issues associated with each site. Stage two of the study involved visits to the each site. Visual surveys were used to audit features identified in stage one and to develop a deeper familiarity with each site. The surveys were used to identify the extent and condition of the features associated with each site and to corroborate the key management issues identified in stage one. Promotional material and guidebooks were sourced at each site and used to conduct self-guided explorations. Photographs recorded significant features and any strategic issues identified in stage one, such as land instability and interpretation. A phenomenological definition of ‘experience’ as an event that has some personal relevance, novelty, surprise, learning and engagement was adopted as a

www.TourismB.ir 2 Cultural Value and Sustainable Development: A Framework for Assessing… 11

Table 2.2 Industrial heritage assessment dimensions and criteria Dimensions Criteria Cultural values How current are stakeholder associations with the site (are they within or beyond living memory)? What is the level of heritage significance at the site (is the site of international, national or local significance)? Physical values What is the level of visitor access and interpretation at the site? How authentic and intact are the site’s significant attributes? Product values How close is the site to other compatible tourist attractions? What is the level of heritage tourism appeal? Experience What is the level of technological sophistication and educational/cognitive values design of the site? How involved are visitors in the creation of experiences at the site? Sustainability How extensive is stakeholder participation in the site (is the site managed by values a partnership or through a democratic process)? What is the level of strategic planning at the site (how rigorous is the process and is it integrated into national goals)? framework for the categorisation of experience types (Poulsson and Kale 2004). Each site visit lasted between 2 and 3 days. The final stage used theoretical thematic analysis to evaluate the visual survey data and triangulate the findings against the key issues identified in stage one. A previous study by du Cros (2001) had designed a tourism assessment model based on market appeal and cultural heritage asset robustness. This two-dimensional quantitative model was developed by McKercher and Ho (2006) into a four- dimensional qualitative tool for assessing the potential of cultural heritage assets to be developed into viable tourism attractions. The four dimensions were cultural, physical, product and experiential values. While the tool was theoretically robust, it had been designed for use on small heritage attractions and tested in Hong Kong only, a densely populated city. The McKercher and Ho instrument, therefore, required modification for complex industrial heritage sites. The McKercher and Ho tool employed between five and six qualitative criteria in the form of questions to assess each dimension. To increase reliability and illustrate relationships more decisively, this study simplified these criteria to two direct questions per dimension. As the aim of this study was to assess the potential of industrial heritage for sustainable tourism, a fifth sustainable development dimension was derived from the literature and added to the instrument (Landorf 2011) (Table 2.2). To enable a relative ordering of holistic data, the McKercher and Ho tool used an ordinal scale marking system rather than absolute measures based on five categories – ‘low’, ‘low/moderate’, ‘moderate’, ‘moderate/high’ and ‘high’. A similar qualitative framework was adopted in this study with the final instrument compris- ing five dimensions – cultural values, physical values, product values, experience values and sustainable development. The cultural values dimension of the modified instrument considers the extent of stakeholder associations with a site and the level of site recognition based on international, national or local significance. This dimension assesses the depth of

www.TourismB.ir 12 C. Landorf emotional engagement based on personal associations with a site and the breadth of recognition amongst potential tourists. The physical values dimension evaluates the level of visitor access and quality of interpretation at each site and the extent of historical authenticity and integrity. This dimension determines the accessibility and physical quality of a site in terms of interpretation, intactness and state of repair. The product values dimension assesses the extent of compatible tourism experiences in close proximity and the market appeal of the experiences offered at each site. This dimension ascertains a site’s relationship to other tourism nodes and the capacity of a site to attract and retain visitors. The experience values dimension measures the technological sophistication and educational design of tourist experiences and the extent of visitor participation in, and co-creation of, the experiences on offer at each site. This dimension establishes the depth of cognitive engagement at each site and whether the available breadth of engagement experiences would lead to lengthy or multiple visits. The fifth and final sustainable development dimension examines the use of a long-term and holistic approach to tourism planning and the extent of stakeholder participation in that planning process. These two strategies are identified in the literature as contributing to sustainable development. A formal planning process promotes a circular model of future-oriented causality and multiple stakeholder participation in the process and enhances accountability and commitment to sustainable outcomes. Finally, the visual survey descriptions were synthesised into categories of heritage visitor experiences and used to inform the assessment of physical, product and experience values dimensions.

Applying a Sustainable Tourism Assessment Instrument

The four sites selected for analysis in this study were chosen for reason of similarity in their physical scale, complexity and governance arrangements. The stage one documentary evidence and stage two visual surveys revealed an array of heritage ‘experiences’ and supporting information across the four sites. Ironbridge Gorge, the oldest site, offered the most comprehensive and coordinated selection of activities, experiences and promotional materials and a strong network of supporting tourist infrastructure. Broken Hill, the newest site, lacked the same level of promotional coordination, activities, experiences and infrastructure. The primary difference between sites, however, was the distance from major population centres and other compatible attractions. The following section reviews the results in greater detail.

Visual Survey Results

Ironbridge Gorge offered the most comprehensive collection of interpretive information together with a coordinated passport system of entry to the ten museums located in close proximity to each other across the site. Blaenavon offered a

www.TourismB.ir 2 Cultural Value and Sustainable Development: A Framework for Assessing… 13

Table 2.3 Categorisation of heritage visitor experiences Type of experience Definition Self-guided tours Self-guided walk or drive tours supported by maps, signage and interpretive information Static interpretation Static interpretive representations of historic information and traditional practices using costumed dummies and reproduction and/or original props Costumed Interactive interpretive representations of historic information and interpretation traditional practices using live costumed staff and reproduction and/or original props Multimedia Noninteractive interpretive representations of historic information and interpretation traditional practices using live actors recorded in visual or audio performances Interactive physical Interactive interpretive representations of historic information and experience traditional practices that physically engage the visitor in a directed learning experience Interactive Interactive interpretive representations of historic information and multimedia traditional practices that physically engage the visitor in a self-directed immersion multimedia learning experience well-coordinated graphic style and comprehensive collection of brochures for the site’s various heritage experiences. A series of walking trails had been developed and included in a suite of interpretive materials. As the newest World Heritage-listed site and the most geographically extensive of the three UK sites, interpretive information at Cornwall and West Devon was fragmented and lacked graphical coordination. Broken Hill offered a series of clearly signposted and informative walking and driving trails, but published material lacked the graphic sophistication and coordination found at Ironbridge Gorge and Blaenavon. At Broken Hill, six different ‘experiences’ were defined on the basis of increasing levels of visitor interaction and technological support (Table 2.3). The visual surveys revealed that visitors at all four sites could access at least one type of ‘experience’ on a permanent basis. The extent of the experiences varied from self-guided tours and interpretive signage at all sites, through static interpretive representations, to major interactive physical and multimedia visitor experiences. Ironbridge Gorge and Blaenavon offered the most extensive range of experiences, while Broken Hill provided self-guided tours and noninteractive information only (Table 2.4). In addition, Ironbridge Gorge utilised historic buildings as retail facilities, commercial premises and accommodation. While not actively interpreting heritage significance, the physical character of the buildings added to the experience at the site. Some sites also supported periodic events such as Blaenavon Walking Festival, the Brass Band Festival at Ironbridge Gorge and World Heritage Day celebrations at all three World Heritage sites. Broken Hill is associated with a particular school of artists known as ‘The Brushmen of the Bush’ and the annual St Patrick’s racing carnival, but there are no specific cultural festivals or events that regularly draw tourists to the city.

www.TourismB.ir 14 C. Landorf

Table 2.4 Visitor experiences offered at each site Type of experience Industrial heritage site Cornwall and West Ironbridge Blaenavon Devon Gorge Broken Hill Self-guided tours ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Static interpretation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Costumed interpretation ✓ ✓ ✓ Multi-media interpretation ✓ ✓ ✓ Interactive physical experience ✓ ✓ ✓ Interactive multi-media immersion ✓

Applying the Assessment Instrument

Following the visual survey, the five-dimensional assessment instrument was applied at a conceptual level to each industrial heritage site to reveal a range of strategic or ‘fatal’ flaws in the tourist offerings, particularly at Broken Hill, that affect the viability of the sites as sustainable tourist attractions. The cultural values dimension considered the stakeholder associations and heritage significance. As World Heritage sites, Blaenavon, Cornwall and West Devon and Ironbridge Gorge all rated more strongly on the heritage significance criteria than Broken Hill. However, due to the cultural currency of its working heritage value and contributions to economic development and labour relations in Australia, Broken Hill rated more strongly in terms of stakeholder associations. The physical values dimension evaluated the level of access and interpretation and authenticity and integrity at each site. With a high level of mining infrastructure remaining in place and some still operational, Broken Hill rated more strongly in terms of the authenticity and integrity of the built environment (Fig. 2.3). The three World Heritage sites rated more strongly in terms of site access and interpretation with Ironbridge Gorge rating highly, while the fragmented nature of Cornwall and West Devon resulted in a low/moderate rating. The product values dimension assessed market appeal and proximity to compatible attractions. The three World Heritage sites rated more highly than Broken Hill on both values. Ironbridge Gorge is closer than Blaenavon and Cornwall West Devon to major population centres and has a variety of other tourist attractions in close proximity. Blaenavon is a compact and well-presented site but with fewer active attractions and accommodation options. The market appeal of Cornwall and West Devon is affected by the site’s complexity. While there are few active experiences in close proximity, the Cornwall and West Devon area is a recognised holiday destination for reasons other than heritage tourism. Broken Hill is 510 km from Adelaide, the nearest major city. Although appealing as an outback destination, the complexity of the site means maintenance and presentation are problematic. More

www.TourismB.ir 2 Cultural Value and Sustainable Development: A Framework for Assessing… 15

Fig. 2.3 Historic Broken Hill mining infrastructure and civic buildings, 2010. L to R: Browne’s Shaft and Headframe. Argent Street civic buildings. (Photos by author)

Fig. 2.4 Surface workings of the Broken Hill Line of Lode ore body, 2010. L to R: View northeast towards the former North Broken Hill Ltd. mine. View southwest towards the former Zinc Corporation mine significantly, there are no major interactive physical or multimedia immersion experiences currently in operation at Broken Hill. The experience value dimension established the technological sophistication and educational design of visitor experiences and the degree of experience co-creation at each site. The three World Heritage sites rated more strongly on both dimensions than Broken Hill. Ironbridge Gorge operates a number of technologically sophisti- cated interactive experiences that utilise a wide variety of interpretation and presentation techniques. Blaenavon and Cornwall and West Devon include fewer interactive experiences, but both offer unique interactive attractions in the Big Pit National Museum and Geevor Tin Mine. As previously mentioned, there is currently no major interactive visitor experience at Broken Hill (Fig. 2.4). The final sustainability value dimension examined the planning process at each site and the extent of stakeholder participation in that process. All four sites utilised a strong strategic planning process. However, Broken Hill rated more highly on both dimensions. The primary managing organisation for the city of Broken Hill is the democratically elected local council. Local councils are subject to state environmental legislation and integrated into national governance and sustainability frameworks. As elected bodies, local councils are also subject to public standards of

www.TourismB.ir 16 C. Landorf

Table 2.5 Assessment of tourism potential at each site Dimensions of heritage tourism Industrial heritage site Cornwall and West Ironbridge Blaenavon Devon Gorge Broken Hill Cultural values: Heritage significance High High High Moderate Stakeholder association Moderate Moderate Low/mod Mod/high Physical values: Authenticity and integrity Mod/high Mod/high Moderate High Access and interpretation Mod/high Low/mod High Low Product values: Market appeal Mod/high Moderate High Low/mod Compatible proximity Low/mod Moderate High Low Experience values: Experience co-creation Mod/high Moderate High Low Technology and education Mod/high Moderate High Low Sustainability values: Strategic planning Mod/high Mod/high Mod/high High Stakeholder participation Moderate Low/mod Moderate High

accountability, legitimacy and effectiveness. While local governments have a significant involvement in the World Heritage Sites, all three utilise partnership structures of varying sizes and complexities. The conceptual application of the assessment instrument reveals Broken Hill to have relatively high ratings for its cultural, physical and sustainability values. There are, however, deficiencies along the product and experience value dimensions. While Broken Hill offers a unique and holistic experience, the city’s remoteness from major population centres and transportation routes and isolation from other compatible tourist attractions are significant weaknesses in terms of tourist offerings. The scale and complexity of the site and deteriorating heritage infrastructure suggests that, even with the addition of a major mining-related interactive tourist attraction, there is insufficient market appeal and associative value to overcome the locational weaknesses (Table 2.5).

Conclusion

The current Broken Hill Strategic Tourism Plan 2010 to 2020 refers to the city’s National Heritage List nomination as something that will ‘position Broken Hill as the only Australian City to be awarded National Heritage Listing and, therefore, recognition (sic) as a significant heritage tourism destination within Australia’ (Wray 2010, p. 18). This sentiment is echoed in the City Council’s Management

www.TourismB.ir 2 Cultural Value and Sustainable Development: A Framework for Assessing… 17

Plan 2009/2014 in which tourism is linked to the listing of the city, and both tourism and listing are noted as major factors influencing the achievement of social and economic objectives (BHCC 2009). Evaluating the tourism and management plans reveals that the nomination process led to a more targeted approach to the management, development and marketing of Broken Hill as a tourist destination. However, the conceptual application of the five-dimensional assessment instrument employed in this study exposes several strategic weaknesses or flaws that are difficult to address. Like other complex industrial sites, Broken Hill anticipated that inscription would have a positive impact on the city, particularly in relation to economic development. However, accurately assessing the impact of heritage listing remains a complex issue (see also Hølleland, this volume). Tourist numbers can be measured and financial benefits forecast with a degree of accuracy and methodological agreement. A universal approach to assessing the impact of heritage listing more holisti- cally, on local communities and heritage asset sustainability, remains unresolved (Jimura 2011; Ryan et al. 2011; Tweed and Sutherland 2007; VanBlarcom and Kayahan 2011). As Throsby notes, however, the non-market benefits of heritage assets are likely to contribute significantly to any economic evaluation, and they should not, therefore, be neglected in that evaluation (Throsby 2012, p. 71). This suggests a role for UNESCO in the development of both a holistic approach to the measurement of heritage listing impact and analysis of such data in terms of broader economic, environmental and social costs and benefits. While the cultural values associated with Broken Hill are more contemporary, in comparison to the three World Heritage sites, the breadth of its recognition is weaker. On its own, this could be addressed with targeted marketing and promotional strategies. Likewise, as the most recently operational industrial site, Broken Hill rates more highly in terms of authenticity and integrity. This is counter- balanced, however, by poorer access and interpretation across the site. This also could be addressed with more targeted site development and management strategies. In terms of sustainability, Broken Hill rates highly by comparison on the long- term, holistic and participatory governance arrangements currently in place for the site. However, unlike Blaenavon and Cornwall and West Devon, Broken Hill does not currently have a significant mining-related interactive visitor attraction, and unlike Ironbridge Gorge, it does not offer a variety of complimentary experiences. At Broken Hill, the closure in 2007 of an underground tourist experience in the former Delprat’s Mine is noted in the BHCC Tourism Plan as having ‘left a significant gap in the visitor experience’ (Wray 2010, p. 18). This practical but strategic issue could be addressed with targeted development. Together with the city’s remote location, however, isolation from other complementary tourist attractions and the fragile and extensive mining infrastructure, suggests a strategic flaw in the longer-term sustainability of heritage tourism for the city, even with the January 2015 inscription on the National Heritage List. The instrument developed and tested in this study builds a sustainable development dimension into a previously tested model. The assessment of Broken Hill,

www.TourismB.ir 18 C. Landorf

Blaenavon Industrial Landscape, Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape and Ironbridge Gorge illustrates how the feasibility of a tourism asset links to the longer- term, holistic and participatory planning process necessary for sustainable development. The multidimensional nature of the assessment instrument provides a balanced perspective, allowing a more focussed targeting to address critical weaknesses. Finally, the comparative and qualitative nature of the assessment instrument allows it to be deployed with relative ease by non-experts as part of a consensus decision- making process, a key contributor to sustainable development.

Bibliography

Aas, C., Ladkin, A., & Fletcher, J. (2005) Stakeholder collaboration and heritage management. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(1), 28–48. Avrami, E. (2016). Making historic preservation sustainable. Journal of the American Planning Association, 82(2), 104–112. Broken Hill City Council (BHCC). (2009). Management plan 2009–2014. http://www.brokenhill.nsw.gov.au/images/documents/brokenhill/mig/22415-Management_Plan_2009-2014.pdf. Accessed 12 June 2014. Chhabra, D. (2009). Proposing a sustainable marketing framework for heritage tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(3), 303–320. Currie, R. R., & Wesley, F. (2010). Is it feasible? Positioning feasibility analysis as a valuable tool for assessing a potential tourism development. Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development, 7(4), 379–394. Darlow, S., Essex, S., & Brayshay, M. (2012). Sustainable heritage management practices at visited heritage sites in Devon and Cornwall. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 7(3), 219–237. du Cros, H. (2001). A new model to assist in planning for sustainable cultural heritage tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research, 3(2), 165–170. Fonseca, F. P., & Ramos, R. A. R. (2012). Heritage tourism in peripheral areas: Development strategies and constraints. Tourism Geographies, 14(3), 467–493. Fullerton, L., McGettigan, K., & Stephens, S. (2010). Integrating management and marketing strategies at heritage sites. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4(2), 106–117. Gullino, P., Beccaro, G., & Larcher, F. (2015). Assessing and monitoring the sustainability on rural heritage sites. Sustainability, 7, 14186–14210. Hospers, G.-J. (2002). Industrial heritage tourism and regional restructuring in the European Union. European Planning Studies, 10(3), 397–404. Hughes, M., & Carlsen, J. (2010). The business of cultural heritage tourism: Critical success factors. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 5(1), 17–32. Jamal, T., & Stronza, A. (2009). Collaboration theory and tourism practice in protected areas: Stakeholders, structuring and sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(2), 169–189. Jimura, T. (2011). The impact of world heritage site designation on local communities – A case study of Ogimachi, Shirakawa-mura, Japan. Tourism Management, 32(2), 288–296. Jones, C., & Munday, M. (2001). Blaenavon and United Nations World Heritage site status: Is conservation of industrial heritage a road to local economic development? Regional Studies, 35(6), 585–590. Landorf, C. (2009). Managing for sustainable tourism: A review of six cultural World Heritage sites. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(1), 53–70. Landorf, C. (2011). Sustainable industrial heritage management: A new theoretical model. Planning Practice & Research, 26(2), 147–165.

www.TourismB.ir 2 Cultural Value and Sustainable Development: A Framework for Assessing… 19

Lo Piccolo, F., Leone, D., & Pizzuto, P. (2012). The (controversial) role of the UNESCO WHL management plans in promoting sustainable tourism development. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure & Events, 4(3), 249–276. McKercher, B., & Ho, P. S. Y. (2006). Assessing the tourism potential of smaller cultural heritage attractions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(5), 473–488. Pomering, A., Noble, G., & Johnson, L. W. (2011). Conceptualising a contemporary marketing mix for sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(8), 953–969. Poulios, I. (2014). Discussing strategy in heritage conservation: Living heritage approach as an example of strategic innovation. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 4(1), 16–34. Poulsson, S. H. G., & Kale, S. H. (2004). The experience economy and commercial experiences. The Marketing Review, 4(3), 267–277. Ryan, C., Zhang, C., & Deng, Z. (2011). The impacts of tourism at a UNESCO heritage site in China – A need for a meta-narrative? The case of the Kaiping Dialou. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(6), 747–765. Throsby, D. (2012). Heritage economics: A conceptual framework. In G. Licciardi & R. Amirtahmasebi (Eds.), The economics of uniqueness: Historic cities and cultural heritage assets as public goods (pp. 45–74). Washington, DC: World Bank. Tweed, C., & Sutherland, M. (2007). Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban development. Landscape and Urban Planning, 83(1), 62–69. UNESCO. (2016). Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris: Word Heritage Centre. http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/. Accessed 27 Feb 2017. VanBlarcom, B., & Kayahan, C. (2011). Assessing the economic impact of a UNESCO World Heritage designation. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 6(2), 143–164. Vargas-Sanchez, A., Porras-Bueno, N., & de los Angeles Plaza-Mejia, M. (2013). Clustering industrial heritage tourists. In R. Staiff, R. Bushell, & S. Watson (Eds.), Heritage and tourism: Place, encounter, engagement (pp. 274–296). Abingdon: Routledge. Wang, Y., & Bramwell, B. (2012). Heritage protection and tourism development priorities in Hangzhou, China: A political economy and governance perspective. Tourism Management, 33(4), 988–998. Wilson, L., & Boyle, E. (2006). Interorganisational collaboration at UK World Heritage Sites. Leadership & Organisational Development Journal, 27(6), 501–523. Wray, M. (2010). Broken Hill strategic tourism plan 2010 to 2020. https://www.brokenhill. nsw.gov.au/sites/brokenhill/files/public/images/documents/brokenhill/Broken%20Hill%20 Strategic-tourism-plan%20FA%20online.pdf. Accessed 12 June 2014.

www.TourismB.ir Chapter 3 Managing Herculaneum in Context: Measuring Benefits for People and Places

Sarah Court, Ascanio D’Andrea, Francesca Del Duca, Paola Pesaresi, and Jane Thompson

It is worth grounding the complex debate surrounding heritage ‘sustainability’ in hard facts, and one useful data set is gathered by the World Heritage Centre.1 Analysis of threats identified for cultural heritage sites (regardless of location or typology) indicates that global problems stemming from management issues, development projects and tourism are all in the top ten.2 As the authors of an earlier World Heritage report on Reflection on the Trends of the State of Conservation note, ‘management and legal issues represent one of the key threats to World Heritage properties, and have done so consistently since 2005’.3 This trend should prompt us to realize that the energy dedicated to conserving the physical testimony of the past needs to be matched, if not surpassed, by that dedicated to managing change proactively, both within and without heritage sites. The Policy for the Integration of a Sustainable Development Perspective into the Processes of the World Heritage

1 UNESCO (2015b): Although not all issues related to World Heritage are relevant elsewhere, much of the information collected sheds light on the challenges faced by heritage on a global scale. 2 In the context of this publication it is worth noting that 16% of all World Heritage properties globally are being negatively affected by the impacts of tourism, visitors and recreation – indeed this is the fourth most significant impact on cultural heritage sites. 3 UNESCO (2010): paragraph 33. S. Court (*) · J. Thompson Herculaneum Conservation Project, Rome, Italy e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] A. D’Andrea Herculaneum Conservation Project, Aosta, Italy e-mail: [email protected] F. Del Duca Herculaneum Conservation Project, Ercolano, Italy e-mail: [email protected] P. Pesaresi Herculaneum Conservation Project, Milan, Italy e-mail: [email protected]

www.TourismB.ir 22 S. Court et al.

Fig. 3.1 The archaeological site of Herculaneum which lies within the modern town of Ercolano at the foot of Mount Vesuvius, Italy (Image: Sarah Court/HCP)

Convention finally integrates this clarity of thinking into the international heritage community’s references.4 In this context, it is necessary to re-examine the dynamic role that cultural heritage could potentially play in contemporary society – not just looking to reduce threats but seeking to transform them, wherever possible, into opportunities for ensuring that cultural heritage can contribute benefits to the modern world and, within a reciprocal relationship, gain benefits from a society that is more involved in its management and conservation. This drives to the heart of the sustainability debate, but in order to ground what risks being a theoretical discussion in reality, this paper will use the example of Herculaneum (Fig. 3.1) to quantify and qualify current and potential ‘reciprocal heritage benefits’ with the information available today that builds on strategic research, including the development of improved visitor and engagement strategies. However, ultimately it shows how much more needs to be done not just in terms of measuring progress but also in terms of identifying the correct indicators to measure in the first place.

4 UNESCO (2015a). This policy was adopted in 2015 at the 20th General Assembly of the States Parties to the World Heritage Convention.

www.TourismB.ir 3 Managing Herculaneum in Context: Measuring Benefits for People and Places 23

Fig. 3.2 The state of conservation at Herculaneum at the end of the twentieth century was grave with two-thirds of the site closed to the public (Images: Domenico Camardo/HCP, Gionata Rizzi/ HCP, Dave Yoder, Sarah Court/HCP)

Case Study: Herculaneum

Herculaneum provides an interesting case study due to the extreme situation that this Roman archaeological site reached at the end of the twentieth century, when two-thirds of the site were closed to the public due to the risk of collapsing structures, while fragile architectural elements and decorative features decayed (Fig. 3.2). The Herculaneum Conservation Project (HCP) was launched in 2001, and soon emphasis shifted to establishing strategies to secure the site’s long-term future and ensure the mistakes of the past were not repeated.5 Approaches have focused on opening up the existing management system to new forms of partnership while bringing together diverse interest groups, local community members, heritage practitioners, visitors and non-visitors, among others. This has been done with a view to exploring new forms of support to safeguard Herculaneum’s future and at the same time secure greater benefits from the heritage for a larger number of stakeholders.6

5 The Herculaneum Conservation Project is an initiative of the Packard Humanities Institute (and its Italian arm, the Istituto Packard per i Beni Culturali) in collaboration with the local heritage authority ; a third partner – the British School at Rome – was also involved from 2004 to 2014, the period in which much of the work described in this article took place (see Stanley-Price 2007; Camardo et al. 2012); www.herculaneum.org. 6 Court et al. (2011), Biggi et al. (2018)

www.TourismB.ir 24 S. Court et al.

However, although the HCP team has begun working within this emerging paradigm, it has become clear that the strength of the case that needs to be made to government bodies, heritage authorities, politicians, practitioners and local community members is weakened by a lack of hard data. Trial use in 2012 of a triple bottom line (TBL) tool adapted for heritage consolidated the HCP team’s interest in learning from this approach for its own specific heritage management system and sociocultural context. Interest in this particular tool stemmed from the fact that it was created by the UK’s National Trust and is one of the first in the heritage sector to create a systematic approach to achieve greater integration of sustainability considerations into long-term management considerations.7 Right through the organization, it assesses and measures the compatibility of its general business model, its properties and specific projects for managing change with economic, social and environmental considerations. Their TBL tool is a methodology that can both provide a baseline understanding of an existing situation, as well as evaluate future proposals to understand the impact they would potentially have. The TBL tool requires relevant data to be gathered, and then it produces a graphic representation of the results which can be easily interpreted by practitioners. While the rigour that such a tool promotes has never been fully implemented at Herculaneum, the specific difficulties of the Vesuvian area had already led the team intuitively to consider the success of site management in social, economic and environmental terms, but it became increasingly important that sustainability measures needed to go beyond the confines of the site. Reflection on the extent to which indicators were being measured in a meaningful way stimulated a wider interest in sustainable development thinking in the heritage sector8 and finally led to a direct contribution to heritage policy in this area.9 This work at Herculaneum then can be used to explore the (overused and misused) term of sustainability on two levels: (i) Sustainability on the scale of a site, e.g. can heritage places keep running and also have a social and environmental agenda? (ii) Sustainability on a bigger scale, e.g. can heritage contribute to the sustainable development of the world around it, and, in doing so, can it gain benefits that support site sustainability?

Sustainability Considerations at a Site Scale

In economic terms, sustainability at archaeological sites is all too often equated with ‘viability’, i.e. raising enough money to cover running costs through ticket sales, and indeed for many heritage places, income from visitors can be vital. This can often lead to a focus on encouraging new and repeat visitors to a site, along with

7 Lithgow (2011), National Trust (n.d.) 8 Wijesuriya and Thompson (2012) 9 UNESCO (2015a)

www.TourismB.ir 3 Managing Herculaneum in Context: Measuring Benefits for People and Places 25

Fig. 3.3 Conservation activities measured at the archaeological site include works on infrastruc- tures, structures and decorative features (Images: Studio Pesaresi/HCP and Maura Giacobbe Borrelli/HCP) promotion of additional services, provided by cafes, gift shops, etc., or events and other forms of engagement. In some cases, these initiatives are necessarily weighed against the problems caused by increased visitor flow and consequent pressure on the heritage resource. However, the situation at Herculaneum is anomalous: even while half of visitors do not pay the entry ticket for various reasons,10 there is still significant direct ticket income from ticket sales, and, moreover, financial autonomy has allowed the local heritage authority to invest millions of euros from ticket income from Pompeii into other Vesuvian sites.11 However, despite this, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, two-thirds of Herculaneum were collapsing. Measuring financial income, in this particular case at least, is not entirely useful for ensuring site protection in the long term. Income alone is not the only sustainability factor influencing the effective running of sites: instead the challenge is to ensure that it is spent well. An alternative indicator then is perhaps to measure how effectively income is spent against site needs. Much progress has been made to build up a precise set of indicators for Herculaneum thanks to a site-wide GIS database and other related management tools.12 However, the huge shift in conservation approaches at HCP took place when ‘monument by monument’ conservation interventions on individual targeted areas were superseded by a site-wide approach (Fig. 3.3). This shift acknowledged the urban complexity of the site as a whole but also its dramatic and complex relationship with the modern town of Ercolano above. Site-wide mapping of archaeological features, modern architectural elements, wider infrastructure, decay situations and areas open to the public, together with monitoring of the cost,

10 There is free entry for categories, such as under 18s, educational groups, scholars, etc. 11 Since 2010 a minimum of one million euros of funding has been assigned to Herculaneum each year by the central Pompeii heritage authority for conservation and enhancement projects, with that annual figure rising to five million euros at times. However, a new reform of the Italian heritage system has given management autonomy to the archaeological park of Herculaneum. 12 D’Andrea and Pesaresi (2014)

www.TourismB.ir 26 S. Court et al.

Table 3.1 Examples from Herculaneum of how some conservation aims were measured Example conservation aim Measurable result Contribute to the long-term 80% of collapsing protective shelters (often reinstated conservation of archaeological floor plates) were repaired or substituted by the HCP structures and decorative features team directly or using public funding in the period through the proper functioning of 2005–2015 protective shelters Resolve water drainage issues so as to 990 m of drains were reinstated or laid by HCP (out of reduce the major cause of decay on site: a total of 2360 m) and maintained in the period water 2005–2011 Provide the heritage authority with a 1009 different site interventions and their respective tested and fully operational cyclic costs were identified having monitored maintenance maintenance programme for the site works for 8 years Increase visual access to spaces across 69% of additional site areas were made visible to the site, where public staffing shortages public thanks to HCP works in 2005–2014; at the end limit full visitor accessa of the current 3-year programmed maintenance campaign (2018) more than 80% of the site will be visually accessible aStaffing shortages in 2015 only 32% of site areas could be physically accessed by visitors timeframes, quality and performance of interventions carried out, provided ways of identifying priorities for conservation interventions and the effective deployment of resources (human, financial and intellectual); this also allowed results to be measured. Some examples can be found in Table 3.1. Indicators related to the needs of the site, paired with others relating to the resources invested and management efficiency and effectiveness (greater accountability, transparency, etc.), would, together, seem more relevant to management objectives than a simple balance sheet related more to trends in tourism and ticket sales. However, the reality of survival for many sites less fortunate than Herculaneum is often conditioned primarily by their economic vulnerability, and ticket sales cannot be ignored. At many heritage places, the visitor experience has become important so as to gain word-of-mouth recommendations, encourage repeat visiting and obtain other forms of support. It should be noted that while rigorous use of audience development and visitor studies is common in museums worldwide to improve services so as to ensure future ticket sales, it has not yet reached archaeological heritage management realities in most countries. At Herculaneum an audience development programme was launched in order to explore who currently visits the site – and who does not – throughout the year and what are their reasons for doing so (Fig. 3.4).13 A survey on the visitor experience

13 The HCP audience development programme has focused to date on independent visitors and has included an initial 12-month campaign surveying 1561 individuals to understand demographics and motivation, which was followed by a 6-month questionnaire campaign to explore the visitor experience. The programme was developed by Sarah Court, Francesca Del Duca, Michela Del Tin and Anna Paterlini with support from Aurelio Galiano, Rosa Guida and David Samulski for the administration of visitor questionnaires.

www.TourismB.ir 3 Managing Herculaneum in Context: Measuring Benefits for People and Places 27

Fig. 3.4 A year-long survey campaign was carried out to provide data on independent visitors, their reasons for visiting and their experience at Herculaneum in order to inform future plans (Image: Sarah Court/HCP) revealed that visitors are fascinated by Herculaneum’s archaeology14 but that there are major disappointments related to management issues.15 Given the wealth of other archaeological sites in the local area, and indeed throughout Italy, management problems are potentially a factor that could influence visitors in their choice of destination, potentially opting for a better-run site and therefore a more satisfying visit. The growing audience development data can be mined to understand a range of issues as the HCP team works towards an experience of Herculaneum that better ties into audience needs and supports better conservation and management. Of particular note, it has been demonstrated that local residents make up less than 2% of visitors. This is something that needs to change both in terms of social responsibility to a key stakeholder who has been excluded in recent decades by certain management practices and other factors but also because this is a particular group that can provide a great deal of long-term support to the site due to their ability to engage with their heritage repeatedly and in a variety of ways.16 The wealth of visitor and audience data should make us reflect that, in addition to measuring income from visitors, other indicators need to be monitored, those

14 Among other results, 94% of visitors interviewed said they were ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with their overall visit to Herculaneum. 15 Fifty-two per cent of visitors interviewed were able to identify elements of their visit that were unsatisfactory, the greatest cause of dissatisfaction by far was the number of closed areas within the archaeological site that visitors could not access (17% of respondents). 16 Court et al. (2011)

www.TourismB.ir 28 S. Court et al. related to people and their experience. In particular, the values that a range of people hold in connection to the site are important as they contribute to site significance. Significance is now a concept that underpins many management planning processes as this ensures that strategies are in place to protect and enhance those values and the attributes that express them, allowing heritage to be safeguarded for present and future enjoyment and use. While there has been a shift in the heritage sector from conventional conservation approaches to values-based approaches, there is now an emerging discussion of the need to move to ‘people-centred approaches’. This involves a wider range of people in the identification of values and significance and then adjusting management practices accordingly, a process that is not brokered and potentially edited by the heritage ‘expert’.17 Understanding these values would provide another way of measuring site sustainability (in the narrow sense) and the site’s role in society (and the reciprocal benefits therein). More people engaged in their heritage and connected to sites would potentially lead to a site managed in such a way as to encourage increased ticket sales and other forms of support – in particular, ongoing support from particular stakeholders. This would also have a potential secondary impact on visitor behaviour, which is often ‘managed’ to mitigate damage to fragile heritage, whereas greater engagement and participation could lead to visitors whose very presence contributes to conservation objectives. These areas of work are pointing to a series of indicators that could measure to what extent an archaeological site is sustainable in economic, social and environmental (conservation) terms and therefore how successfully it might be safeguarded and enjoyed in the long term. However, there is a bigger debate taking place about sustainability in a much broader sense, to which heritage has so far contributed minimally but where there is potentially a great deal to offer.

Sustainability Considerations at a Larger Scale

Around Herculaneum there is a lively modern world: the town of Ercolano has many heritage resources but suffers from enormous socio-economic disadvantages and seems to gain few benefits from its World Heritage property.18 The real sense of the term ‘sustainability’ requires this bigger picture to be taken into consideration. In this context sustainable tourism is one key way in which the surrounding community can benefit from their heritage. So what data could be gathered on this broader context and its potential relationship to its heritage? A first step has been a resource inventory that shows the natural and cultural richness of modern Ercolano: the town lies at the foot of Mount Vesuvius (itself a national park) and within a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. The World Heritage listing of Herculaneum is just the most recent recognition of its archaeological

17 Wijesuriya (2010), Wijesuriya and Court (2015) 18 Biggi et al. (2018)

www.TourismB.ir 3 Managing Herculaneum in Context: Measuring Benefits for People and Places 29 values, as it was the location of the first scientifically explored and documented archaeological site in Europe. These archaeological discoveries are intimately linked to the nearby Royal Palace of Portici, from where early excavations were overseen and the first Herculaneum museum established. Connected are also the 22 eighteenth-century villas built by the nobility who were inspired by the newly rediscovered Roman antiquities. These days most urban vitality comes from a bustling clothes market (born at the end of the Second World War) that is held along the main route through the mediaeval town centre leading from a church which illustrates rich intangible local traditions. However, despite the wealth of potential visitor attractions, most non-residents do not explore beyond the archaeological site, and so there are limited financial benefits from visitors for the modern town. Research shows that most people visit the site for an average of 2 h and then return to hotels in Naples and Sorrento.19 In a vicious circle, there are relatively few shops and services that cater to visitors who find little to keep them in Ercolano. In addition, the archaeological site does not provide many employment opportunities: compared to the early/mid-twentieth century when there was a large team of excavators, restorers, maintenance staff and custodians who were largely local residents, there are now only a handful of locally sourced staff, and other services are outsourced. Italy’s employment law and a strong union presence mean that it is very difficult to provide opportunities even for volunteers. A new project underway in Via Mare, a neglected residential neighbourhood running along the west side of the archaeological site, seeks to change this. The regen- eration project aims both to provide a more dignified street space for residents, responding to some of the needs they expressed in an early consultation meeting, and to reconnect the neighbourhood visually to the site (Fig. 3.5). In addition, physical links will encourage visitors to exit the site by alternative routes that will lead through new civic spaces to explore the modern town, providing residents with better opportunities to offer services to visitors.20 European Union funding has been allocated for these improvements and is directly linked to the Via Mare neighbourhood being located next to the archaeological site, perhaps the trigger for the first significant socio-economic benefits that residents will gain from their relationship to ancient Herculaneum. However, measuring this is the next challenge: mapping existing and new businesses and job opportunities is one measure, but identifying indicators of social change continues to be a challenge for the heritage sector. The numbers of participants in a range of community-based initiatives may allow some degree of understanding of engagement

19 Site visits were timed by HCP intern Niki Savvides. Audience development questionnaires then discovered that 80% of independent visitors stay at Herculaneum for up to half a day, 17% stay for up to a day, and only 3% stay for more than a day. Comparison of this data with the average site visit of 2 h shows that relatively few visitors have the time to explore the modern town around the archaeological site. 20 Mollo et al. (2012), Biggi et al. (2018)

www.TourismB.ir 30 S. Court et al.

Fig. 3.5 The boundary wall between the archaeological site of Herculaneum and the Via Mare neighbourhood as it is today (above) and the proposed new boundary that will substitute it (below) so that a visual connection will be restored for local residents (Image: Studio Barbieri-Negri/HCP) trends (Fig. 3.6). A scale such as the classic ‘ladder of participation’21 can help qualify the level of involvement to judge each community project. However, an ability to locate where the project impacts positively on the heritage management system and neighbouring communities would better show the real levels of community empowerment. In order to take this approach further, it would be necessary to go beyond an inventory of the heritage resources and to look at the human resources too. Indeed, there has been much work done in other sectors with regard to assessing the assets that lie within a community and understanding their knowledge, skills and availability. One particular tool that is being trialled at Herculaneum is that of asset- based community development, which not only suggests ways of measuring community resources but promotes a shift in focus from community needs/

21 Arnstein (1969)

www.TourismB.ir 3 Managing Herculaneum in Context: Measuring Benefits for People and Places 31

Fig. 3.6 Heritage specialists from the archaeological site brought in graffiti artists to work with Via Mare local residents on transforming a vacant lot into a multipurpose play area as a way to build relationships and begin the process of transforming the neighbourhood that lies next to the archaeological site (Images: Radio Siani and Christian Biggi/Herculaneum Centre) problems to community assets as a successful way of forging sustainable change and place-making.22 In fact, one indicator of positive change in Ercolano is the increasing number of local cultural associations and cooperatives that have been created over the last decade and which can be linked to the existence of an early association – the Herculaneum Centre – which was in part launched thanks to the contribution of the HCP team.23 Further progress needs to be made in this area of

22 Kretzmann and McKnight (1993) 23 Biggi et al. (2018)

www.TourismB.ir 32 S. Court et al. mapping community assets, but if this step proves successful – and it proves possible to measure success – then hopefully the foundations will be laid not just for the sustainable development of modern Ercolano, but support will be gained for the ancient town too.

Conclusions

A certain inertia within the heritage sector with regard to the sustainable development agenda suggests that it is not perhaps considered a necessity by all practitioners. While there are a number of broad ethical and professional reasons for seeking to ensure that heritage contributes to society, there are also a number of reasons for pursuing sustainability in terms of sheer survival: there are no longer any guarantees of support for heritage, not just in terms of funding but, importantly, in terms of the public’s engagement. If archaeology does not play an active role in contemporary society, it risks being considered meaningless and then isolated. Despite being a World Heritage property, Herculaneum offers a vivid warning of how quickly decay can take over a site when this happens and the potential loss that can occur. As a sector, we need to become better at tapping into the unrealized potential in local communities so that cultural values and management can be reinforced through new forms of engagement. The importance of this challenge has been underlined by the former Director General of UNESCO, Koïchiro Matsuura, who noted that, ‘without the understanding and support of the public at large, without the respect and daily care of the local communities, which are the true custodians of World Heritage, no amount of funds or army of experts will suffice in protecting the sites’ (see also Sinamai, Chap. 5, this volume).24

Bibliography

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 216–224. Biggi, C., D’Andrea, A., & Pesaresi, P. (2014). Herculaneum: Joining forces to secure heritage benefits for the ancient and the modern towns. In M. Bachmann, C. Maner, S. Tezer, & D. Göçmen (Eds.), Heritage in context. Conservation and site management within natural, urban and social frameworks (pp. 39–53). Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. Biggi, C., Capasso, B. & Del Duca, F. (2018). The Herculaneum Centre: the reciprocal benefits gained from building capacities for cultural heritage among institutions and communities. In V. Apaydin (ed.), Shared Knowledge, Shared Power: Engaging Local and Indigenous Heritage. New York: Springer: 87–106. Camardo, D., Court, S., & Thompson, J. (2012). Ten years of the Herculaneum Conservation project. Papers of the British School at Rome, 80, 360–362.

24 UNESCO (1999).

www.TourismB.ir 3 Managing Herculaneum in Context: Measuring Benefits for People and Places 33

Court, S., Thompson, J., & Biggi, C. (2011). Recognizing the interdependent relationship between heritage and its wider context. In J. Bridgland (Ed.), Preprints of the 16th ICOM-CC triennial conference (pp. 1–9). Almada: ICOM. D’Andrea, A., & Pesaresi, P. (2014). Addio al restauro, benvenuta manutenzione. Esperimenti di conservazione sostenibile ad Ercolano. In A. Ferjaoui & M. L. Germanà (Eds.), Architecture domestique punique, hellénistique et romaine. Sauvegarde et mise en valeur (pp. 203–212). Palermo: ETS. Kretzmann, J. P., & McKnight, J. L. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: A path toward finding and mobilizing a community’s assets. Skokie: ACTA Publications. Lithgow, K. (2011). Sustainable decision making – Change in national trust collections conservation. Journal of the Institute of Conservation, 34, 130–144. Mollo, L., Pesaresi, P., & Biggi, C. (2012). Interactions between ancient Herculaneum and modern Ercolano. In P. De Joanna, D. Francese, & A. Passaro (Eds.), Sustainable environment in the Mediterranean region: From housing to urban and land scale construction (pp. 1–7). Naples: Edizioni Franco Angeli. National Trust. (n.d.). Triple bottom line tool [unpublished document]. Stanley-Price, N. (Ed.) (2007). Special edition on the Herculaneum Conservation Project. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 8(4). UNESCO. (1999). Address by Mr Koïchiro Matsuura (DG/99/3/KM). UNESCO. http://http:// unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001182/118260E.pdf. Accessed 26 Aug 2017. UNESCO. (2010). Reflection on the trends of the state of conservation (WHC-10/34.COM/7C). UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001182/118260E.pdf. Accessed 26 Aug 2017. UNESCO. (2015a). Policy for the integration of a sustainable development perspective into the processes of the World Heritage Convention (WHC-15/20.GA/INF.13). UNESCO. http://whc. unesco.org/document/139146. Accessed 26 Aug 2017. UNESCO. (2015b). State of conservation of World Heritage properties (WHC-15/39.COM/7). UNESCO. http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2015/whc15-39com-7-en.pdf. Accessed 26 Aug 2017. Wijesuriya, G. (2010). Conservation in context. In M. S. Falser, W. Lipp, & A. Tomazewsky (Eds.), Conservation and preservation: Interactions between theory and practice (pp. 233–248). Florence: Polistampa. Wijesuriya, G., & Court, S. (2015). People-Centred approaches to the conservation of cultural heritage: Living heritage. ICCROM. http://www.iccrom.org/wp-content/uploads/PCA_Annexe-2. pdf Accessed 26 Aug 2017. Wijesuriya, G., & Thompson, J. (2012). Herculaneum, Italy – Introducing public good into public- private partnership models for heritage. 14 July. [lecture] Yogyakarta: Experts’ meeting in preparation for the 5th ASEM culture ministers’ meeting. Wijesuriya, G., Thompson, J., & Young, C. (2013). Managing cultural World Heritage. Paris: UNESCO.

www.TourismB.ir Chapter 4 Vikings and World Heritage: Towards New Strategic Synergies?

Herdis Hølleland

Introduction

When the Icelandic government invited nations with archaeological records of Viking history to join together for a transnational Viking World Heritage nomination in 2008, the World Heritage sector was at a transitional stage: the presumed benefits of World Heritage listing were examined with increased intensity. These examina- tions were central for the way in which the World Heritage nomination was approached at the Vestfold Ship Burials (Fig. 4.1), one of the component parts of the transnational serial nomination of “Viking Age sites in Northern Europe” (Stefansdottir and Malück 2014). However, as the nomination was deferred by the World Heritage Committee at its thirty-ninth session (taking place in Bonn 28.06.- 08.07.2015, UNESCO 2015: 194), there is still a long way before the Vestfold Ship Burials are likely to achieve World Heritage listing. Nonetheless, some of the lessons learned from Vestfold’s nomination process are relevant for managers at archaeological sites seeking to broaden visitor profiles. Thus, the aim of this paper is to provide practical advice and concrete steps for heritage managers developing a sustainable relationship with the tourism sector. In order to contextualize the lessons learned in Vestfold, this paper begins by exploring the shift towards a more instrumental use of heritage vis-à-vis tourism over the last decade. This is followed by a review of the emerging research literature debating the extent to which World Heritage listing does in fact impact patterns of visitation. The findings from the literature review informed the directions taken in Vestfold, and the lessons learned from Vestfold are discussed.

H. Hølleland (*) The Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research (NIKU), Oslo, Norway e-mail: [email protected]

www.TourismB.ir 36 H. Hølleland

Fig. 4.1 Location map of the Vestfold Ship Burials. (Map developed by Vestfold County Authority. By permission of Vestfold County Authority)

www.TourismB.ir 4 Vikings and World Heritage: Towards New Strategic Synergies? 37

The Instrumental Shift: Tightening the Bonds Between World Heritage and Tourism

While tourism figured as a motivation for initiatives leading up to United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) 1972 Convention Concerning the Preservation of the World’s Cultural and Natural Heritage (Titchen 1995: 40–45), it was not until the 1990s that tourism became a central part of World Heritage discourse. This followed the 1980s gradual shift towards a more instrumental use of heritage (Christensen 2011: 177–178). Robert Hewison’s catchphrase of the ‘heritage industry’ neatly sums up how the remains of the past become means towards an end other than purely preserving the past: through processes of gentrifi- cation and creatively making pieces of the past into saleable experiences and products, heritage assets have been used for economic gain and the revitalization of small communities off the beaten track (e.g. Hewison 1987). By the mid-1990s, the rhetoric of hope and enthusiasm was integrated into the field of World Heritage: from primarily viewing World Heritage status as a symbol of good conservation, protection and international recognition, the status became a means towards other ends. Presented as a strong and well-known international brand, World Heritage status differentiated sites and attracted the global community of international travellers (e.g. Shackley 1998; Hall and Piggin 2001, 2003). Unsurprisingly, the expectations regarding the benefits of World Heritage listing grew stronger, in particular at local and regional political and community level. Indeed, throughout the 1990s, the rhetoric of benefits became so prevalent that it acquired some contours of truth; thus, by the early 2000s, World Heritage status was commonly understood to lead to increased tourism and economic gains (e.g. Environment Australia 2015).1 In reality, however, data supporting the statements were lacking as little research had been undertaken. Thus, the extent to which World Heritage status had any generic positive impact on the sites in terms of, for example increased tourism, was largely unknown. As the costs of the nomination process have increased dramatically over the last decades (e.g. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 2007; Johnston et al. 2012; Kayahan and Vanblarcom 2012), the question of economic impact has been forced forward by governments wanting to know whether or not there is actual fiscal gain from an investment in nominating a site. This has contributed to questioning the presumed benefits of World Heritage.

Questioning the Instrumental Benefits of the World Heritage

In the early 2000s, the first studies on World Heritage impact highlighted how a lack of data on World Heritage sites prior to listing made it difficult to determine the status’ impact on tourism (Hall and Piggin 2001, 2002; Buckley 2004). This remains

1 Highlighting the benefits of World Heritage listing has remained consistent over the last 15 years (e.g. Environment Australia’s webpages (2001) as quoted in Hall and Piggin (2003: 208)).

www.TourismB.ir 38 H. Hølleland a challenge at many sites. However, the poor quality of the pre-listing data nonetheless has not prevented the first large-scale empirical studies of World Heritage impact being undertaken (Hambrey Consulting 2007; PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 2007; RCL and TBRL 2009; Prud’homme 2014). The reports all pointed in the same directions: the listing does not automatically generate economic gain nor do all World Heritage sites experience an increase in tourism. However, some of the studies also try to answer why the perceived benefits have failed to materialize. One group of studies has drawn attention to the fact that World Heritage is far from the strong brand it has been considered to be. While most tourists have heard about World Heritage, research has shown that the concept itself is far from well understood. Many tourists are unaware of the fact they are visiting World Heritage sites and very few plan their holidays around World Heritage sites (e.g. Dewar et al. 2012; Hølleland 2013a, b, 2014; King and Halpenny 2014; Johansson 2015). Part of the reason why tourists’ level of awareness is relatively low also relates to the fact that while the instrumental rhetoric has dominated the promotional discourse of World Heritage, this has not been among the main motivations for nominating sites. Indeed the vast majority of sites have not made tourism a priority prior to listing (RCL and TBRL 2009). However, the small minority, 5–10%, of the sites that have experienced increases in tourism and economic growth after listing have done so through active and strategic use of the status (RCL and TBRL 2009: 21–26). Thus, the key to unlocking any benefits from the World Heritage status is to start off with a clear goal of increasing tourism, followed by a strategy on how to fulfil the goal and a long-term implementation period. Conclusions of the studies and reports served as a catalyst in informing the heritage tourism initiatives at the Vestfold Ship Burials taken as part of the nomination process in 2013–2014. The following section aims to draw up some of the lessons learned in Vestfold.

Towards Strategic Synergies: Lessons from Vestfold

One of the clearest lessons learned is that a successful transition towards strategic, instrumental use of the heritage is to a large extent dependent on attitudes within the heritage sector itself. When not rooted in heritage practice and thought, a shift towards an instrumental use of heritage tends to be negatively loaded: often perceived as commercial exploitation of the past rather than an opportunity to create memorable experiences whose end purpose is to further the understanding of, and interest in, the past among visitors. In Vestfold, the World Heritage nomination process (from 2011 onwards) has been part of the regional (i.e. Vestfold) heritage sector’s move towards actively preserving the Viking assets through active use. This move has been possible because it has been driven from within the regional heritage sector through a series of strategic regional plans (e.g. VFK 2011, 2015a). By taking a lead, the regional heritage managers and museum staff have been able to set the agenda, rather than respond to others’ agendas. In the case of Vestfold, this has meant focusing on building scientifically sound experiences through, for example,

www.TourismB.ir 4 Vikings and World Heritage: Towards New Strategic Synergies? 39

Fig. 4.2 Mounds at Borre. (Photo by Terje Gansum. By permission of Vestfold County Authority) large-scale reconstructions of the Oseberg Viking ship. However, quality and scale cost money. Thus, in order for projects to succeed, the heritage managers need to be able to work with the regional and political spheres – that provide the essential link to funding (e.g. VFK 2015c). Furthermore, successful projects are dependent on cooperation with other sectors. For example, the reconstruction of the Oseberg ship has been dependent on craftsmen and members of the voluntary groups such as the Foundation for the New Oseberg Ship (SNOS 2015), with great passion and knowledge. These lines of cooperation often take time to build and maintain yet are crucial when aiming to create new visitor experiences that generate an interest for the past which, in the long term, may help the preservation of heritage sites (Fig. 4.2). Furthermore, in order for instrumental moves to be successful, they need to be integrated into the overall management of the sites. In the case of the Vestfold Ship Burials, this was done in 2011–2012 through the preparation of the action plan, which is part of the management plan that put heritage tourism on the agenda (Løkken and Hølleland 2014). Yet, until 2013, there had been little dialogue between the heritage sector and the relatively fragmented tourism sector. However, in 2013 the Viking experience was put forward as one of the new ‘concepts’ that would make the region more visible in the national tourism market (Bergsli et al. 2014). Both sectors were, in other words, moving in the same direction, and the World Heritage nomination proved to a timely initiative towards creating a shared platform of knowledge to work from (Hølleland et al. 2014). This leads to the second important lesson learned. In order to create a strategy, one needs an accurate understanding of current visitation patterns. This understanding must be shared by heritage managers, museum staff and representatives from the tourism industry. This prevents one from developing interpretation for marginal markets and makes it possible to target new

www.TourismB.ir 40 H. Hølleland markets within existing visitor groups to a region. This requires information that is relatively easily available through databases such as Eurostat or national equivalents such as Statistikknett in Norway. These databases provide information on all commercial overnight stays divided by states and regions and also may contain additional estimates for nights spent at private accommodation such as cottages. Through these types of databases, one gains an overview of patterns of visitation to the region. In the case of Vestfold, the international visitors, which the heritage managers and museum staff at the onset believed were a core visitor group, are in fact a marginal one. Indeed more than 90% of the around 1.15 million commercial nights spent in Vestfold are undertaken by residents of Norway (Bergsli et al. 2014). Furthermore, if one breaks down the commercial nights, well over half were spent at caravan parks and rental cottages, and a further 1.45 million were spent at privately owned cottages (Statistikknett reiseliv 2014). Yet, neither of these dominant visitor groups had been a target audience for the heritage sector before work commenced in 2013. Thus, it became pertinent to address whether these caravan and cottage owners were coming to sites anyway. If not, would they consider coming? As means to answer these questions, new research such as visitor surveys and target group surveys was needed. In 2014 both a visitor survey at the Vestfold Ship Burials and a target survey at caravan parks were undertaken (Hølleland 2014; Fivrill 2014). Investment in these types of studies is particularly valuable when little prior data exists, because they document current visitors and therefore provide insight into identifying new visitor groups. The visitor survey, for example, showed that there is an extremely local pattern of visitation at the Vestfold Ship Burials – more than 60% of all visitors lived in Vestfold, whereas international visitors accounted for approximately 15% of the visitors (Hølleland 2014). This, in combination with information on visitor accommodation, indicates that one has failed to attract the largest visitor market – the caravan and cottage owners. The caravan park survey did, however, indicate that while caravan users were not very familiar with the Viking attractions, they were nonetheless keen to visit the sites (Fivrill 2014). Although only snapshots of the surveys, my point here is to highlight how data enables strategic planning as it can reveal new markets within an existing one: in particular the museums, taking entrance fees, providing refreshments and hosting events and activities, would benefit economically if they started strategically targeting and capturing a greater share of the return visitors to Vestfold, i.e. caravan park users and cottage owners in close proximity to the Vestfold Ship Burial sites. Such a shift would be beneficial to museums – indepen- dently of a future World Heritage listing.

Conclusion

In Vestfold, the findings of the early desk-based surveys of the ship burials clearly highlighted a lack of pre-existing data. This essentially led the heritage managers at the county level to conduct new surveys. The findings of these 2014 surveys have subsequently informed the revised Strategy for Viking Age Interpretation in Vestfold

www.TourismB.ir 4 Vikings and World Heritage: Towards New Strategic Synergies? 41

2015–2018 (VFK 2015b), which notes that the first step towards increasing visitor numbers is focusing on those already visiting Vestfold. Furthermore, returning to the need of integrating World Heritage initiatives into the overall management, it should be noted that the revised strategy is not one solely for World Heritage, but one in which World Heritage is part of a wider strategy for a chosen heritage asset – in the case of Vestfold, its rich Viking Age remains. Finally, this strategy has been developed by the heritage sector in collaboration with the tourism sector and the regional politicians. The result of this is that the plan has been passed politically, securing public funding to complete the action plan (VFK 2015c). Successful implementation of a strategy is of course not only dependent on funding, but also on maintaining the sustainable synergies created through strategic planning process. The World Heritage nomination process functioned as a stimulus for future synergies as it enabled the tourism and heritage sectors to base their operations to a greater extent on a common understanding of visitor patterns which allowed new markets to be identified. If these new groups of returning caravan and cottage visitors are strategically targeted by the museums and heritage managers, it could generate increased visitation to the Viking Age sites and potentially economic gain for the regional museums.

Acknowledgements Thanks to partners at Vestfold County Authority, Horten, Sandefjord and Tønsberg municipalities, Horten and Sandefjord tourist offices and the Midgard Historical Centre, UNESCO Norway for funding the visitor survey and students at Buskerud and Vestfold University College (now University of Southeast Norway) and the University of Oslo for gathering data.

Bibliography

Bergsli, M., Jervan, B., Mackay, M., & Kobro, L. U. (2014). Utredning for samhandling for reise- livsnæringen i Vestfold. Larvik: Mimir & Telemarksforskning. Buckley, R. C. (2004). The effects of World Heritage listing on tourism to Australian national parks. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12, 70–84. Christensen, A. L. (2011). Kunsten å bevare. Om kulturminnevern og fortidsinteresse i Norge. Oslo: Pax. Dewar, K., du Cros, H., & Li, W. (2012). The search for World Heritage brand awareness beyond the iconic heritage: A case study of the historic centre of Macao. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 7(4), 323–339. Environment Australia. (2015). Implications of World Heritage listing. https://www.environment. gov.au/heritage/about/world-heritage/implications-world-heritage-listing. Accessed 15 Nov 2015. Fivrill AS. (2014). Prosjektrapport fra undersøkelse om campingturister og vikingattraksjoner. Utarbeidet på oppdrag av Vestfold fylkeskommune. Fivrill AS. Hall, M. C., & Piggin, R. (2001). Tourism and World Heritage in OECD countries. Tourism Recreation Research, 26(1), 103–105. Hall, M. C. and R. Piggin 2002 Tourism business knowledge of World Heritage sites: a New Zealand case study. International Jouranl of Tourism Research 4: 401–411. doi:10.1002/jtr.391 Hall, M. C., & Piggin, R. (2003). World Heritage sites: Managing the brand. In A. Fyall, B. Garod, & A. Leask (Eds.), Managing visitor attractions: New directions (pp. 203–219). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

www.TourismB.ir 42 H. Hølleland

Hambrey Consulting. (2007). Social, economic and environmental benefits of World Heritage sites, biosphere reserves, and geoparks. Scottish natural heritage commissioned report No.248 (ROAME No. F06NC05). http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/commissioned_reports/ Report%20No248.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2015. Hewison, R. (1987). The heritage industry: Britain in a climate of decline. London: Methuen. Hølleland, H. (2013a). “What does skiing have to do with World Heritage!?” glimpses into visitors’ awareness of World Heritage. In B. G. Jansson (Ed.), The significance of World Heritage: Origins, management, consequences, Falun, December 8–10, 2010 (pp. 106–120). Falun: WHILD. Hølleland, H. (2013b). Practicing World Heritage. Approaching the changing faces of the World Heritage convention. PhD thesis, University of Oslo. Hølleland, H. (2014). Rapport fra besøksundersøkelse på Skipshaugene i Vestfold. Tønsberg: Vestfold fylkeskommune. Hølleland, H., Gansum, T., Gjersøe, V. I., Moseid, T. I., Eidsten, I., Larsen, E., Løkkeberg, K., Nygård, J., Fønstelien, K., Erlingsen, E., Frigaard, B. E., Sonne, L., & Bandlien, B. (2014). Rapport fra Arbeidsgruppe for attraksjonsutvikling av Skipshaugene i Vestfold. Tønsberg: Vestfold fylkeskommune. Johansson, M. (2015). Life in a World Heritage city: A case study of discussions and contested values in Angra do Heroísmo, the Azores. PhD thesis, Linköping University. Johnston, S., Morison, J., Stringer, R., Mickan, P., Salver, M., Sarre, G., & Tagliaferri, J. (2012). Exploring UNESCO World Heritage site listing for the mount lofty ranges agrarian landscape. University of Adelaide. http://www.mountloftyranges.org/uploads/2/1/4/7/21479742/explor- ing_unesco_world_heritage_listing_executive_summary1.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2015. Kayahan, B., & Vanblarcom, B. (2012). Cost benefit analysis of UNESCO World Heritage site designation in Nova Scotia. Review of Economic Analysis, 4, 247–273. King, L. M., & Halpenny, E. A. (2014). Communicating the World Heritage brand: Visitor awareness of UNESCO’s World Heritage symbol and the implications for sites, stakeholders and sustainable management. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(5), 768–786. KLD (Klima- og miljødepartementet). (2017). Plan for prioriteringer i arbeidet med å etablere verdensarvsentre ved alle de norske verdensarvområdene 2017–2026. https://www.regjerin- gen.no/no/dokumenter/plan-for-prioriteringer-i-arbeidet-med-a-etablere-verdensarvsentre- ved-alle-de-norske-verdensarvomradene-2017-2026/id2554422/. Accessed 1 Aug 2017. Løkken, K., & Hølleland, H. (2014). Vestfold ship burials (Management plan 2012–2016, Rev. edn). https://www.vfk.no/Documents/vfk.no-dok/Kulturarv/Verdensarv/Forvaltningsplan%20 for%20Skipshaugene%20i%20Vestfold%5Bsmallpdf.com%5D.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2015. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (2007). The costs and benefits of World Heritage site status in the UK. Full report. Prepared for the department for culture, media and sport, Cadw and Historic Scotland. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/78452/PwC_fullreport.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2015. Prud’homme, R. (2014). World Heritage listing and economic development. http://www.rprud- homme.com/resources/2014+World+Heritage+on+devt.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2015. RCL & TBRL. (2009). World Heritage status: Is there opportunity for economic gain? Rebanks Consulting Ltd and Trends Business Research Ltd. http://rebanksconsultingltd.com/resources/ WHSTheEconomicGainFinalReport.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2015. Shackley, M. (1998). Introduction – World cultural heritage sites. In M. Shackley (Ed.), Visitor management: Case studies from World Heritage sites (pp. 1–9). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. SNOS. (2015). Stiftelsen nytt Osebergskip. http://opengov.cloudapp.net/Meetings/vestfoldfk/ Meetings/Details/509201. Accessed 15 Nov 2015. Statistikknett Reiseliv. 2014. Statistikknett reiseliv Vestfold. http://www.statistikknett.no/Vestfold/ Default.aspx. Accessed 15 Nov 2015. Stefansdottir, A., & Malück, M. (Eds.) (2014). Viking age sites in northern Europe. A transnational serial nomination to UNESCO’s World Heritage list. http://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/handle/11250/176142. Accessed 15 Nov 2015.

www.TourismB.ir 4 Vikings and World Heritage: Towards New Strategic Synergies? 43

Titchen, S. (1995). On the construction of outstanding universal value. UNESCO’s World Heritage convention (convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage, 1972) and the identification and assessment of cultural places for inclusion on the world heritage list. PhD thesis, Australian National University. UNESCO. (2015). Decisions adopted by the World Heritage committee at its 39th session (WHC- 15/39.COM/19). http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2015/whc15-39com-19-en.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2015. VFK. (2011). Strategisk kulturplan 2011–2014. https://www.vfk.no/Documents/vfk.no-dok/ Kultur/Styringsdokumenter/Strategisk-kulturplan-for-Vestfold-2011-2014.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2015. VFK. (2015a). Strategisk kulturplan 2015–2018. https://www.vfk.no/Documents/vfk.no-dok/ Kultur/Styringsdokumenter/Strategisk%20kultur-%20og%20idrettsplan%202015-2018%20 Vestfold.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2015. VFK. (2015b). Helhetlig attraksjonstrategi for vikingtidsformidling i Vestfold 2015–2018. https:// www.vfk.no/Documents/vfk.no-dok/Kulturarv/Vikingtidssatsingen/Fykestingsbehandling_ forslag%20til%20Helhetlig%20attraksjonsstrategi%20for%20vikingtidsformidling%20i%20 Vestfold%202015-2018.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2015. VFK. (2015c). Hovedutvalget for kultur og helse. Sak 17/15 Vikingtidsstrategi. http://opengov. cloudapp.net/Meetings/vestfoldfk/Meetings/Details/509201. Accessed 15 Nov 2015. VFK. (2017). Nærmere UNESCOs verdensarvliste. https://www.vfk.no/Aktuelt/UNESCO- soknad/. Accessed 1 Aug 2017.

www.TourismB.ir Chapter 5 The Tyranny of Materiality: Sacred Landscapes, Tourism and Community Narratives

Ashton Sinamai

Introduction

Monumentality is key to the tourism industry and the focus of research, presentation and representation (Waterton and Watson 2014). To many African communities (and indeed, other communities elsewhere), this focus on monumentality is problematic as it is not the only manifestation of heritage. Monumentality freezes the landscape and brings in connotations of control introduced through the colonial experience. Landscapes in Africa, and indeed other parts of the world, are living landscapes where nature, people (living and dead) and other non-human nonliving things interact harmoniously to create an equilibrium in which all things can survive. Although this does not appear to be true in Europe, this form of expression of culture on the landscape is still present elsewhere. Landscapes are an accumulation of experiences, for people and for all the other non-human elements that exist within. Tourism’s natural affinity for monumentality rather than the immaterial freezes the cultural landscape and opens up the sacrosanct to ‘public enjoyment’. Monumentality also forces the organisations managing the archaeological landscapes to focus only on preserving the built-up heritage at the expense of the lived experiences (Waterton and Watson 2014). International tourism requires compact interpretations and unique visual experiences, with unlimited access. The needs of the tourist’s experience are accentuated at the expense of the local intimate experiences of communities. In addition, archaeologists have shaped cultural landscapes with what they know best: archaeological remains (Spirn 1998: 23), often, in disregard of all other alternative interpretations. Because of this incompatibility between tourism and intangible heritage, conflicts develop at many World Heritage sites in Africa and, indeed, other parts of the world. This paper discusses how narratives can be used to bring out community voices in the interpretations, use and management of cultural landscapes in Africa and, in the process, reduce conflicts.

A. Sinamai (*) College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, Flinders University, Australia e-mail: [email protected]

www.TourismB.ir 46 A. Sinamai

Monumentality and Heritage

Archaeology has a long-held interest with material things and faces difficulties quan- tifying the intangible (da Silva 2008: 4). Material heritage, however, is only the external resource for an embedded sacred, intrinsic presence. The visual dominance of material culture has influenced what we study, preserve and view and enjoy through the tourist gaze (Urry 1990; Kaufmann 2013: 29). Western nodes of knowledge tend to overemphasise this external resource over the inner meanings which are just as important in the preservation of a place. Western philosophy focuses on thinking ‘logically and lineally’ and depends on explicit meanings, disregarding implicit meanings as modes of learning (Eder 2010: 88). This makes it difficult for heritage managers, taught in this tradition, to recognise evidence from implicit meanings of cultural manifestations at cultural landscapes. The result is the absence of community voices in all aspects of heritage management. Archaeology as a discipline generally lacks the awareness of the ability of narratives, folklore and traditional stories in translating cultural landscapes that we study and use for research and recreation (Sinamai 2015). Immaterial domains are in the present and portray the conception of heritage and landscape by communities and are difficult to quantify and analyse like artefacts. Visuality is regarded as fundamental in attracting tourists to a place, and hence archaeologists and heritage managers are forced to focus on preserving the material heritage at the expense of other forms of heritage manifestations. Archaeologists have also contributed to the production of manipulated images of heritage places through documentation processes. Mapping consciously removes people from the landscape and focuses on things within the landscape. As carto- graphical tools, maps are taken to be very scientific and are a trusted source of information (Harley 1988). Maps of sites like Great Zimbabwe have consistently left out evidence of settlement after the abandonment of Great Zimbabwe by freez- ing its history between the 12th and 15th centuries. Sacred spaces within Great Zimbabwe have never been mapped as the focus is on producing documentation for the conservation of stonewalls. Great Zimbabwe is described as a 720 ha estate with monumental archaeological remains, and mapping of archaeological resources often ends at boundary fences. These maps thus perpetuate the idea that only material heritage is significant enough to be preserved in such cultural landscapes. To postcolonial communities in Africa, Asia and the Americas, the term archaeological site is also problematic as the materiality, which it empathises, is only one aspect of heritage. It is not only a term that defines space as a frozen landscape but brings in connotation of control and governance that came with the colonial experience that shaped these landscapes (Martin 2011). Landscapes in Africa, and indeed in other parts of the world, are living landscapes where nature, people and other non-human, nonliving things interact harmoniously to create an equilibrium in which everything can thrive (Fig. 5.1). Tourism’s focus on the monumentality of place does not respect the continued use of the landscape by communities. In fact, this continued use of a cultural landscape can be incompatible with tourism in most postcolonial nations (Joseph and Kavoori 2001). At Great Zimbabwe, the use of the landscape for traditional

www.TourismB.ir 5 The Tyranny of Materiality: Sacred Landscapes, Tourism and Community Narratives 47

Fig. 5.1 Monumental walls are the focus of conservation at Great Zimbabwe. (Source: Author)

religious ceremonies is sanctioned, and the site’s World Heritage status and its conservation are used to justify this. The difference in perceptions between the heritage managers and communities living near Great Zimbabwe discussed below illustrates the divergent approaches to understanding the cultural landscape around the site (Fig. 5.2).

Great Zimbabwe: The Descriptions

Officially, Great Zimbabwe is described as a ‘national monument’ covering over ‘800 hectare estate’ and can be ‘divided into three groups: the Hill Ruins, the Great Enclosure and the Valley Ruins’ (http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/364). In a description given to UNESCO and which is also common in guidebooks, Great Zimbabwe ‘existed between 1000 and 1450 AD’. In other words, Great Zimbabwe has established boundaries both physically and chronologically. These boundaries cannot be breached as they are proven ‘scientifically’. This World Heritage is one of the most documented with aerial photographs, photographs of every wall within the site on glass plate negatives, terrestrial maps, as well as satellite images. All these focus on the monumental stonewalls and the archaeological remains. It is also interesting that archaeological maps of Great Zimbabwe do not cross the fence of the estate (Fig. 5.3). This is not only an abbreviation of the actual Great Zimbabwe landscape but is also a separation of people and their sacred landscape. The areas of interest include the

www.TourismB.ir 48 A. Sinamai

Fig. 5.2 Map of Great Zimbabwe: showing stonewalls and infrastructure

Hill Complex, where stonewalls easily blend into boulders which are used as part of the architecture. With its difficult climb, the Hill Complex receives at least 70% of all visitors to Great Zimbabwe. The story of Great Zimbabwe also includes the later colonial myths about King Solomon and Queen of Sheba but ignores the local narratives told by communities living near it. Considering how the cultural landscape is interpreted at Great Zimbabwe, the site is a well-known destination frequented by visitors from elsewhere, while locals are restricted in how they interact with it. Preservation of the monumental heritage becomes more important than the dignity of the people who have lived within this landscape. The Great Enclosure touted as ‘the largest single ancient building in Africa, south of the Sahara’, is the most accessible building of Great Zimbabwe. With its towering walls (Fig. 5.1), this structure is perhaps the most photographed part of the World Heritage site. The Valley Ruins are ‘scattered around’ the valley between the Hill Complex and the Great Enclosure and are interpreted as an interesting addition to the two major built-up areas. To the manager of the site (National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe (NMMZ)), there are some intangible elements associated to Great Zimbabwe, which are best preserved by the community. The Hill Complex may be sacred, but the demand by communities for tourists to remove their shoes

www.TourismB.ir 5 The Tyranny of Materiality: Sacred Landscapes, Tourism and Community Narratives 49

Fig. 5.3 ‘Archaeological map’ of Great Zimbabwe. Note how archaeologically sensitive areas end at the fence line (GZ Conservation Centre) before climbing up the hill has been ignored by NMMZ for years as it makes tourists unconformable. Intangible heritage is ignored as it could clash with the requirements of the much needed tourists as well as the national narrative which claim that the present Zimbabwe is a natural successor of Great Zimbabwe. In postcolonial discourses, Great Zimbabwe is the primordial source of modern Zimbabwe. The government builds its narrative of ‘unity of purpose’ with the site. It has held music galas with modern bands on Unity Day (21st December) and political meetings which local communities have complained about as this is a disturbance to the sacred soundscape (Sinamai 2017). Before the current political and economic problems, Great Zimbabwe attracted modest 150,000 visitors. Considering that it is not as well marketed as Victoria Falls (which has over 500,000 visitors), a number of visitors to the site are quite significant. Its potential to attract foreign and domestic visitors makes it a valuable asset for the government.

Great Zimbabwe from Local Narratives

For local communities, however, Dzimbabwe is not a bounded piece of land but a centre of a cosmological network that creates an ontologically secure environment for people, nature and the non-human elements. Though it has stonewalls, it is not

www.TourismB.ir 50 A. Sinamai only the monumental walls that are valued. It is the spaces enclosed by the stonewalls that are important as well as other natural elements found within this and the much larger landscape. The whole area which the ‘archaeological site’ covers is sacred. ‘Dzimbabwe’ is thus the centre of a cultural landscape that extends outside the borders of the expert-delineated ‘estate’. There are several sacred places which communities claim are connected to the site. One community narrative claims that two pots walked from Great Zimbabwe to mountains and springs that surround Great Zimbabwe. All these springs and mountains are sacred and are connected to Great Zimbabwe. None of these places (including Great Zimbabwe), however, is regarded as more sacred than the other, and their ‘religious health’ depends on how each of them is managed (Interview: L. Manwa 2016). Each of these places thus suffers when one of them is negatively impacted by, for instance, development. The elements of the landscape are connected through ‘tunnels’ that are said to begin in the Eastern Enclosure of the Hill Complex. The connections were enhanced by the ‘walking pots’ that visited water sources and mountains towards the rain season. The pots visited springs, rivers and mountains before coming back to Great Zimbabwe. On their arrival at Great Zimbabwe, the rainy season would begin. According to these narratives, Great Zimbabwe also has entrances that can be opened and locked through rituals. To the south-east of the Hill Complex is a place named Mujejeje, which is a quartz intrusion on granite, situated 400 m in the eastern limits of the Valley Ruins (East Ruin) one such entrance (see below Fig. 5.4). For travellers travelling into or through Great Zimbabwe, this threshold is not crossed without carrying out a ritual. Individuals reaching this point in the course of their travel to Great Zimbabwe have to pick up a stone and tap it along the line, murmuring a prayer to the ancestors and seek permission to enter the sacred space.

Fig. 5.4 Mujejeje, an intrusive quartz on granite which is regarded as the sacred entrance to Great Zimbabwe. (Source: Author)

www.TourismB.ir 5 The Tyranny of Materiality: Sacred Landscapes, Tourism and Community Narratives 51

Fig. 5.5 The conception of landscape mapped through community narratives. (Drawn by T Mashamaire GZ)

As a sacred spot, one would expect that NMMZ also protected it. However, the place was recently vandalised in the presence of NMMZ workers who did not inter- vene because their work only involves monitoring of stonewalls. There is also a myth about a sacred perennial spring in which a young girl disappeared and returned as a medium. It is from this spring that water for all religious ceremonies was collected. This spring was sealed off and gum trees planted in its headwaters to reduce water in a golf course developed during the colonial period. Great Zimbabwe being the centre of the cultural landscape is linked to all narratives told about the sacred places around it. Being linked to all the narratives, it is the centre of a cosmological network that gives ontological security to the communities. This description of Great Zimbabwe is not packaged for tourists, and many walk through the very sacred areas without any knowledge of their existence (Fig. 5.5).

Fire and Water? Tourism and Sacred Landscapes

The differences between these descriptions of Great Zimbabwe from the managers of the site and from the community show the dichotomies that exist at archaeological sites that are also destinations (Ndoro 2005). They show that sacred landscapes are difficult to manage as tourist destinations. At Uluru Kata-Tjuta (Australia), for example, the Anangu people have their own narratives about it. These narratives

www.TourismB.ir 52 A. Sinamai from ‘the Dreaming’ show how the place became sacred through conflicts that spilled blood, mixing it with soil. The earth in anger rose above the normal ground to create the red hills (Mountford 1965). What is significant, however, is that all the stories show movement towards Uluru an important source of resources (shelter, water, food) in this harsh desert environment. Uluru has, however, transitioned from being a sacred site to a property owned by a multicultural nation. In one debate about climbing Uluru, European-Australian brings out not only the arrogance of colonial dominance but also the demands of tourism: Uluru is the exposed tip of a sedimentary rock called arkose. The rock was formed from eroding mountains and then compressed by a shallow sea about 500 million years ago.’ ……. If a cultural group wishes to attribute a creation story and sacred status to the rock, it is entitled to that viewpoint. However, we supposedly live in a secular society with a separation of church and state. If others wish to climb a sedimentary rock and enjoy what is truly a memorable experience, they should also be entitled to do so . . . (Ricci 2009) With this statement, Uluru is stripped of all its narratives, and the intimate bond between land and people is replaced by ‘scientific knowledge’ and rules of modern governance. He also points out what archaeologists do wrongly: a lack of sensitivity towards the intangible. All the information he quoted was made available by the park authority. Though it provides similar information about the sacredness of Uluru, it still allows people to climb. The same attitudes are displayed at Great Zimbabwe as well. Great Zimbabwe is described in archaeological phases without any references to people. Local communities are denied access through fees, colonial trespass laws and physical demarcations, and the landscape loses the stories that map it. This ‘mismanagement’ of the landscape affects the sacred spaces and erodes the confidence of the communities who view it as the centre of their existence. It is not surprising that communities blame their misfortunes on how this landscape is managed (Fig. 5.6). Although there are obvious benefits from tourism, the value of these benefits fade if that tourism affects communal confidence. Tourism provides a fleeting experience of heritage, and it is unethical for heritage managers in Africa to put the demands of tourists above those of the local communities. At Great Zimbabwe, like in other parts of the world, it has become difficult to balance the needs of the communities with the demands of governance (Sinamai 2014). How can we balance the social needs of communities and the voracious and arrogant demands of tourism? Are tourism opportunities more important to the social well-being of the communities? Is ‘common good’ only realised when cultural landscapes are used by the publics defined by distant organisations? Is the single-narrative interpretation of landscapes the most effective way to impart information about cultural heritage places? A community that can express itself through heritage is confident of itself and its future. Management of sites like Great Zimbabwe is not democratic, and communities cannot contribute to how the landscape is preserved and interpreted. This means that the interpretations are not sensitive to the beliefs of the communities in respect to the Great Zimbabwe landscape. Narratives embody environmental and cultural information give insights into community perceptions of the cultural landscape. The traditional narratives also mark a claim to cultural rights to a heritage place, and their recognition improves stakeholder participation.

www.TourismB.ir 5 The Tyranny of Materiality: Sacred Landscapes, Tourism and Community Narratives 53

Fig. 5.6 Colonial tourist landscape map of Great Zimbabwe. (Source: Great Zimbabwe Conservation Centre)

Legislations are an extension of state discipline, and if that legislation is not democratic, communities will not have the channels to communicate their grievances and the power to influence conservation ideologies. This creates socially bruised communities with less confidence in themselves and is socially weakened by the suppression of their cultural right to perform traditional rights within the landscape. Giddens (1991) argues that communities need a social structure to get a sense of order and an expectation of a better future. This sense of order gives them confidence about who they are and how they should behave in certain situations. When communities are denied their heritage, because through tourism, they lose their social structures and become less confident about themselves and their future. For example, when the ownership of Great Zimbabwe was taken from the community by the colonial government, not only land was lost; they also lost an experience. They could not perform ceremonies and experience religion at the site, and the landscape became disconnected. Great Zimbabwe, the centre of this sacred landscape, became desecrated through unhindered access and unplanned tourism and associated sacred places also suffered (Sinamai 2015: 26). Communities have thus lost their cultural programming through the alienation of their cultural heritage. This situation mir- rored to a greater or lesser extends at many similar sites across the world. Leaders of these communities lost their power to maintain the structures that kept the communities together, and people lost confidence in their own religion.

www.TourismB.ir 54 A. Sinamai

Fig. 5.7 A map of the sacred places at Great Zimbabwe. (Source: Author)

Conservation became an excuse for denying local people to use the landscape. If cultural programming is important for communities, heritage managers at Great Zimbabwe should be managing not only the archaeological landscape but also the psychological well-being of the communities that culturally depend on it. There is a lot of enthusiasm from communities to tell their stories and see them being included in interpretative programmes, but no one seems to be listening. As a result, there is a simmering discontent among the communities who feel that management is essentially desecration of a wider sacred landscape. This erosion of the community’s confidence has continued as heritage managers have failed to appreciate the impact of their work on communities (Fig. 5.7). In terms of preservation, NMMZ has developed expertise in the conservation of these monumental stonewalls. Walls are closely monitored, and any movement of the wall (measured in microns) is recorded with strain gauges and total stations. Areas that experience more tourist traffic are usually the major focus of these conservation efforts. Sacred areas (whose ‘erosion’ is easier and faster) are on the other hand ignored in this conservation process.

Conclusions

Narratives can assist in alternative and interesting interpretation of landscapes and also create an understanding of what communities value in landscapes. They can also make archaeologists understand values beyond the usual divisions of tangible and intangible heritage that are emphasised in heritage studies. The visual

www.TourismB.ir 5 The Tyranny of Materiality: Sacred Landscapes, Tourism and Community Narratives 55 experience need not be more emphasised at the expense of the intimate connections between people and their environment. The terms ‘archaeological park’, ‘national monument’, ‘recreation park’ and ‘tourist destination’ emerge out of this limited understanding of the holistic approach that communities often have on cultural landscape. It hasn’t helped that most archaeologists working in Africa have become culturally illiterate through training within the same Western philosophies that alienated communities in the first place. In Africa nature is not an empty slate on which ‘man’ writes his existence but an actor that reacts to man’s use and abuse of the landscape. When heritage managers fail to understand this, conflicts develop at many of these sites, and we fail to find ways to preserve the intangible heritage of the place. Because of the tyranny of materiality, the soundscape and the sacred places within and outside of Great Zimbabwe have been eroded through the emphasis on the needs of those who experience the heritage for fleeting moments, the tourists (Sinamai 2017). The fact that communities are much more sensitive to the changes within the landscape means that their knowledge should be central in the conservation of Great Zimbabwe. Tourism may be a solution to some of the acute needs of African communities, but it needs not to come with ignorance. These problems are not unique to Great Zimbabwe; many organisations that manage heritage places rarely or genuinely engage in stakeholder participation with the aim to democratise management and governance of these cultural places. This failure to engage maintains power within the state-linked organisation, but the negative side of it is that the archaeology disciplines are not enlightened by the narratives of place and miss the opportunity to enhance conservation and interpretation processes.

Acknowledgement The research leading to these results has received funding from the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions of the European Union’s Horizon 2020 under REA grant No. 661210 (METAPHOR).

References

Da Silva, V. (2008). The archaeology of intangible heritage. New York: Peter Lang Publishers. S.F. Eder, D. (2010). Life lessons through storytelling: Children’s exploration of ethics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity. Harley, J. B. (1988). Maps knowledge and power. In D. Cosgrove & S. Daniels (Eds.), The iconog- raphy of landscape (pp. 277–312). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Joseph, C. A., & Kavoori, A. P. (2001). Mediated resistance: Tourism and the host community. Annals of Tourism Reseach, 28(4), 998–1009. Kaufmann, N. (2013). Putting intangible heritage in Its place(s): Proposal for policy and practice. International Journal of Intangible Heritage, 8, 19–26. Martin, J. (2011). Genius of place: The life of Frederick Law Olmsted. Abolitionist, conservationist and designer of Central Park. Cambridge, MA: Merloyd Lawrence Books. Mountford, C. P. (1965). Ayers rock. Its people their beliefs and their art. Sydney: Angus and Robertson.

www.TourismB.ir 56 A. Sinamai

Ndoro, W. (2005). The preservation of great Zimbabwe: Your monument our shrine. Rome: ICCROM. Sinamai, A. (2014). An un-inherited past: Preserving the Khami world heritage site, Zimbabwe. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Deakin University. Sinamai, A. (2015). Understanding metaphors in sustaining cultural landscapes within traditional societies in Australia and Zimbabwe. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 30(2), 17–27. Sinamai, A. (2017). Melodies of God: The significance of the soundscape in conserving the Great Zimbabwe landscape. Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage, doi:https://doi.org/10. 1080/20518196.2017.1323823 Spirn, A. W. (1998). The language of landscape. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze: Leisure and travel in contemporary societies. London: Sage Publications. Waterton, E., & Watson, S. (2014). The semiotics of heritage tourism. Ontario: Chanel View Publication.

Web Resources http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/364 Ricci, C. (2009 July 10). Between the rock and sacred place. The Age. http://www.smh. com.au/national/education/between-a-rock-and-a-sacred-place-20090716-dmoa. html#ixzz3i8GQeTMd

www.TourismB.ir Chapter 6 Sustainable Archaeological Tourism Through Standards for Good Practice

Cynthia Dunning Thierstein

Introduction

The aim of this paper is to understand the meaning of sustainable archaeological heritage tourism and its assets. One of the essential steps towards sustainable archaeological heritage tourism is the development of guidelines and codes of good practice for the implementation of tourism projects in archaeology (Dunning 2014: 221). Therefore I shall try to briefly define the situation of archaeological heritage tourism within public archaeology and understand the different principles that are crucial for successful tourism management in archaeology as they are defined in the ICOMOS International Cultural Tourism Charter of 1999. This paper is a continuation of the reflections held during the session Tourism and Archaeology at the EAA Annual conference on September 10–14, 2014, in Istanbul (Turkey).

Definitions

To speak about sustainable archaeological heritage tourism best practices, it is useful to first establish links between public archaeology, the currently used conventions on heritage and tourism as well as the principles of sustainability. Public archaeology is generally defined as the practice of presenting archaeological data and interpretations of this data to the public (Public Archaeology, 2015). But, as Neal Ascherson explained in his editorial to the first volume of the journal

1 This paper is the German adaption of a conference held at the session Tourism and Archaeology at the EAA Annual conference on the 10–14 September 2014 in Istanbul (Turkey). C. Dunning Thierstein (*) ArchaeoConcept, Biel/Bienne, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected]

www.TourismB.ir 58 C. Dunning Thierstein

Public Archaeology (2000: 1–4), public archaeology is much more than that: it is also about ethics, the understanding of archaeology as an opening towards many societal themes such as integration, differentiation, ecology, economic or even political development. Observing much of the activities that have been undertaken in this sense since the beginning of the twenty-first century (e.g., Freedman et al. 2011; Gould and Burtenshaw 2014 in the case of tourism and economy), I continue to believe that public archaeology concerns almost every action archaeologists undertake, as well as how he or she does it. Since it is stipulated in the ICOMOS International Cultural Tourism Charter of 1999 (2002) that archaeological heritage, being an important part of cultural heritage, has an intrinsic value for all, access to it should be a right, which is of course accompanied by responsibilities, such as those considering the respect of practices and traditions and the rights of the local communities towards this heritage. The Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (Council of Europe Faro Convention of 2005) goes one step further since it promotes more specifically the meaning of cultural heritage for society than the objects or sites themselves. This convention is not only important for the European countries, but serves as an example for the global scale comprehension of the future management of cultural heritage. Therefore, developing appropriate management regimes for archaeological sites, in compliance with valid international and national charters and standards, becomes extremely important (Comer 2014). To understand archaeological heritage and to show that its assets are valuable for society, the message conveyed must be appropriate, which means authentic and of quality, based on research and understanding. There are many ways to learn about heritage, either through education or through other forms of transmission, and tourism plays an essential role in this process. The definition of archaeological heritage tourism is based on the description of heritage tourism which considers travelling to experience places, artefacts and activities which authentically represent stories and people of the past but also provide understanding of contemporary ways of life and societies. Tourism in relation with heritage and in particular with monuments and sites is a challenging exercise and requires much attention and intuition. There is probably no single way to manage a touristic project in relationship with an archaeological site, but defining standards of good practice may help to avoid worst case scenarios. Developing these standards is one of the main aims of ICAHM and should be done in collaboration with other ICOMOS scientific committees, in particular the International Cultural Tourism Committee (ICTC) that has already developed the ICOMOS International Cultural Tourism Charter which was accepted in Mexico in 1999 (2002).2

2 The ICOMOS International Cultural Tourism Charter of 1999 (2002) is currently under review. An international symposium and workshop has taken place in Florence leading to an ICOMOS ICTC Florence Declaration 2017.

www.TourismB.ir 6 Sustainable Archaeological Tourism Through Standards for Good Practice 59

POLITICS ECONOMY

MANAGEMENT

Protection & Training and Preservation Research

Cooperation and Quality and Exchange Authenticity

Interpretation

SOCIAL CULTURAL FACTORS FACTORS

Archaeological tourism project

Fig. 6.1 The implementation of archaeological tourism projects demands a sustainable management of the archaeological sites, which includes training, preservation and protection, quality and authenticity, relevant and enjoyable interpretation respectful for the place and the people and cooperation and exchange between all partners, including community involvement. Outer factors influencing this management are politics, economy and social and cultural aspects

Effective and sustainable archaeological tourism can be based on several principles, some of which have already been successfully applied to heritage tourism in different countries. For instance, the ICOMOS International Cultural Tourism Charter defines six principles, to be applied to the management of heritage and now also to archaeological sites. The American National Trust for Historic Preservation (2015) redefines these principles in a more practical way. All in all, they correspond to values that are continuously present in the discussions of public archaeology. The implementation of an archaeological heritage tourism project demands sustainable management of the archaeological sites, which includes training, preservation and protection, quality and authenticity, relevant and enjoyable interpretation respectful for the place and the people and cooperation and exchange between all partners, including community involvement. All these principles are related to one another. External factors influencing this management are politics (including legal and administrative factors), economy and social and cultural aspects (Fig. 6.1).

www.TourismB.ir 60 C. Dunning Thierstein

Sustainable Site Management and Tourism

As mentioned before, access to archaeological heritage – and to any heritage – is a right for all. Therefore it must be managed in a way that this right is not only guaranteed in the present but may also be given onwards to future generations. This right is accompanied by responsibilities which are an integral part of the management including measures of preservation and protection; ensuring quality and the authenticity as elements most important for the sustainability of the site; offering opportunities of research and training to develop interpretations and activities adapted to a very diverse public; controlling the message(s) that should be conveyed; encouraging community involvement so that mutual respect between visitors and the local population become a way of life and benefits from tourism allow the development of the host community; and enhancing cooperation, dialogue and exchange between all stakeholders working on the development of archaeological tourism projects. Site managers must also see to the omnipresent economic and sociocultural challenges, guaranteeing a financial longevity, adapting to the visitor’s requests on one side and those of the archaeological site on the other and never forgetting the needs of the local community.

Training and Research

Sustainable site management must answer the increasing necessities triggered by tourism, like appropriate protection and preservation, suitable interpretation for the different sorts of visitors possibly coming from around the world, and communication with partners of all kinds. This demands cross-cultural and interdisciplinary training (Jameson 2007: 216). Since archaeological tourism is also closely associated with economic development, archaeologists and site managers need to learn the skills necessary to overcome the challenges that this development will bring (Gould and Burtenshaw 2014: 8). Universities do not offer this particular education, nor are other cultural vocational training courses adapted for this particular situation. Long-life learning could help address this issue.

Preservation and Protection

The preservation and protection of an archaeological site open to the public is usually the uppermost concern of any archaeologist. Not only degradation due to time and natural dangers continuously worry the site manager, but also the uses made of the site and vandalism may irreversibly destroy the site. Therefore protection and conservation measures are vital when striving towards sustainable management of an archaeological site. It is important to remind oneself that the archaeological site

www.TourismB.ir 6 Sustainable Archaeological Tourism Through Standards for Good Practice 61 with its (hidden) features is the most important asset, and without it, there will be no values, no interest, no visitors and no tourism. All efforts to communicate through tourism must consider the protection of the archaeological site, and the balance between preservation and promotion must be kept, juggling between the priorities of archaeological management and the needs of tourism. Some of these decisions based on the ultimate protection of the sites may limit their accessibility, such as in the caves of Lascaux or Altamira, thus provoking other ways of presenting a site, in these cases through reconstitutions or museum exhibitions. To reduce the effects of depredations, regular controls and the presence of guardians or guides and acute management of the visitor flow may have an effect, but information about the value of the sites may influence in a deeper way the visitor’s behaviour and introduce respect for the heritage as well as for the people working and living there (McKercher and du Cros 2010: 224–225). Sometimes, and particularly on sites with high visitor frequency and a corresponding infrastructure, the natural dangers, which are already present, may be magnified and have to be dealt with in a global scale. Consequently, as Jameson (2007: 216) mentions, archaeological tourism projects definitely need conservation-driven decision-making when being put up so that their preservation is ensured.

Quality and Authenticity

The authenticity of any archaeological site lies in its uniqueness and genuineness but also in the reflection it gives on the cultural historical contexts it reveals. Authenticity should not only apply to the tangible heritage but also to the information collected on the site and its scientific interpretation including the understanding of the sociocultural and sacred aspects that may still link local populations to this particular heritage source. Authenticity is a variable and its comprehension differs from one person to another in relation to his knowledge and education (see also Doyle, Chap. 9, this volume). Therefore, it may not fit in with reality (McKercher and du Cros 2010: 73). Thus it is important for the archaeologist or site manager to determine what authenticity in the case of his site means and how it can be communicated. This is particularly important on sites where the presentation used for touristic purposes tends to reflect the image of the visitors’ culture rather than its own (Glover 2008: 114 cited in Montgomery 2013: 4) (see also Sinamai, Chap. 5, this volume). The participation with local artisans in the reconstructions proposed on certain sites or in the reconstitutions of daily life as they are represented, for example, in numerous Viking Age sites of Northern Europe (Fig. 6.2), is a good way to make a connexion between the local population and the site. But discussions on techniques and customs between archaeologists and contemporary artisans are a must (Volken and Zuberbühler 2013: 67–68). Authenticity and quality are therefore intimately linked, meaning that the experiences proposed must be solidly anchored in professional knowledge and that continuous training of all partners is guaranteed (see Pawleta, Chap. 11, this volume).

www.TourismB.ir 62 C. Dunning Thierstein

Fig. 6.2 Explaining spinning and weaving techniques in the site museum of Fyrkat (Denmark) (Photo C. Dunning)

Not only scientific facts and tangible objects contribute to authenticity. The first impression of a visitor, the emotions he feels, can also be considered as an expression towards authenticity (McKercher and du Cros 2010: 77). Considering the competition in the offer, knowledge about the quality and authenticity of it will help the tourist to select the best proposition for a successful visit (McKercher and du Cros 2010: 127).

Relevant and Enjoyable Interpretation Respectful to the Place and the People

Touloupa defines interpretation as the public communication of perceptions and values attached to heritage (2010: 4). She assigns it as a main component of cultural tourism. This is also true for archaeological tourism. As mentioned above, the speci- ficity of a site, expressed by its special aspects, is its main asset and a guarantee of its authenticity; but a site may carry many histories, depending on the standpoints of researchers (and site managers) and the information an excavation and its study have brought. Local communities can also contribute in developing narratives linked to the site. Interpretation must reflect the specificities of the archaeological

www.TourismB.ir 6 Sustainable Archaeological Tourism Through Standards for Good Practice 63 site in a way that includes as many viewpoints as possible. Interpretation has to make these viewpoints understandable for the visitor, wherever he may come from (Jameson 2007: 215). Shanks describes archaeology as being a vector of emotions and feelings and stresses on the importance of the experiences it allows to convey (1992: 7). And since the goal of heritage tourism is to “harness people’s fascination” as Jameson puts it (2007: 216), archaeology can be a treasure trove for the development of touristic products (commodification). Having this in mind, we can consider the principles McKercher and du Cros (2010: 216–217) cite from Ham for successful interpretation in cultural tourism: Tourists want to learn through experiences and stories and not be taught in a traditional academic way. This demands particular knowledge, imagination and novelty from the archaeologist to make this experience enjoyable, understandable, relevant and easy to follow. Also not all visitors have the same ambitions when tour- ing a site. Therefore, the needs of these eclectic visitors have to be considered at all times, and different activities should be offered to satisfy them. Kagermeier (2014: 5) expresses this in a synopsis connecting cognitive, emotional and explorative elements as well as social interaction (Fig. 6.3).

STAGING

PERCEPTIONS

COGNITIVE EMOTIONS ELEMENTS HIGH QUALIT Y NS IMAGES

EXPERIENCE Y LOW QUALIT EXPECTATIO

SOCIAL EXPLORATIONS INTERACTIONS

KNOWLEDGE

AUTHENTICITY

Fig. 6.3 Tabular presentation of elements necessary for staging touristic experiences in archaeology (After Kagermeier 2014: 5)

www.TourismB.ir 64 C. Dunning Thierstein

This applies not only to remarkable archaeological sites, which attract the most tourists, but also smaller ones that sometimes need not envy their bigger brothers! Projects using experience oriented tourism have been carried out in Roman age sites in Vindonissa (Switzerland) and in Trier (Germany) with quite some success (Kagermeier 2014: 6; Pauli-Gabi 2013: 82–91). A challenge particular to archaeological sites in relation to tourism is their invis- ibility (Willems and Dunning 2015). After the nomination of the mostly underwater “Pile dwelling sites around the Alps” as UNESCO World Heritage, new visualisation techniques, such as smartphone applications, have been used to overcome this problem (Thurnherr 2013: 93–97). This technology is also very helpful when sites are widespread as in the case of the Roman frontier (Schafranski 2014: 10–14). In any case, the interpretation of sites should include historical and cultural elements that link it directly to the local population in order to ensure that the host community can take cultural ownership of the site and use the cultural assets to develop economic or social benefits (Jameson 2007: 216).

Cooperation and Exchange Between All Partners

Archaeological heritage tourism is based on cooperation between site managers, archaeologists, tourism specialists, local governments, commercial promoters and other stakeholders such as schools and universities, associations and representatives of the local communities (Jameson 2007: 216; McKercher and du Cros 2010: 57). All these groups have their own visions and desires, and it is certainly not easy to satisfy everybody. Thus, it is necessary to learn about the needs of all these different stakeholders and communicate about them openly. On a local level, cooperation means developing political, economic and social support and resource gathering. Regional partnerships are most useful to develop regional themes, to expand marketing possibilities and to pool resources. Local communities (meaning their political and economic representatives all the way down to the single persons) are therefore very important partners, and it is absolutely essential to involve them in archaeological heritage tourism (Jameson 2007: 216). There are many reasons for the involvement of local communities. Economy is one of them: income generated by entrance fees, selling of souvenirs as well as local accommodation and restaurants may contribute to support the community. But of course, the balance between protection and preservation of the archaeological site and the economic benefits for the local population coming from tourism has to be closely monitored. It must also be considered that the particularity of most archaeological sites is the difference of time between the period represented and the present, making it sometimes more difficult for the local population to identify itself with the site, especially in places with a very eventful past. This therefore asks for a more demanding interpretation and long-term communication between the archaeologists and the resident community.

www.TourismB.ir 6 Sustainable Archaeological Tourism Through Standards for Good Practice 65

The relationship to the site may also strengthen the local community’s identity (or identities) and provide empowerment for tourism. Political interest may grow and with it a willingness to free public financing to develop cultural assets around the site. Private initiatives are also essential, since they can cover shortcomings of local governments (Un pasado con futuro. De la arqueología al patrimonio mundial, 2013). There is a danger though that only a privileged part of the population takes advantage of these opportunities, leaving the neediest out. Heritage tourism investment must include all members of the local communities. Public consultation may be a way to develop interest and as a result empowerment. It is well known that heritage tourism and in particular archaeological sites were (and still are) used to underline certain colonial policies (Thornton 2012). Archaeological sites of importance which are envisioned as touristic destinations may, in some countries like Myanmar or China, be a reason of local population exclusion (Montgomery 2013: 6). The relationship with tourism partners is also essential. Archaeologists need to promote the knowledge resulting from their research, not only locally but on a broader level as well. The bigger the audience, the more archaeology and its results will be considered politically as well as economically. The tourism industry can certainly give a helping hand, generating new audiences and requesting new ways of information dissemination (Castañeda and Mathews 2013: 47). Forced to continuously develop the market, the tourism industry has been redis- covering heritage. Historical events, popular representations and genuine narratives are increasingly important, and archaeology through the authentic experiences it can offer makes an excellent basis for cooperation between the two fields. At the conference “Archaeology and Tourism in Switzerland” held in 2012 in in Thun (Switzerland),3 a workshop dedicated to the collaboration between these different partners, including archaeologists, universities and archaeological groups, tourism specialists and the industry (hotels, restaurants, etc.) as well as “multipliers” like media and schools, concluded that collaboration had to concentrate itself above all on communication and training (Mäder and Siegrist 2013: 37–40). This brings us to the roles of these multipliers, which would most naturally be the media, as a means of disseminating information on different projects (which become touristic products) not only on a local level but beyond the borders through specialised magazines. It is important for the archaeologists to spread the word, although it has to be done in a comprehensible way so that visitors feel attracted to the offer. Schools have always been the main visitors of archaeological sites. Not only because the sites express elements of history that are addressed in school, but the

3 During the conference on archaeology and tourism in Switzerland held in Thun (Switzerland) from the 8–10 November 2102, four workshops thought about collaboration between tourism specialists and archaeologists, the development of tourist products in relation with archaeology in Switzerland, public relations and marketing of archaeological sites and the links between authenticity, traditions and customs. The results were published a year later (Dunning and Willems 2013)

www.TourismB.ir 66 C. Dunning Thierstein techniques used by the archaeologists fascinate since they touch all sorts of domains taught in school (biology, chemistry, etc.). What the children bring back from their visits is usually shared with their families, and these are amongst the most loyal visitors when sites are open for the public.

Conclusions

Of course archaeological heritage tourism touches many more realms than those suggested through the principles outlined in this paper. But already these reflect the intimate relationship existing with public archaeology. Archaeological heritage tourism seems to be one of the ways, and maybe the most successful, to reach out to all people, from near or far, who wish to understand what archaeology is about, and maybe even convince such people, who do not find it as interesting, to understand the issues linked to archaeology: political, economic or social. But it is most important that archaeological heritage tourism project managers understand the decisions and consequences of each action taken. Therefore, I believe it is most important to start thinking about directives or at least codes of good practice for tourism projects taking in account the principles mentioned above. Communication and collaboration should stimulate the gathering of all partners who, together, can establish effective sustainable management of archaeological heritage tourism, responding not only to the demands of the tourism industry, the archaeologists, or to those of every visitor interested in archaeology, wherever he or she may come from, as well as the local communities who welcome them.

References

American National Trust for Historic Preservation. http://www.preservationnation.org/information-center/economics-of-evitalization/heritage-tourism/#.VAly-WNBnao. Accessed 8 Jan 2015. Ascherson, N. (2000). Editorial. Public Archaeology, 1(1), 1–4. Castañeda, Q. E., & Mathews, J. P. (2013). Archaeology meccas of tourism: Exploration, protection, and exploitation. In C. Walker & N. Carr (Eds.), Tourism and archaeology: Sustainable meeting grounds (pp. 37–64). Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, Inc. Comer, D. C. (2014). Threats to the archaeological heritage in the Laissez-Faire world of tourism: The need for global standards as a global public good. Public Archaeology, 13(1–3), 123–134. Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society. (Faro, 27.10.2005). http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/ rms/0900001680083746. Accessed 19 Sep 2017. Dunning, C. (2014). Europäische Richtlinien für Archäologie und Tourismus – Ein Versuch. Blickpunkt Archäologie, 2014(4), 21–26. Dunning, C., & Willems, A. (2013). ArchaeoTourism. Archäologie und Tourismus in der Schweiz / Archéologie et tourisme en Suisse. Biel/Bienne: ArchaeoTourism2012. Freedman, M., Antil, T., & Gagnon, J.-P. (2011). De la mise en valeur du patrimoine au développe- ment durable. Direction de l’évaluation et de l’analyse stratégique du ministère du Tourisme du

www.TourismB.ir 6 Sustainable Archaeological Tourism Through Standards for Good Practice 67

Québec. Téoros (en ligne), 30-2/2011, mis en ligne le 1.11.2013. http://teoros.revues.org/1947. Accessed 19 Sep 2015. Glover, N. (2008). Co-produced histories: Mapping the uses and narratives of history in the tourist age. The Public Historian, 30(1), 105–124. Gould, P. G., & Burtenshaw, P. (2014). Guest editorial. Archaeology and economic development. Public Archaeology, 13(1–3), 3–9. International Cultural Tourism Charter (ICOMOS). Principles and guidelines for managing tourism at places of cultural and heritage significance. International council on monuments and sites ICOMOS International Cultural Tourism Committee December 2002. http://www.icomos.no/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/ICTC-Charter.pdf. Accessed 19 Sept 2017 Jameson, J. H., Jr. (2007). Towards an inclusive public heritage. In N. Silberman & C. Liuzza (Eds.), Interpreting the past, volume IV. Who owns the past? heritage rights and responsibilities in a multicultural world (pp. 211–219). Brussels: Flemish Heritage Institute Province of East Flanders and Ename Center for Public Archaeology and Heritage Presentation. Kagemeier, A. (2014). Zeitreise zu den Römern – Erlebnisorientierung als Erfolgsfaktor für die Besucheransprache. Blickpunkt Archäologie, 2014(4), 4–9. Mäder, A., & Siegrist, D. (2013). Archäologie und Tourismus. Nutzen und Vorteile. In C. Dunning & A. Willems (Eds.), ArchaeoTourism. Archäologie und Tourismus in der Schweiz / Archéologie et tourisme en Suisse (pp. 29–41). Biel/Bienne: ArchaeoTourism2012. McKercher, B., & du Cros, H. (2010). Cultural tourism: The partnership between tourism and cultural heritage management. New York/London: Routledge. Montgomery, P. E. (2013). Bad for good: The impacts of heritage tourism in developing nations. https://www.academia.edu/8855103/Bad_For_Good_The_Impacts_of_Heritage_Tourism_in_ Developing_Nations. Accessed 8 Jan 2015. Pauli-Gabi, T. (2013). Der Römer-Erlebnispark Legionärspfad. Ein Bildungs- und Tourismus- Projekt im Kanton Aargau. In C. Dunning & A. Willems (Eds.), ArchaeoTourism. Archäologie und Tourismus in der Schweiz / Archéologie et tourisme en Suisse (pp. 82–91). Biel/Bienne: ArchaeoTourism2012. Public Archaeology. http://archaeology.about.com/od/pterms/qt/Public-Archaeology.htm. Accessed 8 Jan 2015 Schafranski, F. (2014). Förderung des Kulturtourismus in ländlichen Regionen durch mobile Dienstleistungen. Blickpunkt Archäologie, 2014(4), 10–14. Shanks, M. (1992). Experiencing the past. On the character of archaeology. London/New York: Routledge. Thornton, A. (2012). Editorial: Tourism as a colonial policy? Public Archaeology, 11(4), 165–168. Thurnherr, E. (2013). Der “PalafittesGuide” Die Visualisierung des Unsichtbaren. In C. Dunning & A. Willems (Eds.), ArchaeoTourism. Archäologie und Tourismus in der Schweiz / Archéologie et tourisme en Suisse (pp. 82–91). Biel/Bienne: ArchaeoTourism2012. Touloupa, S. (2010). Casting identity in the cultural tourism industry: Greek tourist guides in a ‘Mission’ of heritage interpretation. Public Archaeology, 9(1), 4–33. Un pasado con futuro. De la arqueología al patrimonio mundial. Dir. Alicia Castillo, Universidad Complutense de Madrid. 2013. DVD. Volken, S., & Zuberbühler, S. (2013). Authentiztät – Tradition – Brauchtum. Ideen und Umsetzungsformen zur Zusammenarbeit im Themenbereich “Tradition und Brauchtum”. In C. Dunning & A. Willems (Eds.), ArchaeoTourism. Archäologie und Tourismus in der Schweiz / Archéologie et tourisme en Suisse (pp. 64–73). Biel/Bienne: ArchaeoTourism2012. Willems, A., & Dunning, C. (2015). Solving the puzzle – The characteristics of archaeological tourism. In M. van den Dries, S. J. van der Linde, & A. Strecker (Eds.), (pp. 68–72). Leiden: Fernweh.

www.TourismB.ir Chapter 7 Archaeotourism, Archaeological Site Preservation, and Local Communities

Ben Thomas and Meredith Langlitz

Introduction

The popularity of archaeotourism—tourism focused on ancient sites, historical places, museums, and other archaeologically connected resources—is growing rapidly. The expansion of archaeotourism exerts substantial pressure on local, state, and national governments and archaeological site managers to develop and open sites for tourism. Increased tourism, however, can easily have a negative impact on archaeological sites if appropriate mitigation measures are not in place prior to the site’s opening. To minimize any negative effects of archaeotourism, all stakeholders including archaeologists, archaeological organizations, conservators, local communities, tourism agencies, and other private and governmental groups responsible for the development, maintenance, and oversight of the site must work together to prepare and implement an effective and inclusive site management plan.1 The sheer number of stakeholders involved with the development of a site often complicates the process. An appropriate site management and development plan has to consider the desires, opinions, and voices of all the stakeholders and balance their needs against the obligation to protect and preserve an archaeological site. Furthermore, stakeholders need to collaborate with one another to continuously monitor heritage sites to identify potential problems and generate appropriate solutions as challenges arise. In this essay, the authors discuss two initiatives undertaken by the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) that contribute to the protection of archaeological sites. The first initiative involved working with a tourism organization to create concise guidelines for visiting archaeological sites. The second redirected the Institute’s Site

1 The importance of sustainable tourism was affirmed by the United Nations’ designation of 2017 as the International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development. B. Thomas (*) · M. Langlitz Archaeological Institute of America, Boston, MA, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

www.TourismB.ir 70 B. Thomas and M. Langlitz

Preservation Program to identify and support projects that employ more sustainable methods of preserving sites by combining traditional conservation with robust outreach and engagement initiatives that raise awareness of preservation issues and involve local communities in the stewardship of cultural heritage.

Archaeotourism

The increase in archaeotourism correlates with the general expansion of global travel. According to the World Tourism Organization, over 1.2 billion tourists criss- crossed the globe in 2016, and this number is projected to grow by 3.3% annually through 2030 (UNWTO 2017). A significant number of these travelers participate in cultural heritage tourism. Cultural heritage tourism focuses on the life, traditions, art, crafts, architecture, religions, and history of the people in a country or region and includes archaeotourism. In 2014, according to the US National Travel and Tourism Office, almost 60% of the travelers entering the USA undertook some form of cultural heritage tourism (NTTO 2015). The economic impact of tourism is well established. In 2016, according to the World Travel and Tourism Council, travel and tourism generated US $7.6 trillion or 10% of global GDP. Tourism accounted for about 292 million (or 1 in 10) jobs globally (WTTC 2017). Several recent publications have highlighted many of the challenges associated with tourism and archaeotourism. One of the most significant and visible issues is that visitation contributes to the physical deterioration of archaeological sites (Comer and Willems 2011), but the popularity and potential economic benefits of archaeotourism exert substantial pressure on countries to open and develop sites for visitors. In a 2011 article, Cesareo Saiz-Jimenez and his co-authors state that despite there being well-documented evidence for the harmful impacts of visitation at Altamira, national authorities in Spain have seriously considered opening the cave and its ancient paintings to visitors in an attempt to increase local tourism (Saiz-Jimenez et al. 2011). Altamira is not alone in facing this type of pressure. As tourism increases and places compete to win larger shares of the industry, the pressure to open more sites will only worsen. Opening a site for tourism, however, does not guarantee the presence of visitors or the generation of revenue. Tourism is a notoriously fickle industry affected by numerous factors including physical and environmental conditions, accessibility concerns, and even changes in attitudes and politics to which even world-renowned sites are not immune. Visitor numbers at the site of Petra in Jordan dropped from a height of 918,136 in 2010 to 410,371 in 2015. The dramatic decrease in tourists can be attributed to the general perception that the region is unsafe because of the activity of groups like ISIL (Porter 2015). Even when sites generate revenue, money is frequently not reinvested in the sites themselves. Sites often are not equipped to handle increased numbers of visitors and lack appropriate mitigation, preservation, and conservation measures (Comer and Willems 2011). Not enough funds are allocated for site improvements, updating

www.TourismB.ir 7 Archaeotourism, Archaeological Site Preservation, and Local Communities 71 infrastructure, or providing more facilities and services at sites. Signs and paths are frequently inadequate or not well maintained. Sometimes there are not enough properly trained guides to give tours of the sites. Tourists often complain about the lack of toilet facilities at a site. Simply not having enough trashcans is a problem. Most significantly, local communities in close proximity to the site often do not benefit directly from the development of the site or share in any of the revenue generated (Camp 2006; Pederson 2002).

Working with the Tourism Industry to Create Guidelines

Established in 1879, the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) is the oldest and largest archaeological organization in North America. Since its founding, the Institute has promoted public understanding of the archaeological record, supported archaeologists and their research, and advocated for the preservation of the world’s archaeological heritage. In 2009, the AIA received an inquiry from the Adventure Travel Trade Association (ATTA).2 The ATTA, a privately held, for-profit industry trade group that promotes responsible and ethical adventure travel, has a global membership of more than 1,000 tour operators, tourism boards, specialty travel agents, guides, and service providers. The ATTA wanted to know if a basic set of guidelines for visiting archaeological sites existed in a format that they could distribute to their members. ATTA Vice President, Chris Doyle, was unhappy with some of the attitudes he had encoun- tered on visits to archaeological sites and felt that visitors were not aware of or educated about the consequences of irresponsible or careless actions. Tour guides were lax in enforcing existing rules and in some cases openly encouraged unethical behavior. A quick examination of the published literature revealed that while groups like UNESCO and ICOMOS had established conventions to govern behavior at archaeological sites, a brief and easily accessible set of guidelines was not readily available for distribution to tourists and tour operators. As a result, the AIA partnered with the ATTA and Archaeology magazine to create the Guide to Best Practices for Archaeological Tourism.3 The guide made the case for responsible tourism, highlighted laws and regulations that govern archaeological tourism, encouraged tour operators and tourists to learn about the cultural history of the areas to which they were traveling, and promoted the idea of maintaining good relationships between tour operators, visitors, and local communities. The three main issues highlighted in the guide were: (a) Archaeological sites and historical places are finite, fragile, and nonrenewable. Often visitors that stray off the path, climb monuments, and go into places that

2 For more information about this collaboration, see intravelmag.com/intravel/interview/ guarding-the-past-an-interview-with-ben-thomas-and-chris-doyle 3 The complete document can be seen at archaeological.org/tourism_guidelines

www.TourismB.ir 72 B. Thomas and M. Langlitz

are supposed to be closed are not necessarily malicious but rather are looking for a unique perspective or vantage point and fail to realize that their actions have negative consequences. (b) Archaeological sites exist within a larger setting that includes both the environment and local communities. While one may be respectful of the site itself, visitors have to understand that they must also be respectful of the landscape in which the site exists and the sensibilities and traditions of the local communities. (c) Removal or destruction of cultural material is unethical and illegal. Often visitors do not realize that their actions could actually be illegal. Laws that govern archaeological sites around the world differ, and it is possible that, unless they are clearly stated, some people will not realize that they are doing something illegal. The AIA created three versions of the guidelines including a one-page handout for tourists and longer documents for tour operators and site managers. The ATTA made the guidelines available to all its members. Other organizations, including AIA Tours—a private company that runs archaeological tours for the AIA—distribute the guidelines to their tour leaders and clients before each tour. The guidelines have also been the inspiration for discussions about archaeotourism at the annual meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA)—discussions that have led to the formation in 2015 of a working group within the EAA focused on archaeotourism and heritage tourism.4

The AIA and Site Preservation

If working with tourists and the tourism industry is one part of the site preservation equation, implementing measures that protect the sites themselves is the other. In 2007, the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) initiated a site preservation program that provided grants for archaeological conservation to sites around the world. In 2009, based on the experience gained from the first 2 years of the program, the AIA revised the original program and adopted a new paradigm that considered site preservation in a more holistic manner). The AIA decided to support projects that combined direct preservation with effective site management, outreach and education, community involvement, and economic development. Projects applying for AIA grants were asked to present strategies that involved all stakeholders, including archaeologists, conservators, local residents, and local and national authorities.5

4 The EAA working group officially called EAA Working Party, Integrating the Management of Archaeological Heritage and Tourism has organized a series of sessions and workshops on the topic in subsequent EAA meetings. One of the outcomes of the meetings of the working group is the current publication that includes this essay. At the most recent EAA meeting in 2017, the discussion included a proposal to make the working group an official committee of the EAA. https:// www.e-a-a.org/EAA/EAA/Navigation_Communities/Working%20Party%20integrating%20 the%20Management%20of%20Archaeological%20Heritage%20and%20Tourism.aspx 5 Additional information about all the projects discussed in this section can be found at archaeological.org/sitepreservation/projects

www.TourismB.ir 7 Archaeotourism, Archaeological Site Preservation, and Local Communities 73

Fig. 7.1 Community workshops at Thimlich Ohinga, Kenya gave local residents an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process for the development of the site

One of the strengths of the AIA program is that it does not utilize a “one-size-fits- all” approach to site preservation but rather supports solutions created by archaeologists, heritage experts, and community leaders that are appropriate for the local area and populace. At many AIA supported projects, an important first step is raising awareness of the significance and fragility of the local archaeological sites especially among local residents. This effort generally goes hand-in-hand with initiatives designed to include and involve local communities, especially the residents of the area immediately surrounding the archaeological site, in the development, conservation, interpretation, and presentation of the site. The need for these inclusive measures cannot be over emphasized. Archaeologists and site managers have not always been as concerned with involving local communities and as a result have excluded and even alienated local residents (see Sinamai (Chap. 5), this volume). At Umm el-Jimal, Jordan awareness building and inclusion efforts included the creation of a virtual museum and education center as well as a curriculum integrated into the national school system.6 At Thimlich Ohinga in Kenya, preservation work was preceded by a series of community meetings that provided local residents with a chance to make their views known, ask questions, and be consulted about the plans being formulated for the future of the site (Fig. 7.1).7 At several other sites, including Gault in Texas8 (Fig. 7.2), Lod in Israel,9 and Carr Plantation

6 https://www.archaeological.org/projects/ummeljimaljordan 7 https://www.archaeological.org/projects/thimlichohingakenya 8 https://www.archaeological.org/projects/gaulttexas 9 https://www.archaeological.org/projects/lodcommunityarchaeologyprogramisrael

www.TourismB.ir 74 B. Thomas and M. Langlitz

Fig. 7.2 Local students participate in the fieldwork at the Gault site in Texas in Montserrat,10 the emphasis has been on getting schoolchildren involved and engaged in the process of excavation, research, and conservation. By engaging the next generation in the protection of archaeological sites, project directors believe that they are creating a long-term solution to the issue of preservation.11 The diversity of the projects presented above reiterates the idea that solutions to site management, preservation, and presentation have to take into consideration local realities and must be appropriate to the local area. Empowering local residents to be involved in the preservation process often includes specialized training. The California Archaeological Site Stewardship Program (CASSP), a statewide program directed by the Society for California Archaeology (SCA), trains local volunteers to regularly visit assigned sites on public lands and report their conditions to the local supervising archaeologist. By regularly monitoring sites, CASSP ensures that potential problems are detected early and cor- rected quickly, thus limiting the extent of damage at each site.12 At the ancient necrop- olis of La Petrina in Narce, Italy, local volunteers have been trained to monitor, clean, and maintain the site and its walking paths (Fig. 7.3). Volunteers have also assisted in the lab with the processing of artifacts generated from excavations at the site and have worked with archaeologists to produce exhibits for display at the site’s museum.13 On Easter Island, the Easter Island Statue Project, in addition to surveying and working

10 https://www.archaeological.org/projects/carrplantationmontserrat 11 Community archaeology projects are well-recognized form of stakeholder engagement. For information on additional successful projects, see Derry, Linda, and Maureen Malloy (2003). 12 https://www.archaeological.org/projects/californiastatearchaeologicalsitesusa 13 https://www.archaeological.org/projects/narceitaly

www.TourismB.ir 7 Archaeotourism, Archaeological Site Preservation, and Local Communities 75

Fig. 7.3 Local volunteers assist with cleaning the site and maintaining the walking paths at the site of La Petrina in Narce, Italy to preserve the famous Moai, created a local monitoring and conservation team that will be responsible for the long-term protection of the monoliths and will ultimately take over management of the project (Fig. 7.4).14 In Cambodia, the nonprofit group, Heritage Watch, used an AIA grant to organize a series of community outreach workshops to inform local residents about the archaeological and historical significance of the site, create educational materials for local school children, and provide language and archaeological training for local residents as preparation for them to be tour guides and site stewards at the site of Banteay Chhmar (Fig. 7.5). Tourism at the twelfth-century temple complex is expected to increase dramatically with the opening of a new highway in close proximity to the site. The Cambodian Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts, recognizing its value, is planning to use the Banteay Chhmar program as a model for other sites throughout Cambodia.15 In places like Thimlich Ohinga, Kenya, and Tell Mozan, Syria, sites are being incorporated into larger plans to create eco-archaeological reserves.16 In these cases, the archaeological sites will benefit from the overall attention and protection extended to the larger reserves. Visitors will be able to see the ancient settlements in a larger context that includes the natural environment. In many cases, as at Stafford Civil War Sites in Virginia, designating the area around the site as a park or preserve protects them from modern development or, in this specific instance, from encroachment by a landfill.17

14 https://www.archaeological.org/projects/easterislandchile 15 https://www.archaeological.org/projects/banteaychhmarcambodia 16 https://www.archaeological.org/projects/tellmozansyria 17 https://www.archaeological.org/projects/staffordcivilwarsitesvirginia

www.TourismB.ir 76 B. Thomas and M. Langlitz

Fig. 7.4 A monitoring and conservation program on Easter Island to aid with the protection of the Moai

Opening an archaeological site to visitors is a popular undertaking in many areas of the world and is seen as potentially having many benefits not least of which are tourism revenue and local economic development opportunities. But the development of sites for tourism and visitation introduces many new stresses and can lead to the rapid deterioration of a site. Any plans for realizing economic benefits from an archaeological site have to be carefully considered, and adequate measures have to be taken to ensure proper protection and preservation of the site. In the above examples, projects are incorporating the skills of professional archaeologists and conservators with the abilities and needs of local and national stakeholders to create long-term preservation strategies for archaeological sites. Cooperative efforts allow planners to identify potential problems and local needs in advance of any development (Pederson 2002). The inclusion of all stakeholders, especially local communities, in the process allows for development that is locally appropriate and provides

www.TourismB.ir 7 Archaeotourism, Archaeological Site Preservation, and Local Communities 77

Fig. 7.5 A training session for local guides at Banteay Chhmar, Cambodia an opportunity for all voices to be heard. The adoption of holistic approaches to site preservation that balance economic development with proper site management that involves all stakeholders is crucial to the future of preservation.

Conclusions

Archaeotourism raises interest in archaeological sites and cultural heritage and can be a powerful tool for increasing awareness of and support for the conservation and protection of sites. Archaeotourism, however, also affects sites directly, and all stakeholders should work together to mitigate any negative impacts of archaeotourism. Careful assessment by qualified professionals of the impact of tourism on a site should be an integral part of site development plans. It should be recognized that not all sites should be (or can be) opened for tourism. Sites located in remote locations may be particularly vulnerable if they cannot be adequately monitored and protected. Supporting development plans that increase the awareness of the fragility of sites and empower local communities to act as stewards will help to slow the deterioration of archaeological sites. Initiatives, like the creation of the Guide to Best Practices for Archaeological Tourism, that allow archaeologists and heritage specialists collaborate and cooper- ate with the tourism industry need to be encouraged. By working with the tourism industry, site managers can create site-friendly visiting strategies, and the millions of individuals and groups that visit archaeological and historical sites every year will receive guidance and resources that encourage responsible behavior and raise awareness of the fragile and irreplaceable nature of archaeological sites.

www.TourismB.ir 78 B. Thomas and M. Langlitz

Bibliography and References Cited

Archaeological Institute of America. (n.d.). A guide to best practices for archaeological tourism. www.archaeological.org/tourism_guidelines Camp, S. L. (2006). Disjunctures in nationalist rhetoric at Ireland’s Brú na Bóinne visitor centre. In K. Meethan, A. Anderson, & S. Miles (Eds.), Tourism, consumption and representation: Narratives of place and self (pp. 24–45). Wallingford: CABI. Comer, D. C., & Willems W. J. H. (2011). Tourism and archaeological heritage: Driver to development or destruction? ICOMOS, openarchive. icomos.org/1208/1/III-1-Article2_Comer_ Willems.pdf Derry, L., & Malloy, M. (2003). Archaeologists and local communities: Partners in exploring the past. Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology. Keene, B. (2009). Guarding the past: An interview with Ben Thomas and Chris Doyle. Intravel Magazine. intravelmag.com/intravel/interview/guarding-the-past-an-interview-with-ben- thomas-and-chris-doyle National Travel and Tourism Office. (2015). 2014 cultural heritage traveler. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Pederson, A. (2002). Managing tourism at world heritage sites: A practical manual for world heritage site managers. France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Petra Development and Tourism Regional Authority. (n.d.). Petra visitors statistics 2000–2016. visitpetra.jo/DetailsPage/VisitPetra/StatisticsDetailsEn.aspx?PID=5 Porter, L. (2015, March 30). Petra: ‘Nobody in sight’ as visitor numbers halve. The Telegraph. www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/middle-east/jordan/articles/Petra-nobody-insight-as-visitor-numbers-halve/ Saiz-Jimenez, C., Cuezva, S., Jurado, V., Fernandez-Cortes, A., Porca, E., Benavente, D., Canaveras, J. C., & Sanchez- Moral, S. (2011). Paleolithic art in peril: Policy and science col- lide at Altamira cave. Science, 334, 42–43. Thomas, B., & Langlitz, M. A. (2012). Sustainable site preservation: The future of saving the past. The European Archaeologist, 37, 29–34. United Nations World Tourism Organization. (2017). UNWTO tourism highlights: 2017 edition. Madrid: UNWTO. World Travel & Tourism Council. (2017). Travel & tourism: Economic impact 2017: World. London: WTTC.

www.TourismB.ir Chapter 8 The Curse of the Betrothed: Evaluating the Relationship Between Archaeology and Tourism in Croatia AD 2017

Sanjin Mihelić

The starting point of this paper is my firm belief in what seems to be a self-evident fact: that archaeology and tourism are natural allies. Nevertheless, all too often this ostensive partnership fails, and it fails spectacularly when it comes to reaching what ought to be common aims. And why does that happen? Mostly, due to shortcomings in the planning process—where there has been one to start with—and even more importantly, due to lack of any deeper understanding of the idiosyncrasies governing and motivating partners from the other field. With estimates of nearly 20% of GDP of Croatia, tourism is often perceived as the lifeblood of national economy. As to the nature of Croatian tourism, without entering into the whys and wherefores, let it be briefly mentioned that at the national level, Croatia can be described as a paradigmatic “sun and sea” type of destination, with the bulk of tourist visits clustering in the three summer months, unobtrusively flanked by a few weeks in late spring or early autumn. Despite hopes of steady growth for the culture-tourism sector, recent research (TOMAS 2015) has shown that it is in fact the usual suspects—“passive holiday and leisure” and “general entertainment”—that still predominate, while the numbers of tourists motivated, inspired or simply interested in cultural and natural heritage are basically stagnant or rising only very slowly, except, perhaps, for guests from Britain and Russia, but we are now already being a bit too specific here. It is perfectly justified to discuss the archaeological heritage of any given country as a tourist resource, that is, as a potentially high-quality and attractive tourist product. As archaeologists, naturally, we ought to approach this from a professional standpoint: an extremely important prerequisite for any kind of tourist involvement with archaeological sites is that measures have first been taken to ensure complete their adequate care and protection. If these basic conditions have been satisfied, there shouldn’t be too many obstacles preventing either sector from

S. Mihelić (*) Archaeological Museum in Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia e-mail: [email protected]

www.TourismB.ir 80 S. Mihelić warmly embracing the other. In my mind, archaeology indeed has a lot to offer, but also to gain from this relationship, especially if it is treated with due respect within the integrated system of tourism destination management. Croatian legislation1 gives archaeological sites and monuments, as well as to archaeology in general, a prominent position. Thus, among other things, both mov- able and immovable objects of some artistic, historical, palaeontological, archaeological, anthropological and scientific value, and specifically archaeological sites and archaeological zones, landscapes and their parts that testify to human presence in space and have some artistic, historical and anthropological value, are all considered a part of cultural heritage. Besides, buildings, that is, spaces where cultural heritage or documentation pertaining to heritage is permanently kept or exhibited, also fall into this category. From the point of view of tourism, many of the above elements are considered “cultural resources” or, more specifically, “archaeological resources”, as elements of heritage especially attractive for tourists. If we wish to incorporate them into a tourist offer, it is necessary to make a step forward and transform them into a true culture-tourism product, a term that has been identified as a “formalized, packed-up and controlled presentation of heritage, art or the unique atmosphere of the destination in a unique and interesting way, conforming to modern tendencies of demand, which offers in the same time auxiliary service-facilities and a high-quality service”.2 The immense wealth of Croatia’s heritage, as the home of countless archaeological and historical cultural monuments, makes Croatia a unique cultural and historical landscape (see, e.g. Mihelić 2009). Tourists interested in archaeology have a number of sites, events, activities and possibilities for visiting at their disposal, including visits to museums or archaeological parks, walks and travels on archaeological trails and tourist excursions, taking part in explorations and attending or even partaking in manifestations based on Croatian archaeological heritage. That tourism is also a part of this equation is largely due to its capability to convert resources into goods and services and, ultimately, into profits. All of this requires strategic thinking and some basic common sense management and planning. There is, arguably, little or no need to waste any space here on discussing the very concept of archaeological site management planning. Croatia, as a state party to the World Heritage Convention, and otherwise also a truly well-behaved pupil in matters of cultural protection, has over the years developed a legislative framework that has, at least in theory, equipped those with a legitimate interest in archaeological sites and monuments with tools to pursue their particular goals within a broad arena of divergent, sometimes directly conflicting wishes or needs. As a conceptual tool invented to make different stakeholders more sympathetic to each other’s wishes and interests, thumbs up for management plans! As for the impact the concept has so far had on the comprehensive care of the cumulative archaeological heritage in Croatia, or even the tip-of-the-iceberg top ten five-star sites, well, the reality is a little less bright.

1 Act on the Protection and Preservation of Cultural Goods, Official Gazzette 66/99 2 As proposed in the culture tourism development strategy (2003)

www.TourismB.ir 8 The Curse of the Betrothed: Evaluating the Relationship Between Archaeology… 81

In general terms, in our part of the world, site management planning for archaeological sites is often regarded as an overwhelmingly arcane concept that lies outside the specialized functions of regulatory and administrative bodies. In terms of management practices, from our experience, there are both a lack of understanding of the need for an all-inclusive approach when it comes to care and management of archaeological sites and a widespread belief on part of the rest of the public, felt not only in heritage matters but also in other walks of life, that the responsibility for the management of the archaeological heritage lies solely on the state. This assumes an omniscient and omnipresent state apparatus, and, much more pertinently to this topic, an internally coherent and balanced maternal approach, and not, as some others might argue, a bloated bureaucratic apparatus whose efficacy in the role of a provider of public services is obstructed by internal contradictions, individual incompetence and often incompatible policies and practices. Let us take a quick look at the situation on the frontline, starting from the apex of the cultural significance hierarchy. The Old City of Dubrovnik and the Historical Complex of Split with the Palace of Diocletian and Plitvice Lakes National Park were the first Croatian properties to be included on the World Heritage List, back in 1979, among the first 57 properties or, as cynics might say, when it really mattered. Our list was augmented in 1997 with the Episcopal Complex of the Euphrasian Basilica in the Historic Centre of Poreč and the Historic City of Trogir, in 2000 with the Cathedral of St James in Šibenik and then again in 2008 with the addition of the Stari Grad Plain on the island of Hvar. The latest addition to the list dates from 2016: the Stećci mediaeval tombstones graveyards. As of 2017, there are also a total of 17 properties submitted on the tentative list of World Heritage. Almost 40 years after the inscription, the Pearl of the Adriatic, aka Dubrovnik, still awaits a site management plan, and the same holds true for several other properties on the list, with very few exceptions. In Poreč, a management plan for the Episcopal Complex of the Euphrasian Basilica has recently been created as part of the EX.PO AUS project. In Split, city authorities have lately adopted a proactive stance and unswervingly march towards this strategic goal, allowing, let it be noted, even the public sector on board. Add to this the Stari Grad Plain, and the Plitvice Lakes National Park, which, like virtually all other public institutions at regional or national level tasked with care of natural heritage, had come up with a management plan almost a decade ago. The Croatian Ministry of Culture, in a strategic document aptly titled “Strategy of protection, preservation and sustainable economic use of cultural heritage of Croatia for the period 2011–2015” briefly summarized strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats pertaining to the attainment of the titular goals. Figuring prominently among these observations is the simple statement that “there are far too few management plans for archaeological sites, on land and under water, that include elements of conservation care or site sustainability, let alone advanced features such as cultural entrepreneurship or cultural industries”. Other deficiencies are listed, too, for instance, insufficient level of specialized knowledge and skills necessary for restoration or conservation tasks; problems with uncertain property rights

www.TourismB.ir 82 S. Mihelić over real estates; conflicting interests of landowners; low level of awareness of the public, local authorities and educational institutions about the value of archaeological heritage; lack of information on the cultural significance of sites and monuments; and so on and so forth (Ministry of Culture 2011). To remedy this lacklustre situation, the following measures have been envisaged: • Fast track the creation of management plans for archaeological sites. • Ensure conservators are included in all the phases of preparing projects and plans for management of archaeological heritage. • Facilitate participation of all the subjects whose work has an impact on the preparation and elaboration of projects with an economic (particularly tourism-oriented), cultural and educational potential (protection service, local and regional authorities, tourist boards, etc.). • Carry out strategic planning and selective preparation (from cultural resources to attractions) for sustainable use. • Define educational profiles and skills for subjects whose main task would be an economic use of land and underwater archaeological heritage. • Include more subjects in the activities of promotion of sustainable use of archaeological heritage as a resource for regional and national development of Croatia. Having briefly looked at regulations, site management situation analysis and top- level UNESCO sites, all in bullet format of course, let us now take a slightly closer look at four discrete cases in geographical and temporal terms—a major prehistoric site in the far east of the country, a Roman city on the Adriatic coast, a mediaeval castle from central Croatia and a World Heritage Site on the Island of Hvar—con- centrating not on theory, proclaimed goals or high aspirations but rather on the hard- boiled reality we sometimes face when we step down from ivory towers into the gutter, to coin a phrase.

Vučedol

The prehistoric tell site of Vučedol on the right bank of the Danube in eastern Croatia, a few kilometres downstream from Vukovar, is arguably one of the most significant archaeological sites in Croatia. The home of the Vučedol culture of the Late Copper Age, it has yielded outstanding finds whose importance far exceeds local or regional boundaries. The famous Vučedol Dove (Fig. 8.1), which, inciden- tally, may be found in every Croatian home, as well as on the 20 kuna banknote, had long ago transcended the bounds of archaeology alone, becoming a readily recog- nizable national icon. Following large-scale archaeological campaigns in the 1980s and 2000s, it finally dawned on policy thinkers that the site is worth major investments. In 2015, a new state-of-the-art Vučedol Culture Museum was opened at the site, and since then every effort has been made to prepare everything for the next major project, the

www.TourismB.ir 8 The Curse of the Betrothed: Evaluating the Relationship Between Archaeology… 83

Fig. 8.1 Vučedol Dove (Copyright: Igor Krajcar, Archaeological Museum in Zagreb)

establishment of the Vučedol Archaeological Park. Apart from purely archaeological goals, the overarching objective of the project is to contribute significantly to the economic recovery of the Town of Vukovar and the Vukovar-Srijem County as the presumed key tourist attraction in the region. In terms of feasibility, though, the only way to make the project financially viable is to focus on EU funding, which would serve as the platform for the anticipated socio-economic effects that would fully justify its implementation (WYG 2016).

Salona

Salona, a magnificent ruin of a site on the western outskirts of Split, takes the pride of place among archaeological sites from classical antiquity in Croatia, as the capital of the Roman province of Dalmatia (Fig. 8.2). Later on it became a major centre of early Christianity and, still later, also one of the seats of the early mediaeval Croatian state. It is a vast archaeological site of enormous cultural significance, as well as an archaeological, tourist and economic resource, but also an arena of a thousand conflicting interests. The excavations at Salona started at the beginning of the nineteenth century, with the particular incentive for the collection of monuments provided by the visit of the Austrian Emperor Francis I to Dalmatia. The Archaeological Museum in Split, established soon after this imperial visit, in 1820, has to this day remained the central institution in charge of research, preservation and interpretation at Salona, aided by the local Conservation Department of the Ministry of Culture. While the endeavours of our colleagues from Split over these two centuries—in other words, the scholarly part of the equation—is beyond reproach, nothing such can be said about aspects that would fall under the headline “sustainable economic use of cultural heritage”.

www.TourismB.ir 84 S. Mihelić

Fig. 8.2 Aerial view of the Episcopal Centre in Salona (Copyright: Archaeological Museum Split)

Problems troubling Salona are many and varied. To list only a few: • First and foremost, there is no management plan for this site of enormous cultural significance. • Admittedly, Salona occupies a huge tract of land in a very populated area. Hundreds of discrete land plots have different owners, none of which are suscep- tible to the idea of a common good, primarily because such an imaginary good has never been properly articulated. • In spite of the fact that the entire ancient city is a protected archaeological zone, most of the land is ploughed, often deeply, for vineyards and olive groves, and quarried for dressed stone, which is then used for on-site building development; residential buildings, department stores and the like have also sprung up overnight within the zone, and interestingly, the developers had usually acquired all the necessary permits, issued by relevant institutions. • While daily care of the site is far from satisfactory, at night things really get dark. In the lack of a night guard, mornings are usually full of unpleasant surprises. • Visitor management is poor, signage is lacking, while interpretation leaves much to be desired. • Educational potential of the site has not been mined at all, or only to a very limited degree. It would be more than unfair to say that nobody has taken any care regarding plans for a brighter future of the site. We have already praised the colleagues from

www.TourismB.ir 8 The Curse of the Betrothed: Evaluating the Relationship Between Archaeology… 85 the Split Museum; the Tourist Board of the Split-Dalmatia County has marked the establishment of “The Ancient Salona Interpretative and Archaeological Centre” as one of the pillars in its Master Plan for Tourism Development of the County; the town of Solin, the modern-day descendant of Salona, on whose territory the ancient city lies, as well as its Tourist Board, have likewise tried to do various things to remedy the unfortunate situation with the city. For instance, the town of Solin started negotiations with the owners of land plots in and around the site to buy them out, but to no avail. The Ministry of Culture has put forward an ambitious plan to establish an archaeological park there, involving landscaping, the construction of a new museum building on the site, an international archaeological academia and archaeological camps, workshops, laboratories, congress centre, reconstruction of the ancient harbour of Salona, historical entrance to the city and so on. Meanwhile, Salona continues to deteriorate by the day.

Novigrad na Dobri

Perched high on a cliff above the Dobra River some 70 km south-west of Zagreb, the late mediaeval castle of Novigrad (Fig. 8.3) is arguably another victim of a life- time of neglect and decades of incompetence. Built late in the fifteenth century by the magnates of the House of Frankopan, it had withstood the test of time for another 500 years, only to fall prey to arsonists in the closing days of World War II. For more than half a century from that date, it did nothing, just stood there, losing brick after brick; until 1 day, a group of local

Fig. 8.3 Novigrad castle (Copyright: Tomislav Rosandić)

www.TourismB.ir 86 S. Mihelić enthusiasts organized themselves and launched a campaign for the salvation and reconstruction of the castle. And they were successful: the state relinquished its management rights, passing them on to the Municipality; the Ministry of Culture started financing the conservation and restoration works; and the castle soon regained some of its former glory. Twenty years on, a stalemate is evident. The enthusiasm of the locals has waned, financial support has plummeted, new people replaced the old in the Ministry and in the Municipality, allowing minor, particular and petty interests to come to the fore, letting it become more than plain that nobody seems to know how to proceed from there. Money continues to be spent on small-scale repair works and project documentation, but nearly 10 years after, this author had specifically requested information from all involved about the big picture; about the vision of the site’s immediate, as well as long-term, future; about the decision-making process; and about the identification and then empowerment of stakeholders—the only answers received now to the same questions are the same as they had been back then, along the lines of “too early to say”, “nothing can be done at this stage”, “unfortunately, there are not enough resources” and the like. The point is, obfuscation and smoke-screening can be very powerful tools, especially when there are no universally binding documents preventing some stakeholders from pursuing their own interests at the expense of others. In this respect, the situation at Novigrad is more the rule than the exception.

Stari Grad on Hvar

Let us end with a brief mention of another site, a World Heritage Site, and a project in the making. We are referring to the Stari Grad Plain UNESCO World Heritage Site on the island of Hvar (Fig. 8.4). One of the latest additions to the WH list, as of 2008, the plain is a cultural landscape with origins in the fourth century BC, when the Greek colonists from the island of Paros established a colony there. The plain demonstrates the comprehensive system of agriculture as used by the ancient Greeks. The land was divided into geometrical parcels (chora) bounded by drystone walls. The system included a rain- water recovery system involving the use of gutters and storage cisterns. The original field layout has been respected by the continuous maintenance of the boundary walls by successive generations. Agricultural activity in the chora has remained uninterrupted for 24 centuries up to the present day. In terms of management, here a clean sheet was issued, so to speak, and unlike Salona, there does seem to exist the will to put the theoretical advances as regard the management of archaeological sites into practice. I expect the Stari Grad Plain WHS to become a training ground where it will be possible to combat the deeply ingrained predilections for sectoral entrenchment, as well as the unfortunate perception by many that archaeological tourism is a one- or—at best—a two-way

www.TourismB.ir 8 The Curse of the Betrothed: Evaluating the Relationship Between Archaeology… 87

Fig. 8.4 Satellite image of the Stari Grad Plain (Copyright: Archaeological Museum in Split) alley. In my opinion, it might perhaps better be understood as a wide and open square, open to a number of other stakeholders whose opinions should matter and who ought to have a say in matters of heritage tourism.3

Conclusion

On the one hand, cases such as these make it clear why we need proper management plans, as the epitome of a comprehensive approach to site management that takes due care not only of the site itself but also of all of its stakeholders. On the other hand, there can still be little doubt, at least in my mind, that archaeology and tourism are natural allies, although some current policies, as well as current practices, might suggest otherwise. As archaeologists, we ought to actively explore possibilities for integrating archaeological heritage in the management of tourism, because we need that to happen. But it’s not only us: our tourism on the whole does, our tourist destinations do, and so do our archaeological sites.

3 Management plan for the Stari Grad Plain (MICRO 2005) differentiates between objectives of an international character, regional and national character and those of a local character; “Improving living standards of the local population” figures prominently among the latter goals (p. 14).

www.TourismB.ir 88 S. Mihelić

Acknowledgements I would like to thank the editors of the publication Managing Tourism at Archaeological Sites: Multidisciplinary Perspectives in Archaeological Heritage Management, Annemarie Willems and Doug Comer, for their invitation to contribute to this volume, as well as to the organizers of the sessions in Istanbul, Glasgow and Vilnius, at which the presentations that form the basis of this paper were delivered, which in addition to Annemarie include also Cynthia Dunning, Ben Thomas, Sonja Jilek, Chris Corlett and Gavin MacGregor. I am indebted to my colleague and friend Mirela Hutinec, Director of the Vučedol Culture Museum, for discussions, assistance and preliminary insight into the unofficial version of the feasibility study for the Vučedol Archaeological Park, as well as to Francesco Duboković, Director of the Agency for the Management of the Stari Grad Plain, for discussions regarding the management of the site; also, to Darko Komšo, Director of the Archaeological Museum of Istria, Pula, who co-authored the presentation “Destination management of Heritage Sites and Towns in Croatia”. Many thanks also to Lino Ursić, Lidija Petrić and Joško Stella.

References

Act on the Protection and Preservation of Cultural Goods. (1999). Zagreb, Official Gazzette 69/99. Institute of Tourism. (2003). Culture tourism development strategy. “From tourism and culture to cultural tourism”. Zagreb: Institute of Tourism. MICRO. (2005). Stari grad plain management plan. Unpublished briefing study developed for the purpose of supporting the inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage List. MICRO Project d.o.o. Mihelić, S. (Ed.). (2009). Archaeology and tourism in Croatia. Zagreb: Archaeological Museum. Ministry of Culture. (2011). Strategy of protection, preservation and sustainable economic use of cultural heritage of Croatia for the period 2011–2015. TOMAS. (2015). Attitude and consumption of tourists in Croatia. Summer 2014. Zagreb: Institute of Tourism. WYG. (2016). Vučedol Archaeological Park feasibility study (Unpublished working document, variant 2). Zagreb: WYG Savjetovanje d.o.o.

www.TourismB.ir Chapter 9 Archaeology and Tourism in Ireland: Bridging Two Cultures

Ian W. Doyle

The development of cheap air travel to and from Ireland since the 1990s, the presence of a large international diaspora with a strong interest in Irish heritage as well as changes in communications technology have been key drivers in the development of Irish tourism. Other factors such as enhanced international relations, membership in the Euro currency area and increases in leisure time have also been significant. Equally, since the 2008 financial crisis, which hit the Republic of Ireland particularly hard, the perception of heritage as a resource for economic development has been amplified by the responsible state heritage organisations (Lagerqvist 2015). Arising from this, and in keeping with developments internationally, there is a renewed emphasis on developing tourism in Ireland and, within this, heritage tourism. This is no doubt due to the realisation that there is a growing market for cultural tourism. Even so, at present tourism is a significant contributor to the Irish economy. In 2014, overseas tourism revenue based on 7.6 million visitors contributed €3.6 billion to the economy and currently employs 205,000 people across the country. Crucially, the national government tourism policy People and place: growing tourism to 2025 envisages that these figures will increase to ten million overseas visitors contributing €5 billion and employing 250,000 by 2025 (Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport 2015). These are significant figures and, notably, the governmental tourism policy places a spotlight on heritage as a means to help such growth, with the word heritage featuring throughout the text of the policy document. Yet, what does this mean for heritage, in particular, and given the theme of this publication, for our archaeological heritage? Can the pressures and expectations from ten million visitors (notably, this figure excludes domestic visitors) be reconciled with heritage management? Can fieldwork and research contribute to modern interpretation, and is there a role for archaeologists in such practice? In many ways, this is not

I. W. Doyle (*) The Heritage Council of Ireland, Kilkenny, Republic of Ireland e-mail: [email protected]

www.TourismB.ir 90 I. W. Doyle a new debate as it can be seen as a recurrent working out of an ongoing relationship. Internationally, the key issue for heritage managers has been managing the impact of tourism on the heritage resource and ensuring that there are sufficient resources for protection, interpretation and visitor management (Timothy and Boyd 2006, 4; Yunis 2016; Comer and Willems 2012). This prompted one review of the Maltese tourism experience to refer to archaeology and tourism as the ‘tricky mix’ but also as being ‘two sides of the same coin’ (Cassar 2014). Such expressions frame the relationship in so far as tourism can be transformative if poorly managed but also that tourism offers an output from research and conservation. Indeed, one Irish colleague has remarked lately that archaeological research is the R&D (research and development) of good tourism experiences. The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) 1999 Charter on International Cultural Tourism captures many of these positive aspects but also tries to set in place policies to prevent negative impacts. Ireland has not been exempt from these debates with concerns being expressed in the 1990s over the development of interpretative centres as opposed to expenditure on conservation, research and investigation, over a lack of dialogue with local communities and an unsustainable dependency on short-term capital funding sources (Cooney 1991; McManus 1997; Cooke 2000). This period saw a ‘veritable explo- sion of attractions, heritage and interpretative centres’ (Ó Donnchada and O’Connor 1997, 213), many of which are either no longer operating, which exist in a dimin- ished form, or are dependent on state subvention or voluntary contributions. While concerns were being expressed by the heritage community over these tourism developments in the 1990s, representatives of the tourism industry were able to write that it was ‘comforting to realise that the heritage of our past is becoming such a potent force in creating a future for our present population’ and that the economic impact of heritage tourism product development was helping Ireland reach its tourism targets (Browne 1994, 24). In 2006, the archaeologist Richard Bradley wrote about bridging two cultures between developer-funded archaeology and academic research (2006). This paper takes its title from Bradley’s paper on the premise that a disciplinary and cultural gap exists between tourism and heritage. If unaddressed, this creates risks for the sustainable management and presentation of heritage sites, reduces the likelihood of beneficial practice and, ultimately, can lead to poor experiences for visitors. It is the contention of this paper that this divide is as pressing an issue for archaeological heritage as that of the implications of developer-funded archaeology and one which affects a wide sector of society in so far as domestic and overseas tourists are exposed to research through the educational opportunities that interpretation offers.

Heritage and Tourism in Ireland: Past and Present

Many archaeological monuments in the Irish landscape have taken on near iconic status whereby images of early mediaeval high crosses, of the UNESCO World Heritage passage tombs at Brú na Bóinne or the Rock of Cashel, have become

www.TourismB.ir 9 Archaeology and Tourism in Ireland: Bridging Two Cultures 91

Fig. 9.1 Monuments mentioned in the text in the Republic of Ireland symbols used in the promotion of Irish tourism (Fig. 9.1). There is a long tradition of the use of heritage and the Irish landscape in the marketing of tourism, indeed, many of the first advertising posters for travel featured high crosses, monuments and green fields and hills (Fig. 9.2). However, this involvement in heritage extended beyond marketing. Many of the first interpretative signs mounted at Irish heritage sites were funded by and carried the logos of the national tourism promotion agency. Moreover, in the 1940s, the Northern Ireland archaeologist Oliver Davies was funded by the Irish

www.TourismB.ir 92 I. W. Doyle

Fig. 9.2 The early mediaeval monastic site of Glendalough, Co Wicklow, as shown in a 1961 tourism marketing photograph (Fáilte Ireland photographic collection Dublin City Library and Archive)

Tourism Association (ITA) to carry out archaeological surveys along the southern border with Northern Ireland but also as far south as counties Offaly and Wexford. This interest continued in the 1950s when the then Irish tourist board Bord Fáilte (the successor to the ITA, now renamed Fáilte Ireland; fáilte is the Irish word for welcome) was instrumental in presenting the Neolithic passage tomb at Newgrange to the public. At that time, Bord Fáilte employed an archaeological officer, who convened a stakeholders meeting in 1961, which led to 3 hectares of adjacent land being purchased and excavations initiated (Smyth 2009, 15). The role of the archaeological officer with the Irish tourist board continued until the 1980s. Clearly, archaeological heritage and tourism in Ireland have had a close interdependency since the mid-twentieth century (Fig. 9.2). Heritage visitor attractions in Ireland at present can be divided into three categories: state owned, privately run and a range of hybrids. The range of heritage sites that are directly cared for and presented by national government through the Office of Public Works (OPW) consists of approximately 740 national monuments (see www.archaeology.ie). These include the World Heritage Sites of Skellig Michael, which is an early mediaeval monastic site off the Co. Kerry coast, and the Brú na Bóinne megalithic tombs at Newgrange, Knowth and Dowth, Co Meath

www.TourismB.ir 9 Archaeology and Tourism in Ireland: Bridging Two Cultures 93

2015 visitor numbers to selected State-owned archaeological sites/attractions in Ireland

National Museum of Ireland - archaeology (Dublin) Rock of Cashel royal site/ecclesiastical (Tipperary) Kilkenny Castle (Kilkenny) Hill of Tara royal site (Meath) Clonmacnoise monastic site (Offaly) Brú na Bóinne Newgrange UNESCO WHS passage tomb… Dún Aonghasa stone fort (Galway) Grianan of Aileach stone fort/hillfort (Donegal) King John's Castle (Limerick) Skellig Michael UNESCO WHS monastic site (Kerry) * 0 100,000 200,000300,000 400,000500,000

Graph 9.1 Visitor numbers to selected state owned archaeological heritage sites in Ireland based on 2015 figures (*Skellig Michael based on 2014 figures)

(Graph 9.1). Local government and other state bodies also present a range of heritage sites to the public which include those with a strong archaeological component such as the prison fortress of Spike Island, in Cork Harbour, or the mediaeval King John’s Castle in Limerick City.

Three Case Studies: Newtown Jerpoint, Rindoon and the Hill of Uisneach

By way of examining the relationship of tourism and archaeology, this paper sets out three cases of niche, or what could be termed ‘boutique’, archaeological complexes which have been developed for tourism purposes by private owners. While there are standing remains at each site, limited geophysical survey has suggested the presence of extensive sub-surface archaeological remains. The deserted mediaeval town of Newtown Jerpoint provides an example of a privately owned complex that has been presented to the public. An exceptional series of mediaeval manorial accounts survive, mainly from the fourteenth century, while the archaeological remains consist of a thirteenth-century church with later modifications, the remains of a late mediaeval tower and an extensive area of earthwork house sites, plot boundaries and converging roadways. These were brought to view through aerial photography and Lidar survey. In 2007, the Heritage Council (a state agency) produced a conservation plan for this complex (Heritage Council 2007). Over a period of several years, the appreciation of the landowners for the heritage of the site grew to the extent that in 2012, the complex was opened to the public as a visitor attraction branded as Jerpoint Park (jerpointpark.com). This site now receives approximately 8000 visitors per year and operates as a small tourism enterprise for the landowners and their family (Figs. 9.3 and 9.4). Rindoon, Co Roscommon, is a deserted mediaeval settlement located on a prom- ontory in Lough Ree on the river Shannon. During the early thirteenth century, the

www.TourismB.ir 94 I. W. Doyle

Fig. 9.3 A tourism industry image of the visitor experience at Newtown Jerpoint (Image courtesy of Fáilte Ireland)

Fig. 9.4 Conservation works to the mediaeval church of St Nicholas at Newtown Jerpoint (The Heritage Council of Ireland)

Anglo-Normans founded this town and constructed a royal castle as a means to conquer Gaelic-Irish territory west of the Shannon (Fig. 9.5). The settlement ultimately failed due to ongoing conflict, but the remains today consist of a length of mediaeval town wall with a gate house and towers, a ruinous royal castle, a harbour, a hospital and parish church as well as the earthwork remains of several house sites

www.TourismB.ir 9 Archaeology and Tourism in Ireland: Bridging Two Cultures 95

Fig. 9.5 The deserted mediaeval borough of Rindoon, Co Roscommon. (R. Sherlock after Urban Archaeological Survey)

(Barry 1987, 173–75; O’Conor et al. 2015). The entire complex is in private ownership and is actively farmed, mainly for the grazing of sheep and cattle. In 2009, a local resident began to champion the need for conservation works at Rindoon and engaged the local historical society on this very issue. Successful grant applications were made during 2010–2016 to the state agency the Heritage Council seeking support for conservation works on the mediaeval defences and the other mediaeval buildings. This complex now receives approximately 8,000 visitors per year due in part to a public trail which allows access via a scenic lakeside walk.1 A final case study is the multiperiod ceremonial site known as the Hill of Uisneach, Co Westmeath, in the Irish midlands (Figs. 9.6 and 9.7). This is one of several Irish royal sites comparable to the Hill of Tara, Rock of Cashel or Dún Ailinne which have rich traditions in early mediaeval literature with kingship and power and as ceremonial centres. Many of these complexes have archaeological remains from the Neolithic

1 http://www.discoverireland.ie/activities-adventure/rinn-duin-castle-loop/83648 accessed 22 March 2016

www.TourismB.ir 96 I. W. Doyle

Fig. 9.6 Tourism industry promotional photograph of the Hill of Uisneach, Co Westmeath (Image courtesy of Fáilte Ireland) and extending into the Iron Age and subsequent early mediaeval period (Schot 2011). In the case of Uisneach, there is an enduring mythological tradition as to the importance of fire, while the archaeological remains consist of some 20 upstanding monuments with another 12 sub-surface monuments added through geophysical survey (ibid., 97–104). These monuments consist of standing stones, several barrows and enclosures, a possible megalithic tomb and a burial cairn surrounded by a sub-surface 200 m diameter enclosure. These archaeological remains, as well as a rich body of mythology and documentary evidence, led to the Hill of Uisneach being listed in Ireland’s UNESCO World Heritage Site Tentative List.2 As with Newtown Jerpoint and Rindoon, the greater part of this archaeological complex is in private ownership with national government owning only a small portion of the Hill of Uisneach. While each of these projects typically attracts under 10,000 visitors annually, they are effectively small-scale tourism projects based on privately owned archaeological complexes. These operate below the level of the major state run or fully commercial attractions and can be seen as niche or boutique heritage sites. Each of these complexes poses challenges in terms of understanding, and in being able to communicate their significance so as to engage any visitor and so as to manage what can be a fragile resource. Looking at these projects under the headings of authenticity, visitor experience, communication and sustainability provides a useful framework to examine their status as heritage tourism attractions (Table 9.1). Authenticity, in this case, is used

2 http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5528/ accessed 5 August 2016

www.TourismB.ir 9 Archaeology and Tourism in Ireland: Bridging Two Cultures 97

Fig. 9.7 An archaeological view – the Hill of Uisneach archaeological complex, Co Westmeath (Schot 2011) as a means to maintain heritage quality and as a benchmark for safeguarding the resource. In the case of Newtown Jerpoint and Rindoon, a conservation plan setting out an understanding based on survey and research has been the key means to achieve understanding. The existence of such plans not only facilitated the sourc- ing of funding for conservation works but also set out a statement of significance which informed interpretation and public presentation. As a direct finding or lesson

www.TourismB.ir 98 I. W. Doyle

Table 9.1 The three case studies examined under the headings of authenticity, experience, marketing and sustainability Newtown Jerpoint Rindoon Hill of Uisneach Authenticity Deserted mediaeval Deserted mediaeval town Late prehistoric/ town Management plan (1997), multiperiod ceremonial Conservation plan followed by conservation centre (2007) led plan (2012) Conservation plan More research needed More research needed started (2015) but incomplete Doctoral thesis completed and some papers published, ongoing research Visitor Very personal led by Way marked trail walk Tour guide led, very experience and landowner, strong Interpretive signs on personal interpretation sense of welcome on sawhorses Newly constructed arrival Beautiful scenic walk (2016) visitor/ Warm welcome Open days, costumes, etc. interpretative facility Invitation into family Guidebook in Strong mythological eighteenth century development, no content and emphasis home for refreshments interpretative centre on association with fire Aimed very much at Solitude, little movement, Festival element foreign tourists pastoral, timeless No guidebook No guidebook, no Pastoral farmed rural interpretative centre landscape Busy but high quality landscape setting Marketing Website, social media, Social media, Trip Social media/website, Trip Advisor Advisor Trip Advisor Direct linkages with No professional Marketing plan in tourism bus companies marketing advice but development Regular coverage on 6,000–8,000 visitors TV and print media annually No professional Low key marketing to marketing advice but prevent erosion, farm 8,000 visitors annually disturbance Sustainability Private sector business Community group based, Private sector business with admission charge free admission with admission charge Dependent on two Conservation costs are Development funding individuals (family, ongoing (state funded) from Leader Rural landowners) Low costs in day-to-day Development and Model based on bus terms tourism capital funding tourism Strong community Dependent on state involvement including assistance for Leader Rural conservation costs but Development otherwise open and Castle in ruins and unsafe viable for access, open farmland with access dependent on goodwill of owners

www.TourismB.ir 9 Archaeology and Tourism in Ireland: Bridging Two Cultures 99 from this process, the completion of a robust conservation plan is a key step towards sustainable management and authenticity. Interestingly, the Rindoon conservation plan included a section on interpretation which sought to ensure that the statement of significance formed the basis for the messages to be communicated to the public. The term authenticity does pose different meanings – traditionally this represented a ‘focus…on authoritative, credible truths’ which was since challenged by ideas of plurality and multivocality (Winter 2013, 176). For the purposes of this paper, this term is deemed useful and is taken as offering an understanding of a heritage site based on research. Interestingly, in Irish tourism guidance literature, authenticity appears to relate to ‘authentic experiences’ rather than any intrinsic values embodied in a particular heritage site or complex (Fáilte Ireland n.d., [Sharing our Stories] 6). This constitutes an area of variation between the thinking and terminology of both the heritage and tourism sectors though there are potential overlaps within this concept. Visitor experience and marketing is a key issue and in each of the three cases examined in this paper the relatively small scale of the operation at each site allows for a warm welcome and a sense of arrival. Based on reviews on social media, in particular Trip Advisor, a sense of conviviality is a strong theme at Newtown Jerpoint and at Uisneach as tours led by the landowners or key personnel at these sites do appear to be reflected in good visitor feedback. The high scenic quality at each of these complexes adds to this attraction, and there is a strong suspicion that while the archaeological heritage is a key initial attraction, it is complemented or superseded by other values during the actual visit such as hospitality, social contact with members of the local community and their families as well as storytelling, entertainment and other experiential elements. This is closer to the level of service envisaged by tourism promotion bodies where unique visitor experiences are provided within the context of the experience economy (Pine and Gilmore 1998) with an emphasis on memorable and highly personal emotions. This is also in keeping with the identification of aspects of tourism’s evolution towards individualised production and consumption and the desire for intangible experiences as an element of self-actualisation3 (Richards 2010, 28–30). A key consideration in presenting these complexes is the presence of sub-surface, low-visibility archaeology which requires investment in survey and research but also interpretation media and trained guides (Willems and Dunning 2015). In terms of marketing, for such small-scale heritage tourism enterprises, social media has provided a significant enabler. In the case of Newtown Jerpoint, the key audience is pre-booked overseas-visitor bus tours and the engagement of the landowners with the organising companies has been instrumental in developing this relationship and in its continuation. In the case of Rindoon, details of a waymarked trail are advertised as part of a national programme, and this helps to direct visitors. Under this scheme, the landowner is rewarded for maintaining this trail, and the relatively low visitor numbers are in keeping with the capacity of a working farm.

3 http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/culture/Routes/StudyCR_en.pdf

www.TourismB.ir 100 I. W. Doyle

The exact marketing or communication strategy for the Hill of Uisneach is currently being worked out, but at present, it is based on the pre-booking of tours with contact details advertised online. Significantly, both Newtown Jerpoint and the Hill of Uisneach are promoted nationally and internationally as part of the Ireland’s Ancient East tourism development programme (irelandsancienteast.com). This takes the form of marketing advice, promotional material and access to competitive grant funding. In the case of the Hill of Uisneach, capital funding of €65,000 for the construction of visitor facilities has been provided by Fáilte Ireland. In relation to these three archaeological complexes, sustainability is perhaps the hardest to gauge. In this paper, this is meant as the likely commercial success balanced with the risk of degradation or compromise of the archaeological resource. The existence of a conservation or management plan is a positive step towards the sustainable use of the archaeology in so far as good practice and necessary conservation measures are set out in the cases of Rindoon and Newtown Jerpoint (Blackwood Associates 2012; Heritage Council 2007). However, this is no guarantee of success as all plans and documents need to be seen as ongoing active documents to be implemented and reviewed over a number of years. In all cases, investment in heritage conservation costs has to date not proved feasible without significant government support. This has taken the form of conservation works to mediaeval masonry remains, and this is likely to remain the case should visitor numbers remain at current levels at each site. Equally, in the case of Uisneach, government support of approximately €65,000 to the costs of a purpose built interpretative centre was required. Therefore, it is clear that these projects are not fully sustainable in a commercial sense without government subvention towards conservation and set up costs. Where they do demonstrate elements of sustainability are in terms of their ongoing operations. Low running costs, direct marketing and small self-guided tours with interpretative signage help to ensure this, yet seasonality and operator fatigue do remain as risks.

Conclusion

Tourism based on the Irish archaeological resource runs on several different levels spanning government-owned monuments, large-scale commercial attractions and local government- and community-run heritage sites and with small numbers of commercial attractions in a ‘start-up’ or small-medium enterprise commercial phase. All face similar challenges in so far as there is a constant need to ensure that heritage is presented in an engaging manner but also in a way in which the values and physical fabric of the heritage resource are maintained. Experience in Ireland has been that a robust conservation and management plan is a vital first step in maintaining this. However, going beyond this, a comprehensive conservation plan sets out the values of a site and thereby provides a basis for the interpretation and presentation of what is important. Visitor management can also flow from such policies. As such, an appropriate plan must be a sine qua non for a heritage site, in

www.TourismB.ir 9 Archaeology and Tourism in Ireland: Bridging Two Cultures 101 particular those to be opened for tourism purposes. This might seem obvious, but it is not always the case. One of the interesting points raised by the ICOMOS 1999 Charter on Cultural Tourism is on the need to ‘facilitate and encourage a dialogue between conservation interests and the tourism industry about the importance and fragile nature of heritage places…..including the need to achieve a sustainable future for them’. As above, this also sounds obvious yet this has not always been the case. At the gross risk of generalisation tourism industry professionals often come from a marketing background and use a particular jargon deriving from this. Equally, the heritage sector uses a different, often technical vocabulary; for one group, what can be sites and monuments can be visitor attractions to another, and terms like visitor proposition and storytelling can also seem foreign to archaeologists. Nonetheless, experience in Ireland has shown that tourism needs the new research or content from archaeology and, critically, also skills from heritage management to ensure sustainable care (Royal Irish Academy 2017, 17). From a heritage perspective, tourism offers an audience for research and conservation strategies as well as means to demonstrate public value in return for funding and support. The ongoing development of archaeological field schools involving the training of fee paying overseas students in archaeological excavation and survey can also be considered as part of the archaeology-tourism relationship (see Moeller, Chap. 10, this volume). Projects such as these provide an important means for Irish archaeologists to fund research projects and offer opportunities for trainees to gain fieldwork skills. In a beneficial sense, such projects also offer the experience of being a part of an excavation team. Orbasli (2014) has acknowledged the contribution to local economic development that such archaeological research and conservation projects can make, however, medium-term to longer-term questions about sustainability do arise in some field schools aimed at overseas trainees, and the issue of the creation of knowledge in a formal publication medium as well as the responsibility for the ultimate conservation and presentation of exposed remains may need greater consideration in some cases. Occasionally, issues that create tension between the tourism and heritage sectors still arise. Most recently, this took the form of the use of the UNESCO World Heritage Site at Skellig Michael for the filming of scenes in the Disney Star Wars franchise. While many in the state’s tourism organisations, and at senior levels in government, felt this was appropriate, strong concerns were expressed from within the heritage sector about the risk of physical damage to the complex, about the decision-making process that led to the permission, and also about likely changes to the site’s values or cultural significance resulting from an association with a global franchise. Ultimately, the filming went ahead in 2015, and the natural barrier of visiting an off-shore island and limits on the numbers of boat operators have thus far restricted any potential increase in visitor numbers, yet vigilance is required. As with all relationships, that between archaeological heritage and tourism continues to develop and will require time and trust building but also a recognition that there is a mutual need and an interdependency. The opening section of this paper asked if the pressures and expectations of ten million annual visitors could be

www.TourismB.ir 102 I. W. Doyle

reconciled with good heritage management. This remains an open and important question but one which can only be answered with greater organisational co-operation, joint heritage tourism fora, improved measurements and indicators as well as joint workshops on issues like interpretation and conservation. Like all relationships, this requires ongoing dialogue and communication.

Acknowledgements The framework for three Irish case studies is partly based upon one used by Oxford Archaeology (OA), I would like to thank Rob Early of OA for sharing this at the European Association of Archaeologists 2014 conference in Istanbul. This paper is based on a presentation made at the European Association of Archaeologists 2015 conference in Glasgow. I would like the editors and reviewers for their comments.

References

Barry, T. B. (1987). The archaeology of medieval Ireland. London: Methuen. Blackwood and Associates. (2012). Rinn Dúin conservation and management plan, report commissioned by the St. John’s Parish Heritage Group and the Heritage Council, available at http://irishwalledtownsnetwork.ie/assets/Rinn%20Duin%20Conservation%20and%20 Management%20Plan.pdf. Accessed 14 Apr 2017. Bradley, R. (2006). Bridging the two cultures: Commercial archaeology and the study of prehistoric Britain. The Antiquaries Journal, 86, 1–13. Browne, S. (1994). Heritage in Ireland’s tourism recovery, In J. M. Fladmark (Ed.), Cultural tourism: Papers presented at the Robert Gordon University Heritage Convention (pp. 13–26). Aberdeen, Shaftesbury, Dorset: Donhead Publishing. Cassar, G. (2014). Heritage sites and tourism: Two sides of the same coin? In V. M. van der Haas & P. A. C. Schut (Eds.), The valletta convention: Twenty years after - benefits, problems, challenges (pp. 69–77). Brussels: Europae Archaeologia Consilium (EAC). Comer, D. C., & Willems, W. J. H. (2012). Tourism and archaeological heritage: Driver to development or destruction? In Proceedings of the ICOMOS Paris Conference 2011 (pp. 506– 18), available at http://openarchive.icomos.org/1208/1/III-1-Article2_Comer_Willems.pdf. Accessed 9 Nov 2016. Cooke, P. (2000). The principles of interpretation. In N. Buttimer, C. Rynne, & H. Guerin (Eds.), The heritage of Ireland (pp. 375–384). Cork: Collins Press. Cooney, G. (1991). Parking lots for paradise. Archaeology Ireland, 5(3), 23–24. autumn edition. Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. (2015). People and place: Growing tourism to 2025. Dublin. Ireland, F. (n.d.). Sharing our stories: Using interpretation to improve the visitors’ experience at heritage sites. Dublin. Lagerqvist, M. (2015). My goodness, my heritage! Constructing good heritage in the Irish economic crisis. Culture Unbound: Journal of Current Cultural Research, 7, 285–306. McManus, R. (1997). Heritage and tourism in Ireland – An unholy alliance? Irish Geography, 30(2), 90–98. Ó Donnchada, G., & O’Connor, B. (1997). Cultural tourism in Ireland. In G. Richards (Ed.), Cultural tourism in Europe (pp. 197–214). Oxford/New York: CAB International. O’Conor, K., Naessens, P., & Sherlock, R. (2015). Rindoon castle, Co. Roscommon: An Anglo- Norman fortress on the western shores of Lough Ree’, In B. Cunningham & H. Murtagh. (Eds.), Lough Ree: Historic Lakeland settlement (pp. 83–109). Dublin: Four Courts Press. Orbasli, A. (2014). Archaeological site management and local development. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 15(3–4), 237–253.

www.TourismB.ir 9 Archaeology and Tourism in Ireland: Bridging Two Cultures 103

Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998, July–August). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Business Review, 76, 97–105. Richards, G. (2010). Impact of European cultural routes on SMEs’ innovation and competitiveness PROVISIONAL EDITION, available at https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/culture/ Routes/StudyCR_en.pdf. Accessed 9 Nov 2016. Royal Irish Academy. (2017). Archaeology 2025: Ireland’s strategy. Dublin. Schot, R. (2011). From cult centre to royal centre: monuments, myths and other revelations at Uisneach. In R. Schot, C. Newman, & E. Bhreathnach (Eds.), Landscape of cult and kingship (pp. 87–113). Dublin: Four Courts Press. Smyth, J. (Ed.). (2009). Brú na Bóinne world heritage site research framework. Kilkenny: the Heritage Council of Ireland. The Heritage Council. (2007). Newtown Jerpoint county Kilkenny: Conservation plan, Oxford Archaeology, Kilkenny, available at www.heritagecouncil.ie/content/files/newton_jerpoint_ conservation_plan_2007_5mb.pdf. Accessed 14 Apr 2017. Timothy, D. J., & Boyd, S. (2006). Heritage tourism in the 21st century: Valued traditions and new perspectives. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 1(1), 1–16. Willems, A., & Dunning, C. (2015). Solving the puzzle: The characteristics of archaeological tourism In M. H. van den Dries, S. J. van der Linde & A. Strecker (Eds.), Fernweh: Crossing borders and connecting people in archaeological heritage management (pp. 68–71). Leiden: Sidestone Press. Essays in honour of prof. Willem J. H. Willems. Winter, T. (2013). Cultures of interpretation. In R. Staiff, R. Bushell & S. Watson. (Eds.), Heritage and tourism: Place, encounter, engagement (pp. 172–87). London/New York: Routledge. Yunis, E. (2016). Conflicts and challenges associated with heritage tourism. In D. Myers, S. Nicole Smith & G. Ostergren (Eds.), Consensus building, negotiation and conflict resolution for heritage place management: Proceedings of a Workshop Organized by the Getty Conservation Institute (pp. 183–93). Los Angeles, CA, 1–3 December 2009.

www.TourismB.ir Chapter 10 Archaeologist for a Week: Voluntourism in Archaeology

Katharina Möller

Voluntourism and Archaeology

Voluntourism, “the conscious, seamlessly integrated combination of voluntary service to a destination and the best, traditional elements of travel—arts, culture, geography, history and recreation—in that destination” (Voluntourism.org 2017), or in short, a combination of volunteering and travel, has become rather fashionable over the years. There are numerous organisations, both non-profit and openly for-profit ones, who offer volunteer placements in various fields (McGehee 2014, p. 847). A wide variety of options is easily accessible via the internet through search engines (e.g. Google, etc.). One thing all of them have in common is that the volunteers pay for the opportunity, as well as their own travel expenses. Depending on the location and the duration of the chosen project, the costs can easily reach a few thousand Pounds sterling. One of the best known voluntourism organisations is the Earthwatch Institute, which according to its website (http://eu.earthwatch.org/), has sent around 100,000 volunteers to 1400 conservation research projects in more than 120 countries since its foundation in 1971. The organisation currently supports about 60 projects in nearly 40 countries (Earthwatch Institute 2017a). While the areas in which a volunteer may work can vary from organisation to organisation, most projects focus on wildlife and nature conservation or humanitar- ian work (Möller and Karl 2016, p.232). This includes, for example, helping to protect endangered species and teaching abroad. Due to their nature, many projects are located in developing countries.

K. Möller (*) School of History and Archaeology, Prifysgol Bangor University, Bangor, UK e-mail: [email protected]

www.TourismB.ir 106 K. Möller

Only few organisations offer voluntourism in archaeology, and even those that do offer limited options compared to the number of projects which they offer in other areas. For example, only 3 of the 46 projects currently listed on the Earthwatch Institute’s website are archaeology-related projects, even though “Archaeology & Culture” is one of the four main research categories on the website (Earthwatch Institute 2017b). However, aside from the well-known voluntourism organisations, there are other options for people who are interested in volunteering in archaeology. Some travel agents, for example, offer educational trips ranging from field trips to archaeological sites to active participation in excavations (ARGE Archäologie 2017), and for those who are willing to organise their trip on their own, there are various online resources to find archaeological projects, which accept volunteers. One of them is the Past Horizons Archaeology Projects Database, which currently includes information on 201 projects worldwide (PastHorizons 2017). While some of these are only open to archaeology students, others accept volunteers as well. Furthermore, projects often use their website or social media channels to advertise volunteer opportunities (Möller and Karl 2016, p. 233). The worldwide accessibility of volunteering options in archaeology is especially important for those countries where public participation and “citizen science” is not as well developed as in the UK (van den Dries 2014; Karl and Möller 2015; Möller 2015). One of these countries is Austria, where according to a study by Karl et al. on the “Archaeological interests of the Austrian population”, which was conducted in 2014, 62% of the population would like to participate in archaeological research. However, only 4% do currently volunteer, and 12% of the participants were not sure whether it would be allowed to volunteer in archaeology at all. Five percent of the Austrian population, which equals 400,000 people, would even be willing to pay for the opportunity to volunteer (Karl et al. 2014, pp. 15–16). Due to the limited supply of volunteering options in Austria, this suggests that there may be a market for voluntourism in archaeology – especially since Austria is not the only European country where public participation in archaeology and heritage is not widely developed. While this lack of volunteering opportunities in some countries may suggest a potential market for voluntourism in archaeology, the question that remains is whether it would be feasible or not. The continuous involvement of volunteers in British archaeology clearly shows that it is possible to involve untrained members of the public in archaeological projects. However, it may not be feasible for all projects to do so. After all, the involvement of volunteers has an impact on staff costs, logistics and time management.

The Meillionydd Field School as an Example for Voluntourism in Archaeology

There are already examples of voluntourism in archaeology, which show that some people already pay to participate in excavations. This includes participants from Bangor University’s Field School in Meillionydd, near Rhiw on the Llŷn Peninsula

www.TourismB.ir 10 Archaeologist for a Week: Voluntourism in Archaeology 107 in North West Wales. The research is carried out by the School of History and Archaeology and investigates a Late Bronze Age/Iron Age double ringwork enclosure.1 The excavation started in 2010 as a field school for students from Bangor University but also accepts students from other national and international universities as well as volunteers. Since 2011, volunteering opportunities at Meillionydd are offered in cooperation with the Austrian charity ARGE Archäologie to tourists from Austria, Germany and Switzerland. The voluntourists join the excavation for a week and are fully integrated in the team. They get to experience the whole process from manual deturfing to sectioning features and do hard manual work as well as precision tasks and paper- work like any field school student or volunteer on-site. However, they are super- vised by a member of the excavation team who is fluent in German and stay in local hotels. On top of their time on site, they are provided with field trips to local heritage sites as well as archaeology-themed lectures during their stay. The participants come from all walks of life, which include 11-year-old school children, who want to become archaeologists, as well as adults who spend their summer vacation on an excavation and pensioners, for whom the participation in an archaeological excavation is a childhood dream come true. The oldest participant was 90 years old when she joined the excavation. The group usually consists of four to eight participants. However, numbers fluc- tuate from year to year. While the excavation was fully booked in 2013, there were only three expressions of interest in 2014 and in 2015; two out of eight bookings were cancelled on short notice. In 2016, only two voluntourists participated in the Meillionydd excavation. The high fluctuation shows that financial feasibility might be an issue. At Meillionydd, the excavation does not depend on the involvement of voluntourists, because it is mainly run as a field school for students from Bangor University. Therefore, most costs associated with the excavation itself will be incurred anyway whether voluntourists are involved or not. However, there are additional costs involved which would not be incurred if voluntourists were not participating in the excavation. Among these are costs for an additional member of staff needed to train and supervise the voluntourists as well as costs for equipment, transport, subsis- tence and accommodation. In addition, there are additional staff costs for preparation and advertising as well as costs for advertising material that need to be taken into account. While at the Meillionydd excavation, the involvement of voluntourists is financially feasible; this is not necessarily something travel agents have picked up on. A survey conducted among travel agents from the UK and the USA by researchers from Bangor University in 2014 aimed to find out whether travel agents would be interested to offer hands-on vacations on excavations. Forty-seven tour operators who offered some sort of archaeological experience within their current programme were contacted. Most tour operators believed that their demographic,

1 For further information on the excavation, see the project website: http://meillionydd.bangor. ac.uk/

www.TourismB.ir 108 K. Möller which is mainly in the age range of 50+, would either be unable to participate or would generally not be interested in such a product (Karl and Ryan Young 2014, pp. 6–8, Fig. 6).

Survey on Volunteering in Archaeology

To gain a better understanding of why people volunteer in archaeology, a survey among volunteers from the UK and the German-speaking countries (e.g. Austria, Germany and Switzerland) was conducted in April 2015. The online survey,2 which was advertised through email and social media and was available in English and German, received 41 responses, of which 31 were recorded on the English questionnaire and 10 on the German questionnaire. Due to the low number of responses, it is by no means a representative survey. Nonetheless, a few findings shall be discussed below. As the demographic information shows, 26 (c. 63%) of the participants were female and 15 (c. 37%) male. Most participants (34%) were between 51 and 60 years of age (Fig. 10.1). In total, 59% of the volunteers were over 50 years old. 25% were even over 60 years of age. This seems to contradict the tour operators’ assumption that their demographic would generally be uninterested in volunteering at excavations due to their age. This can be backed up further by a survey conducted on behalf of the Council for British Archaeology (CBA) in 2009, which indicated that the estimated average age of members of voluntary groups and societies active in the UK was 55 at that time (Thomas 2010, p. 23). The volunteers who participated in the survey were highly qualified (Fig. 10.2). C. 71% had a university degree. Many were working, either being employed (c. 39%)

Fig. 10.1 Age of volunteers (n = 41) 5% 5% under 20

20% 22% 20-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 7% 61-70

7% over 70 34%

2 A PDF version of the survey forms is available at https://www.academia.edu/34944888/ Volunteering_in_Archaeology_Survey_Forms

www.TourismB.ir 10 Archaeologist for a Week: Voluntourism in Archaeology 109

2% 2% 7% none

10% GCSE

A-level 10% 37% Certificate of Higher Education

BA 5% Master

Doctorate

27% other

Fig. 10.2 Highest level of education of volunteers (n = 41) or self-employed (c. 17%). Only c. 20% were retired and c. 15% were still in education. The remaining c. 10% were currently unemployed. One of the main questions, especially when considering the fact that people are willing to pay to volunteer in archaeology, is what motivates them to invest time and money to volunteer. Most of the voluntourists who have joined the Meillionydd excavation over the past years said that they had been very interested in archaeology and history when they were younger but opted for something “sensible” instead when it came to choosing a career. Unsurprisingly, most volunteers who responded to the survey also stated that they are interested in history. Some specifically mentioned the development of humanity as one of their main interests or the fact that they think one should learn from history. It was also stated that volunteering at an excavation is seen as exciting, because it allowed people to literally touch history and recover things that had been hidden for centuries. Furthermore, it was considered a rewarding task, because it allowed people to contribute towards researching the past and help to prove archaeological theories or create new ones. Many volunteers became aware of the possibility to volunteer in archaeology through the internet (c. 27%), while 19% became aware through publications (Fig. 10.3). Promotional materials like flyers do not seem to be of great importance. However, the fact that 29% of the participants who filled out the English questionnaire became aware of the possibility to volunteer in archaeology through the internet shows that the availability of volunteering opportunities through the internet is important even in those countries, where there already is a high degree of community involvement in archaeology. Aside from the volunteers’ motivation for volunteering, another point of interest was the criteria which are used to choose on which excavation to volunteer. Here, personal interests, for example, in a specific region or time period, were of great importance (Fig. 10.4). Of course, the dates and personal availability were also relevant. The excavation’s promotion on the other hand, be it online or in the form of print materials, does not seem to have a huge effect.

www.TourismB.ir 110 K. Möller

17% Internet 27% Publications

Promotional material 10% Family/Friends

Degree course/night class

15% Local society 19% Other 10% 2%

Fig. 10.3 How volunteers became aware of the possibility to volunteer in archaeology (n = 41)

8% Dates 6% 25% Distance to place of residence 2%

Price/performance ratio

Personal interests

Internet presence/promotional 32% 15% material of the project Recommendations of former volunteers Other 12%

Fig. 10.4 Criteria for choosing an excavation to volunteer on (n = 41, multiple responses were possible)

Another question concerned the expectations volunteers might have when they donate their time or even pay for the privilege to participate in an excavation. 26% of volunteers said they wanted to feel like their help is valued. 17% were interested in developing new skills, which might help them, for example, on the labour market. Only 5% would like their work to be formally recognised, for example, by having their name linked to the results. Many volunteers have gained knowledge about archaeology through formal education or practical training (Fig. 10.5). Roughly one third of the people participating in this survey has studied archaeology at some point, even if they might not have gained a degree or might not work as an archaeologist any longer. Others have taken online or evening courses and about one in four participants gained knowledge about archaeology through volunteering.

www.TourismB.ir 10 Archaeologist for a Week: Voluntourism in Archaeology 111

Other I do not have any 11% I have a degree in knowledge about archaeology. archaeology. 22% 1%

I studied archaeology, but I never finished my I read scientific degree. publications/pop 8% ular books about I gained archaeology knowledge about and/or watch archaeology by documentaries volunteering (e.g. about on an archaeology on … excavation). 26%

Fig. 10.5 Source of archaeological knowledge among volunteers (n = 40, multiple responses were possible)

While 43% of the participants have less than 4 weeks of experience in excavating, 44% stated that they have more than 3 months of experience. Of those, 37% had more than 6 months of experience in fieldwork. Six months of practical experience is what an archaeology graduate needs in the UK, to be employable in the field of archaeology (Connolly 2013, p. 6). Therefore, many volunteers have as much, if not more, practical experience than that required of a recently graduated professional archaeologist.

Working with Volunteers: Pros and Cons

For excavations, taking on paying voluntourists might seem like an ideal funding opportunity in times of decreased funding. However, there are a number of advan- tages and disadvantages to be considered when it comes to volunteer involvement. For one, the fluctuating demand which we experienced at the Meillionydd excavation suggests that voluntourism is not an income stream suited as a viable funding strategy. It should rather be seen as means to generate additional funding for an already funded project or to help finance future projects. There are also additional costs involved, especially when it comes to resident volunteers, and additional work needs to be carried out both during the planning stage and during the project itself. This means that additional staff might be needed, which again raises the costs of the project. Therefore, an excavation that relies heavily on voluntourists to cover its costs might not be financially feasible. Aside from the financial aspect, the additional staff time required to manage volunteers on an excavation, both during the planning phase and in the field, might have an implication for feasibility. Volunteers who give up their time as well as

www.TourismB.ir 112 K. Möller voluntourists who pay for the privilege of participating in an excavation will have certain expectations of what they want in return. They will not be satisfied with standing on the sidelines watching the professionals. However, depending on their previous experience, volunteers might require training and supervision to carry out work properly. Thus volunteer involvement can take up a significant amount of staff time and therefore is certainly not suitable for every excavation. Staff on rescue excavations, for example, might not have the time to train volunteers. That said, some volunteers who have been volunteering for years have a lot of experience already and might need no further training and just a minimal level of supervision. Those volunteers might be able to lighten the staff’s workload by supervising others who have less experience. However, this does not mean that paid staff should be replaced by volunteers or that field school placements should be given to paying volunteers rather than archaeology students. Jobs in archaeology are scarce as it is (Karl et al. 2012), and supervision by trained archaeologists is needed to ensure that volunteer work is carried out according to professional standards. Therefore, the involvement of volunteers should ideally lead to the creation of new jobs for professional archaeologists rather than result in the replacement of qualified personnel by (paying) volunteers (Möller and Karl 2016, p. 238). Aside from the risk of “decreased labour demand” outlined above, Guttentag discusses another potential problem of voluntourism: the “completion of unsatisfactory work” (Guttentag 2009, pp. 543–544), which also applies to volunteers in archaeology. Since archaeological excavations are a destructive process, it is important that sites are excavated and documented properly. Some might question whether volunteers are trained well enough to carry out this kind of work properly. However, experience shows that volunteers tend to be exceptionally careful and do everything to avoid destroying something important. They usually work very conscientiously and ask for advice when needed. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule and risks still remain, but that is more or less a given at any excavation, especially in cases like the Meillionydd field school where there is hardly any difference between a first year archaeology student without any previous fieldwork experience and a volunteer; both require the same amount of practical training and supervision, even though the archaeology student might have more background knowledge. Therefore, while training is needed to ensure that the work is carried out satisfactorily, this should not be seen as an argument against volunteer involvement. It only strength- ens the point that not every excavation (e.g. rescue/commercial digs) might be suitable for including volunteers and that the time needed for training must be considered when trying to decide whether the involvement of voluntourists is feasible or not. It should also be mentioned that projects can gain a lot from volunteer participation aside from free labour. Volunteers come from all walks of life and bring a unique skill set which can prove beneficial to the excavation. Some excavations work with local metal detectorists, for example, to ensure that even the smallest piece of metal is found. At Meillionydd, we have benefited from the language proficiency of our Welsh volunteers, which enabled us to provide site tours through the medium of Welsh for the local community, as well as the work of an amateur

www.TourismB.ir 10 Archaeologist for a Week: Voluntourism in Archaeology 113 photographer, who was kind enough to allow us to use his high-quality photographs in publications and adverts. All in all, from my own experience, if it is possible to include international volunteers in excavations, it’s well worth it. Voluntourists, who join an excavation and get to experience the whole process of archaeological fieldwork, first hand not only had a great adventure but more importantly gained a better understanding of archaeology. Most of them will share their knowledge with friends and family once they are back home. Therefore, they themselves can help to educate others about archaeology and the relevance of archaeological fieldwork. Thought whether these benefits outweigh the disadvantages and in combination with the financial and time management implications make the involvement of voluntourists feasible must be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Bibliography

ARGE Archäologie. (2017). Programme 2017. https://www.arge-archaeologie.at/programm-2017/. date accessed 30 Mar 2017. Connolly, D. (2013). BAJR guide to a career in archaeology. (BAJR practical guide series, Guide 33). Haddington: British Archaeological Jobs and Resources. http://www.bajr.org/ BAJRGuides/33.%20Archaeological_Career_Advice/Archaeology_2013.pdf. date accessed 30 Mar 2017. Earthwatch Institute. (2017a). Fast facts. http://eu.earthwatch.org/About/Fast-Facts. date accessed 30 Mar 2017. Earthwatch Institute. (2017b). http://eu.earthwatch.org/Expeditions/Expedition-Search. date accessed 30 Mar 2017. Guttentag, D. A. (2009). The possible negative impacts of volunteer tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11, 537–551. Karl, R., & Möller, K. (2015). Open Data, Archäologie und Bürgerbeteiligung in England und Wales. Archäologische Informationen, 38, 185–199. https://doi.org/10.11588/ai.2015.1.26166. Karl, R., & Ryan Young, C. (2014). Touristic Exploitation of Archaeological Fieldwork. [unpublished report]. Karl, R., Möller, K., & Krierer, K. R. (2012). Ain’t got no job… The archaeology labour market in Austria, Germany and the UK, 2007–2012. Wien: Internationales Österreichisches Archäologie Forum. http://archaologieforum.org/index.php/beitraege/10-neuigkeiten/5346-the-archaeological-labour-market. date accessed 30 Mar 2017. Karl, R. et al. (2014). Archäologische Interessen der Österreichischen Bevölkerung (Bangor studies in archaeology, 8). Bangor: School of History, Welsh History and Archaeology, Bangor University. McGehee, N. G. (2014). Volunteer tourism: Evolution, issues and futures. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2(6), 847–854. Möller, K. (2015). Live und in Farbe – Bürgerbeteiligung auf archäologischen Ausgrabungen anhand eines Fallbeispiels. Archäologische Informationen, 39, 47–56. https://doi.org/10.11588/ ai.2016.1.33537. Möller, K., & Karl, R. (2016). Digging up the past in Gwynedd: Heritage research tourism in Wales. In G. Hooper (Ed.), Heritage and tourism in Britain and Ireland. London: Palgrave Macmillan. PastHorizons. (2017). http://www.pasthorizons.com/worldprojects/defaultsearch.asp. date accessed 30 Mar 2017.

www.TourismB.ir 114 K. Möller

Thomas, S. (2010). Community archaeology in the UK: Recent findings. York: Council for British Archaeology. van den Dries, M. (2014). Community archaeology in the Netherlands. Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage, 1(1), 69–88. Vountourism.org. (2017). http://www.voluntourism.org/. date accessed 30 Mar 2017.

www.TourismB.ir Chapter 11 Archaeotourism Spaces in Present-Day Poland: Thoughts on Reconstruction and Re-enactments

Michał Pawleta

Introduction

In the last two decades in Poland, crucial changes in contemporary attitudes to the past can be observed. They were caused mainly by social, economic and political changes associated with the 1989 social revolution and the fall of communism (Purchla 2015), as well as by the advent of consumer culture. Changes include the increasing importance of memory in public life; the privatisation of the past, based on creating personalised visions of the past; the conviction that direct contact with the past is possible through personal and sensual experience; and the commercialisation of cultural heritage (Kwiatkowski 2008: 39–40). Having taken as a starting point the above-mentioned changes, in the following paper, I analyse the role archaeological reconstruction and historical re-enactments may play in the development of archaeological tourism currently conducted in Poland. I discuss them with special consideration of the potential they have to offer for the creation of archaeological tourist products. The aim of the discussion of these phenomena is to identify their constitutive elements and pitfalls.

Archaeological Tourism

Although touristic adaptations of archaeological heritage and monuments have a long tradition, the increased tourist interest in heritage, and the development of so- called heritage tourism (Park 2013), is quite a new phenomenon and only recently has it inspired a number of academic works (e.g. Baram 2008; Melotti 2011;

M. Pawleta (*) Institute of Archaeology, Adam Mickiewicz University, ul. Umultowska 89d, Poznań 61-614, Poland e-mail: [email protected]

www.TourismB.ir 116 M. Pawleta

Douglas 2012; Krueger 2012; Pawleta 2012; Werczyński 2012; Walker and Carr 2013). Archaeological tourism, also known as “archaeotourism”, aims to promote public interest in archaeology and the protection of archaeological and/or historical sites (Kaczmarek 2010). It can include visits to archaeological sites, exhibitions in museums, living history museums or reserves but also participation in archaeological festivals. Closely linked to it is a living history or historical re-enactment tourism which Armin Mikos v. Rohrscheidt (2010: 151) defines as “tourism where the main aim is to actively or passively participate in events aimed at reconstructing and performing historical events, or the presentation of everyday life in the past and the customs and rituals of local historical traditions”. Claims recognising archaeological sites or monuments in Poland as tourist attractions have been made for some time by archaeologists (e.g. Baranowski and Zajączkowski 1976; Jaskanis 1999), and the need to include historical re-enactment events in broader tourism programmes has also been emphasised in recent years (e.g. Mikos v. Rohrscheidt 2011). In both instances, the creation of a carefully considered tourist product, which is simultaneously original and cohesive, is vital. Moreover, it should stand out from other offers on the market, yet all its elements should match and be mutually supplementary (Kaczmarek et al. 2005: 95). Archaeological heritage can therefore be used in tourism on five levels: (1) by making archaeological sites widely available, linking them to a network of routes and promoting the sites in brochures, leaflets, Internet, etc.; (2) through the reconstruction of archaeological structures, which could become local tourist attractions; (3) by organising a series of periodic events (e.g. fêtes), during which elements of everyday life in the past could be recreated; (4) by making it possible for tourists to participate in excavations of interesting sites; and (5) through the organisation of excursions to selected archaeological sites (Florek 2008: 23).

Archaeological Reconstructions and Historical Re-enactment

Over the last few years, the process of the revitalisation of existing archaeological reserves and open-air museums, and the construction of archaeological parks, cop- ies of strongholds or settlements (the majority of which refer to the Middle Ages or to prehistoric times) has become more pronounced not only in Poland but across Europe (e.g. Gancarski 2012; Paardekooper 2012). Elsewhere I have termed this trend as reconstructionism (Pawleta 2012: 372–374; 2016: 164–166). Present times have also witnessed a totally new way of referring to the past, namely, “historical re-enactment” (e.g. Radtchenko 2006; Bogacki 2008; 2010). Both phenomena constitute new but increasingly popular ways of connecting Poles with the distant past at many levels, not only educational but also recreational and emotional. Reconstructionism denotes recreation of the past through material full-sized reconstructions in the form of open-air museums, reserves or archaeological parks as well as replicas of prehistoric strongholds or settlements. Two basic forms of

www.TourismB.ir 11 Archaeotourism Spaces in Present-Day Poland: Thoughts on Reconstruction… 117 reconstruction should be distinguished in Poland, namely, archaeological reserves and archaeological replicas (Piotrowski 2006: 331–333). The difference between them is that the archaeological reserve is a truthful reconstruction in situ on excavated sites and made accessible to tourists. The eminent examples in Poland include, amongst other, an open-air archaeological museum in Biskupin, a well-known life- sized model of an Iron Age fortified settlement; Kalisz Piast settlement in Zawodzie; or the Carpathian Troy in Trzcinica, Podkarpackie Province, a reconstruction of a fortified hillfort of Otomani-Füzesabony culture from the Bronze Age and medieval Slavic village. In contrast to the archaeological reserve, the archaeological replica is an ideal reconstruction of objects or the presentation of building techniques used in a given period of prehistory or region. For this reason, it may be built anywhere, e.g. “the VI Ploughmen Village” Archaeological Park in Bochnia – an ideal reconstruction of a Lesser Poland village – a ring-shaped village (from the thirteenth century), with an “industrial” section containing salt-work and exploration shaft (Fig. 11.1). Replicas of medieval strongholds or prehistoric settlements should also be included in the last category as, for example, reconstruction of the early medieval Slavic wooden stronghold in Owidz, Pomerania Province. These and other reconstructions fulfil various aims, including the protection of archaeological heritage, scientific research as well as education and the popularisation of knowledge of the past. Equally important objectives closely linked to the commercial activity of such ven- tures are entertainment and the increase of tourism in a given region. Often they have been created precisely as tourist attractions, intended to promote local heritage and attract tourists (Kruczek 2013).

Fig. 11.1 An example of a reconstruction of log hut from the thirteenth century. “The VI Ploughmen Village” Archaeological Park in Bochnia. (Photo: Michał Pawleta)

www.TourismB.ir 118 M. Pawleta

The other phenomenon addressed in this paper, namely, historical re-enactment, shall be defined as a collection of “activities based on the visual presentation of various areas of life in the past by people in costumes using objects relating to the past (replicas or occasionally reconstructions) for a given period, even relatively original artefacts” (Bogacki 2008: 222). It involves the staging of past events based on historical or archaeological facts and does necessarily seek to present an unbi- ased recreation of the past (Bogacki 2010: 48–49). The interests of re-enactment groups in Poland vary significantly – the most popular are those re-enacting the cultures of the Early Medieval Slavs and Vikings (e.g. Triglav, Jomsborg Vikings Hird, Walhalla), knights, mercenaries, seventeenth- century armies, Napoleonic soldiers, World War II troops and from the most recent military conflicts. Reenactors meet at gatherings and historical events in the open air such as archaeological fêtes, medieval tournaments or battle re-enactments, of which the largest and most famous is the re-enactment of the Grunwald Battle of 1410 where the whole setting is very media-friendly. Apart from its educational and popularising functions through the attractive transmission of information that give the audience the impression of being in direct contact with the past, re-enactment can also fulfil educational functions, an economic role, possess a scientific value or may serve purely commercial aims. Archaeological reconstructions and historical re-enactment presentations often interrelate, mainly at archaeological festivals (open-air events which usually take place on historical sites, archaeological reserves, in the vicinity of strongholds etc.), during which many aspects of material, social or spiritual life from the past are presented (Brzeziński 2001: 186–187; Chowaniec 2010: 208–217). These include various ancient crafts such as pottery making, iron smelting, coin minting, weaving, cooking, scenes from everyday life as well as warrior battles, concerts of old music and so on. The most popular festivals in Poland are Slavs and Vikings Festival in Wolin, Dymarki Świętokrzyskie in Nowa Słupia or the largest and the most famous archaeological festival in Europe, namely, Archaeological Festival in Biskupin. In the last case, since 1995, usually during the third week of September, over 70,000 of the 250,000 total yearly visitors, mostly school children, come to visit this event (Piotrowski and Zajączkowski 2010). Last year’s 23rd edition was entitled “Gods of War” and was concerned with presentation of ancient weaponry, fighting techniques and spiritual realms of ancient warriorhood.

The Reconstructed Past: Between Visualisation, Experiences, Education and Commercialisation

I argued elsewhere (Pawleta 2012) that archaeological reserves and reconstructions can serve as tourist attractions, enchanting visitors and offering them contact with the past compatible with the new historical culture. The same can be claimed about historical re-enactment presentations. I will now present selected constitutive

www.TourismB.ir 11 Archaeotourism Spaces in Present-Day Poland: Thoughts on Reconstruction… 119

Fig. 11.2 A daily life in the Neolithic scenery. Archaeological Festival in Biskupin “Smaki Przeszłości” (Eng. Tastes of the Past) in 2015. (Photo: Marzena Janikowska) elements of both phenomena in regard to present attitudes to the past, bearing in mind the potential they have to offer for the creation of archaeological tourist products. First, their most advantageous side is a presentation of the past in a visualised form – either by way of full-sized material reconstructions or re-enactments before a live audience. These trends are related to attempts to “enliven” the past, thus moving away from static forms of presentation (e.g. exhibitions in museums) towards making it more accessible and interactive (Fig. 11.2). Moreover, it is not about passively observing a re-enactment; rather, it poses an opportunity to actively participate. These are particularly successful because of their visual impact. By creating a unique tableau of the attractive and lively scenes, narrations or spectacles about the distant past they provide an excellent opportunity for learning and interpretation through living history (Blockley 2000: 44). Secondly, a significant element that reconstructions and historical re-enactment performances deliver is immersive and interactive contact with the past. Such contact allows the participant to have a visceral experience of the past – one that relies on the senses of sight, sound, smell and touch whilst rendering narrative discourse less necessary. Since the reconstructions themselves serve as a testament to how things “once were”, or “might have been”, they provide an opportunity to become fully immersed in the past (Fig. 11.3). This immersive experience prioritises non- verbal communication, images, happenings and performance to deliver aesthetic and emotional experiences over intellectualised forms of contact with the past.

www.TourismB.ir 120 M. Pawleta

Fig. 11.3 A taste of the past. Archaeological Festival in Biskupin “Smaki Przeszłości” (eng. Tastes of the Past) in 2015. (Photo: Marzena Janikowska)

It denotes the possibility to experience the past through the senses – sight, sound, smell and touch – whilst reducing discoursive forms. The very fact that they are material makes reconstructions a testimony to the reality of the existence of certain forms of the past (Fig.11.3). Thus, it is an approach to the past that is dominated by non-verbal communication, images, happenings and performance: it is not intellect, but rather the senses which play the key role in the experience of the past and allow to “immerse oneself”, with more or less success, in the past, delivering certain aesthetic and emotional experiences to the audience over intellectualised forms of contact with the past (Szpociński 2010: 16). Another important element is emotional engagement that creates a sense of being in direct contact with the past. Material reconstructions along with recreated scenes from the past give rise to emotions through “sensuous intensification”, providing visitors with extraordinary experiences. The fact that it is possible to take a look “behind the scenes” at such events is important, it minimises the distance between the actor and the spectator, creating the illusion viewers have of “being in direct contact with the past” (Nieroba et al. 2009: 30–33). Such a tendency is closely linked with one of the main trends of today’s tourism, namely, the “experience economy” (Pine and Gilmore 1999). Today’s businesses, including tourism, must orchestrate memorable events for their customers, thereby creating the intangible yet marketable product: the participant’s recollection of the experience. Thus, tourism has to provide professionally (consciously and purposefully) prepared tourist products, strongly marked with emotion. It resonates with what Marxiano Melotti (2011: 23) calls “sensory tourism” – it is tourism more oriented to emotional and experiential aspects and less tied to contents and material aspects. What is important here is “not the authenticity of the event, but the authenticity of the experience, which, although repeatable ad infinitum for every tourist, is always

www.TourismB.ir 11 Archaeotourism Spaces in Present-Day Poland: Thoughts on Reconstruction… 121 real and individual for each one of them” (Melotti 2011: 16). Such an approach to cultural heritage does not have to be devoid of all marks of authenticity, for in so- called hot authenticity – the authenticity of experience – it is what the visitor feels in contact with the past (Selwyn 1996: 7–8, cited in Wieczorkiewicz 2008: 41–42). Thus, in this context, the represented past does not have to be genuine in the sense that it depicts what once really happened, but it needs to be credible as a past that might have happened. Most credible are those visions of the past that resemble what we already knew beforehand (Holtorf 2012: 200). Archaeology through its reconstruction and living presentations can offer tourists a kind of “time travel” (Holtorf 2014). It can be argued that through replicas and re-enactments people can experience the past in a way similar to that of the tourist’s experience of unfamiliar and exotic settings. The physicality that comes from an archaeological and immersive experience allows the visitor to perceive it as authentic; and in some cases, more so than she would an original monument. Moreover, visitors allow themselves – via the various elements and theatrical staging that reconstructions employ to visually explain past reality – to be drawn into a different historical reality, and, almost empathetically, they take on the role of a person from the past. Archaeological tourism particularly can draw out specific emotions via different forms and on different levels: (1) temporal, a symbolic entry into the world of the past or contact with an object not connected to the contemporary era; (2) spatial, entry into the extraordinary space of a museum or archaeological site; (3) cultural, contact with “different” behaviour of ancient peoples; and (4) ontological status, mummies, graves and necropolises (Melotti 2011: 23). Additionally, interactive contact with the past denotes possibilities to participate in the events. The opportunities on offer here, to participate directly in the events or demonstrations, to actively learn and involve all the senses directly in the process, are significant. For example, during archaeological fêtes, knowledge is presented in an interactive way, offering contact with the past along the lines of “pick up an artefact, try to make a copy and feel history” (Chowaniec 2010: 210). Everything can be touched; spectators can often participate in the subsequent stages of an experiment, make some objects by themselves or personally check how they work (Fig. 11.4). It is not passive entertainment or simply superficially interactive participation in the event, but “a whole line of time-consuming activities, triggering a very broad range of human enterprise” (Kantor 2010: 142). This is a good approach to heritage interpretation that is directly congruent with experiences of present-day people. This participatory paradigm enables assimilation by people of the abstract knowledge about the past through active engaging in reception of this knowledge. It is connected with the idea of play as an important part of contemporary education processes (learning) that could be described as edutainment. Its task is to pass on set educational content to a particular audience, for entertainment is an interesting, absorbing and audience-friendly form of information transfer (Fig. 11.5). Thanks to this, people find it easier to internalise knowledge; they have pleasant associations and memories of learning and therefore return to it more willingly. Thus, edutainment provides opportunities for audience interaction, makes the knowledge

www.TourismB.ir 122 M. Pawleta

Fig. 11.4 Interactive workshops with children in reconstruction a Mesolithic hut in Biskupin. (Photo: Archive of Archaeological Museum in Biskupin) communicated more memorable and enables participants to find a personal interpretation of the content (Johnson and Maxson McElroy 2010). Thus, the past being presented and experienced in the ways described can provide certain pleasures through the reconstructions and the staging of the past events that often are arranged in such a way as to fulfil the expectations of the mass tourists and allow them active participation and by providing entertainment. By creating the illusion of time travel, they can offer the spectators a number of pleasant and memorable experiences. The pleasure referred to described phenomena can be gained both from participation in staging the past events and watching such kinds of spectacles. It can also be obtained through direct (sensory) contact with the past and its material reconstructions, the methods of learning/educating about the past as well as stricte ludic activities with the past as a theme, connected to them. Last but not least of importance are the economic aspects of archaeological tourism: the finances that it generates can make it possible for certain institutions (e.g. museums, open-air museums) to present archaeological heritage in a fresh way and gain funding for further work that is crucial in a context of a free-market economy. For instance, archaeological festival in Biskupin, being a major tourist attraction of this kind in Poland, generates a substantial part of the annual income of a Museum in Biskupin, which allows it to undertake other archaeological initiatives through the whole year. Moreover, heritage resources help to generate workplaces and

www.TourismB.ir 11 Archaeotourism Spaces in Present-Day Poland: Thoughts on Reconstruction… 123

Fig. 11.5 Celebrations of Children’s Day at the Archaeological Museum in Biskupin in 2016. (Photo: Justyna Bańkowska) income for the local societies and have a stimulating effect on local economy (Nowacki 2012: 14). However, economic elements should be subject to the principles of sustainable development and be congruent with the objectives of sustainable archaeological tourism. This means giving visitors the opportunity to fully experience ancient sites whilst minimising the negative impact of tourism, ensuring both protection of the site and continued enjoyment of it by tourists. Only in this way archaeological tourism can be vested in the protection of archaeological heritage. The product which archaeology has to offer society is not in any way the archaeological heritage but the idea of the preservation, conservation and study of archaeological heritage. This does not comprise therefore material goods but rather phenomena connected with emotions – as Mim Bower called it “marketed nostalgia” (1995: 38, cited in Kobyliński 2001: 221). This nostalgia will be both the core of the archaeological tourist product and the motivation for undertaking a trip. However, the conviction that nostalgia understood in this way or simply that the monument itself will suffice ignores the importance of proper “packaging” (e.g. Florek 2008). Although incorporation of the above-mentioned elements into the development of archaeological tourism seems to be of crucial significance and underpins the uniqueness and attractiveness of the product archaeology has to offer, it also generates many threats and shortcomings that I only touch upon here. The main danger

www.TourismB.ir 124 M. Pawleta arises from the unavoidable commodification of the past and turning heritage into tourist attractions. The good example is the increased “reconstruction movement” in Poland that results from the opportunity to use EU’s structural funds supporting the development of regional tourism. In fact, the creation of many reconstructions of hillforts and settlements is contradictory to present-day conservatory doctrine as they have been created in situ at archaeological sites (Oniszczuk 2014: 65–66). It is critical that reconstructions and replicas be erected away from the original site. By diverting such activities away from the original sites, archaeologists would be able to draw upon data taken from the archaeological sites to inform the reconstructions whilst simultaneously preserving the sites themselves. Moreover, archaeological sites are fragile resources, and inadequate site management can result in deterioration or even destruction of the site and its related social, historical, educational and economic potential by mass tourism due to their improper or uncontrolled exploitation. This is also true of archaeological sites during fêtes. The credibility and the accuracy of many reconstructions are also debat- able: their elements are often stylised and stereotyped to enhance their effect, in consequence tending to the creation of simulacra of the past and “staged authenticity” (MacCannell 1976: 91–107). This will end up in the disappearance of the site’s authenticity since the interpretative processes tend to distort its history – in the process of presentation, the site is created anew, stylised so as to have an authentic feel and made more accessible to mass tourism (Nowacki 2012: 14). Moreover, the quality of presentations and the educational activities which take place at such sites is questioned. Often educational ideas are lost in favour of entertainment and domina- tion of form over content, spectacle and attractiveness over scientific reliability. Therein lays the real danger, especially for unprepared visitors, who may well end up creating a false image of the past based on information received. Finally, it also risks disneyfication of the past and heritage as well as trivialisation of archaeological practice and the complex process of interpretation of the past (Dominiak 2004).

Concluding Remarks

To conclude, archaeology potentially has a lot to offer to heritage tourism, by bridging the gap between the past and the present with a level of immersion, emotional engagement and realism. Archaeological tourism seems to be a tool which can be used to popularise and disseminate archaeology with a focus on how it can be used to realise social aims, making archaeology more accessible to the general public whilst at the same time also being of economic benefit. Therefore, when understood in this way, the objectives of archaeological tourism are to promote the archaeological heritage of certain regions, draw attention to interesting places and historical sites to visit, encourage the discovery of local lifestyles and popularise archaeology. However, in avoiding creation of tourist traps and utilising archaeological heritage in a harmless way, an active cooperation between archaeologists and tourism managers seems to be of crucial importance. Only this way may lead to the creation of

www.TourismB.ir 11 Archaeotourism Spaces in Present-Day Poland: Thoughts on Reconstruction… 125 a relevant product which is in accordance with both the spirit of archaeology and tourism and be a truly active heritage interpretation process.

Acknowledgements This paper has benefited from the financial assistance afforded by the European Commission for a project entitled “New scenarios for a community-involved archaeology (NEARCH)”. Although this publication resulted from the project supported by the European Commission, it reflects the view of its author, exclusively, and the Commission should not be held responsible for any use which may be made of information and opinion presented herein. Any errors or misinterpretations are entirely the responsibility of the author.

References

Baram, U. (2008). Tourism and archaeology. In D. M. Pearsall (Ed.), Encyclopedia of archaeology (pp. 2131–2134). San Diego: Elsevier/Academic Press. Baranowski, T., & Zajączkowski, W. (1976). Archeologia po drodze. Przewodnik. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy Im. Ossolińskich. Blockley, M. (2000). The social context for archaeological reconstructions in England, Germany and Scandinavia. Archaeologia Polona, 38, 43–68. Bogacki, M. (2008). Wybrane problemy odtwórstwa wczesnośredniowiecznego w Polsce. In M. Bogacki, M. Franz, & Z. Pilarczyk (Eds.), Kultura ludów Morza Bałtyckiego, t. II. Nowożytność i współczesność (pp. 219–269). Toruń: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek. Bogacki, M. (2010). “Wżywanie” się w przeszłość - odtwórstwo historyczne a nauka. In K. Obremski & J. Wenta (Eds.), Recepcja kultury średniowiecznej w humanistyce (pp. 153– 196). Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika. Bower, M. (1995). Marketed nostalgia: An exploration of heritage management and its relation to the human consciousness. In M. A. Cooper, A. Firth, J. Carman, & D. Wheatley (Eds.), Managing archaeology (pp. 31–37). London/New York: Routledge. Brzeziński, W. (2001). Archaeology in the museum. Presenting the past to the general public. In Z. Kobyliński (Ed.), Quo vadis archaeologia? Whither European archaeology in the 21st century? (pp. 181–190). Warszawa: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology of Polish Academy of Sciences. Chowaniec, R. (2010). Dziedzictwo archeologiczne w Polsce. Formy edukacji i popularyzacji. Warszawa: Instytut Archeologii UW. Dominiak, Ł. (2004). Zabawa w przeszłość. Festyn archeologiczny jako forma karnawału. In J. Grad, & H. Mamzer (Eds.), Karnawalizacja. Tendencje ludyczne w kulturze współczesnej (pp. 81–86). Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM. Douglas, C. (2012). Tourism and archaeological heritage management at Petra: Driver to development or destruction? New York: Springer. Florek, M. (2008). Wprowadzenie do archeoturystyki ziemi sandomierskiej. In T. Giergiel (Ed.), Archeoturystyka: nowoczesny produkt turystyczny (pp. 17–28). Sandomierz: LGD Lokalna Organizacja Turystyczna “Partnerstwo Ziemi Sandomierskiej”. Gancarski, J. (2012). (Ed.). Skanseny archeologiczne i archeologia eksperymentalna. Krosno: Muzeum Podkarpackie w Krośnie. Holtorf, C. (2012). The past as carnival. Time and Mind. The Journal of Archaeology, Consciousness and Culture, 5(2), 195–202. Holtorf, C. (2014). The time travellers’ tools of the trade: Some trends at Lejre. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 20(7–8), 782–797. Jaskanis, D. (1999). O potrzebie systemowego upowszechniania obiektów archeologicznych w turystyce kulturalnej. In Z. Kobyliński (Ed.), Krajobraz archeologiczny. Ochrona zabytków

www.TourismB.ir 126 M. Pawleta

archeologicznych jako form krajobrazu kulturowego (pp. 24–39). Warszawa: Res Publica Multiethnica. Johnson, B., & Maxson McElroy, T. (2010). The edutainer. Connecting the art and science of teaching. Lanham/New York/Toronto/Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Kaczmarek, K. (2010). Turystyka archeologiczna. Turystyka Kulturowa, 1–3(2010), 5–14. Kaczmarek, J., Stasiak, A., & Włodarczyk, B. (2005). Produkt turystyczny. Pomysł. Organizacja. Zarządzanie. Warszawa: Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne. Kantor, R. (2010). Zabawa przeszłością – zabawa w przeszłość. Historia uludyczniona. Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis. Studia Sociologica, III, 134–149. Kobyliński, Z. (2001). Teoretyczne podstawy konserwacji dziedzictwa archeologicznego. Warszawa: Res Publica Multiethnica, IAiE PAN. Kruczek, Z. (2013). Skansen Archeologiczny “Karpacka Troja” – kreacja nowej atrakcji turysty- cznej i ocena jej jakości. In B. Krakowiak, A. Stasiak, & B. Włodarczyk (Eds.), Kultura i turystyka – miejsca spotkań (pp. 207–223). Łódź: Regionalna Organizacja Turystyczna Województwa Łódzkiego. Krueger, M. (2012). Śródziemnomorska turystyka archeologiczna – między ekskluzywnością a masowością. Turystyka Kulturowa, 5(2012), 5–21. Kwiatkowski, P. T. (2008). Pamięć zbiorowa społeczeństwa polskiego w okresie transformacji. Warszawa: Scholar. MacCannell, D. (1976). The tourist. A new theory of a leisure class. Berkeley: University of California Press. Melotti, M. (2011). The plastic venuses: Archaeological tourism in postmodern society. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Nieroba, E., Czerner, A., & Szczepański, M. S. (2009). Między nostalgią a nadzieją. Dziedzictwo kulturowe jako dyskursywny obszar rzeczywistości społecznej. In E. Nieroba, A. Czerner, & M. S. Szczepański (Eds.), Między nostalgią a nadzieją. Dziedzictwo kulturowe w ujęciu interdyscyplinarnym (pp. 17–36). Opole: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Opolskiego. Nowacki, M. (2012). Heritage interpretation. Poznań: Akademia Wychowania Fizycznego im. E. Piaseckiego w Poznaniu. Oniszczuk, A. (2014). The convention in action - Poland almost 20 years after the ratification of the Valletta convention. In V. M. van der Hass, & P. A. C. Schut (Eds.), The Valletta convention:Twenty years after. Benefits, problems, challenges (pp. 63–68). Brussel: Europae Archaeologia Consilium. Paardekooper, R. (2012). The value of an archaeological open-air museum is in its use. Understanding archaeological open-air museums and their visitors. Leiden: Sidestone Press. Park, H. Y. (2013). Heritage tourism. New York: Routledge. Pawleta, M. (2012). Rekonstrukcje i inscenizacje przeszłości w perspektywie turystyki archeolog- icznej w Polsce. In J. Gancarski (Ed.), Skanseny archeologiczne i archeologia eksperymentalna (pp. 415–438). Krosno: Muzeum Podkarpackie w Krośnie. Pawleta, M. (2016). Przeszłość we współczesności. Studium metodologiczne archeologicznie kre- owanej przeszłości w przestrzeni społecznej. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM. Pine, J. B., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy. Work is theatre & every business a stage. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Piotrowski, W. (2006). Rezerwat archeologiczny w Biskupinie na tle wybranych rezerwatów archeologicznych w Europie. In B. Gediga, & W. Piotrowski (Eds.), Architektura i budownic- two epoki brązu i wczesnych okresów żelaza w Europie Środkowej (pp. 327–365). Biskupin/ Wrocław: Muzeum Archeologiczne, PAN. Piotrowski, W., & Zajączkowski, W. (2010). Archaeological festivals at Biskupin. In G. Schöbel (Ed.), Living history in archaeological open air museums (pp. 25–33). Unteruhldingen: Pfahlbaumuseum. Purchla, J. (2015). Central Europe and its heritage: The dilemmas of transformation. In K. Jagodzińska, & J. Purchla (Eds.), The limits of heritage. The 2nd heritage forum of Central Europe (pp. 11–22). Kraków: International Cultural Centre.

www.TourismB.ir 11 Archaeotourism Spaces in Present-Day Poland: Thoughts on Reconstruction… 127

Radtchenko, D. (2006) Simulating the past: Reenactment and the quest for truth in Russia. Rethinking History 10(1), 127–148. Selwyn, T. (1996). Introduction. In T. Selwyn (Ed.), The tourist image: Myths and mythmaking in tourism (pp. 1–32). Chichester: Willey. Szpociński, A. (2010). Współczesna kultura historyczna. Kultura Współczesna 1(63), 9–17. von Rohrscheidt, A. M. (2010). Turystyka kulturowa. Fenomen, potencjał, perspektywy. Poznań: KulTour.pl. von Rohrscheidt, A. M. (2011). (Re)animatorzy dawnej historii a podróże w czasie wolnym. Profil polskich uczestników ruchu “historical reenactment” i ich potencjał dla rozwijania turystyki kulturowej. Turystyka Kulturowa, 1–3(2011), 50–81. Walker, C., & Carr, N. (Eds.). (2013). Tourism and archaeology. Sustainable meeting grounds. Walnut Creek: Left Coast. Werczyński, D. (2012). Wybrane atrakcje archeoturystyczne w Polsce. Biuletyn Instytutu Geografii Społeczno-Ekonomicznej i Gospodarki Przestrzennej UAM w Poznaniu, 2(2012), 53–72. Wieczorkiewicz, A. (2008). Apetyt turysty. O doświadczaniu świata w podróży. Kraków: Universitas.

www.TourismB.ir Chapter 12 The European Route of Megalithic Culture: Pathways to Europe’s Earliest Stone Architecture

Daniela Stefanie Hauf

The European Route of Megalithic Culture serves as a platform for museums, Geoparks, scientists and experts in tourism from Denmark, England, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden to underline the outstanding importance of megalithic culture for European history, to rediscover and promote the tourism value of its monuments and, in this way, to improve their protection as part of the common cultural heritage. The goal of the Megalithic Routes association is to link together the oldest monuments of Europe by cultural routes which not only lead to the megalithic monuments but also highlight the manifold features of the surrounding landscape. Obviously, there is a close link between the origin of megalithic monuments and the history of the cultural landscape: both begin at the same time and symbolise the early efforts of humans to make use of nature by extensive measures to shape the natural environment. “Megalithic Routes” is a project in which the boundaries between the natural and cultural sciences no longer exist. For this reason, representatives of important European Geoparks and nature parks are members of Megalithic Routes, in addition to specialist archaeological and tourism institutions. Together with archaeologists they are active in creating and constructing attractive cultural routes that aim to highlight the broad spectrum of attempts by prehistoric communities to demonstrate and assert, even thousands of years ago, the “summit of creation”. The “Megalithic Routes” project is committed to the principles of “low-impact tourism” and refrains from any irreversible measures affecting the natural environment when developing opportunities for tourism. Priority is given to the use of existing roads and routes as well as to the promotion of mobility in tune with nature and current social activities such as hiking and cycling. Moreover, museums and educational institutions such as schools and extracurricular establishments are being encouraged to develop new possibilities for cross-border co-operation in the

D. S. Hauf (*) Meisenstraße 33, 94315, Straubing, Germany

www.TourismB.ir 130 D. S. Hauf

Picture 12.2 Reconstruction of a Neolithic house, with the volunteers who built it, at the Hunebedcentrum in Borger/NL. (© Daniela Stefanie Hauf) field of youth education and European exchange programmes for children and young people on the subject of “Megalithic Roots” (Pictures 12.1 and 12.2). The project Megalithic Routes began in 2004 and was conceived during a meeting between a local historian, Klaus de Laak, the director of the Osnabrück planetarium, the managers of tourism associations in north-west Lower Saxony

www.TourismB.ir 12 The European Route of Megalithic Culture: Pathways to Europe’s Earliest Stone… 131 and the head of the Osnabrück municipal and regional archaeological heritage authority. Their vision was to create the “Straße der Megalithkultur”, a modern route that would link together many of the exciting and instructive megalithic tombs between Osnabrück and Oldenburg. The focus was to be on the protection and conservation of these spectacular historic monuments as well as on activities, events and opportunities for tourism. Finally, Europe’s first megalithic route built in modern times opened on the 15th May 2009. In parallel with the activities in north-west Germany, a network with partners from Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden was established, and the first international meeting took place in Copenhagen at the beginning of 2011. The Articles of Association (Charter) were adopted at the inaugural meeting on the 24th August 2012 in Falköping in Sweden. To this end, the international network “Megalithic Routes” was founded and recognised as an international not-for-profit association under German law on the 19th November 2012. On the 21st December 2012, Dr. Hans-Gert Pöttering, the 12th President of the European Parliament, agreed to accept the patronage of the network “Megalithic Routes”, and in April 2013 “The European Route of Megalithic Culture” was incorporated into the wider programme of Cultural Routes of the Council of Europe.

But What Is a Cultural Route? Have You Ever Heard About it?

According to the Definition of the Council of Europe, a Cultural Route Is

A cultural, educational heritage and tourism co-operation project, aiming at the development and promotion of an itinerary or a series of itineraries based on a historic route, a cultural concept, figure or phenomenon with a transnational importance and significance for the understanding and respect of common European values (http://www.culture-routes.net/cultural-routes). The Cultural Routes programme was launched by the Council of Europe in 1987. Its objective is to demonstrate, by means of a journey through space and time, how the heritage of the different countries and cultures of Europe contributes to a shared cultural heritage. The Cultural Routes programme puts into practice the fundamental principles of the Council of Europe: human rights, cultural democracy, cultural diversity and identity, dialogue, mutual exchange and enrichment across boundaries and centuries. The first certified Cultural Route was the St. James’ Way 1987, a network of routes which has played a highly symbolic role in the construction of Europe and which is travelled by tens of thousands of pilgrims who walk to Santiago de Compostela each year. The St. James’ Way was followed by the Hanse towns in 1991. At the moment, there are 32 European Cultural Routes certified by the Council of Europe (http://www.culture-routes.net/cultural-routes/list).

www.TourismB.ir 132 D. S. Hauf

The Cultural Routes function as an “open air” laboratory of the genesis of Europe. They are the concrete realisation of charters, conventions and recommendations on cultural heritage and sustainable tourism, enacted through an educational approach which is aimed at raising awareness of the importance of protection and sustainability. Beyond the cultural heritage, the routes also promote intercultural- ism and interreligious dialogue through an open and diverse interpretation of the European idea. In December 2010, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted a resolution establishing an Enlarged Partial Agreement (EPA) (http://www.culture-routes.net/council-of-europe/epa). The EPA seeks to reinforce the potential of Cultural Routes for cultural co-operation, sustainable territorial development and social cohesion, with a particular focus on themes of symbolic importance for European unity, history, culture and values and the discovery of less well-known destinations. It helps to strengthen the democratic dimension of cultural exchange and tourism through the involvement of grassroots networks and associations, local and regional authorities, universities and professional organisations. It contributes to the preservation of a diverse heritage through theme-based and alternative tourist itineraries and cultural projects. The Governing Board of EPA awards the certification “Council of Europe Cultural Route” and carries out regular evaluation of certified routes in conformity with Committee of Ministers Resolution CM/Res(2013)67 which establishes the rules for the award of the “Cultural Route of the Council of Europe” certification (http://www.culture-routes.net/resources/documents). Routes requesting the certification should: • Focus on a theme representative of European values and common to several European countries. • Follow a historical route or (in the case of cultural tourism) a newly created route. • Give rise to long-term multilateral co-operation projects in priority areas (scientific research; heritage conservation and enhancement; cultural and educational exchanges among young Europeans; contemporary cultural and artistic practices; cultural tourism and sustainable development). • Be managed by one or more independent, organised networks (in the form of an association or a federation of associations). Nowadays two resolutions define what a Cultural Route of the Council of Europe is and describe the requirements leading to certification and the criteria which char- acterise the nature of the themes accepted, the various initiatives which should be implemented and the characteristics of the European networks which manage the cultural routes once they have been awarded the certification by the Council of Europe. On the new website of the European Institute for Cultural Routes in Luxembourg, all Cultural Routes with their members, museums, events and so on are presented. (Picture 12.3, http://www.culture-routes.net/routes/megalithic)

www.TourismB.ir 12 The European Route of Megalithic Culture: Pathways to Europe’s Earliest Stone… 133

As an association, who develops a certified Culture Route, you have to fulfil certain criteria, and the programme will be evaluated every 3 years. The most important criteria are that your route has a legal status, a scientific board, includes a minimum of three member countries and can verify activities in the following five priority fields of action: 1. Co-operation in research and development 2. Enhancement of memory, history and European heritage 3. Cultural and educational exchanges for young Europeans 4. Contemporary cultural and artistic practice 5. Cultural tourism and sustainable cultural development

Here Are Some Examples for These Fields in the Case of Megalithic Routes

For the first priority field, working together with universities is very important. A lot of methods which may have been used in the Stone Age can be tested by the students. Also the results of the excavations are important to find out a little bit more

www.TourismB.ir 134 D. S. Hauf

about the life of the people. This is what we can use in other categories to inform or tell the story to the visitors. The picture shows how researchers and students tested how and how long it will take to build a megalithic tomb. It was interesting because it only took one day. Two members of our scientific board had reconstructed a megalithic tomb at the campus of Kiel University with a lot of help from many students and other people (Picture 12.4). For the second priority, enhancement of memory, history and European heritage, it was important for us to make these Neolithic monuments visible in the landscape. Sometimes you only see some big stones under other vegetation, and you cannot believe that the few stones are part of a big megalithic monument from the Stone Age. This occurred near Osnabrück, Germany. There is a golf club which has seven megalithic monuments and three Bronze Age burial mounds around and inside the golf facility. One of them is directly opposite of the restaurant, but no one realised it was there before we cleaned it. Now it is the eye-catcher when you are arriving, and everyone is asking if we built it new. In the Osnabrück Land region, a passage grave is now visible for visitors after 1 metre of vegetation, and overburden had been removed from the stones (Picture 12.5).

www.TourismB.ir 12 The European Route of Megalithic Culture: Pathways to Europe’s Earliest Stone… 135

The third priority for a Cultural Route of the Council of Europe is the cultural and educational exchange with young Europeans. The easiest way to do it is through international excavation camps. In the last 3 years, and also in 2017, one of our members excavated megalithic monuments in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern with students from England and Germany. The fourth priority field is contemporary cultural and artistic practice. That means that the association of a cultural route has to find ways to combine the old with the new. For our route we tried it in many different ways. For example, in Denmark they held special acoustic concerts in the chambers of the monuments. In Germany they wrapped a megalithic monument in with pieces of red cloth like Christo did with the Reichstag of Berlin. Special events like concerts inside the chambers of the megalithic monuments and guided tours in the form of storytelling, for example, take place at some megalithic graves during the summer (Picture 12.6). The megalithic monuments still exist after more than 5000 years. They survived wars and natural disasters, and now it is up to us to ensure that they will survive the next 5000 years. For that it is very important that the people begin to realise the existing and age of these monuments and learn about their importance. This can happen in different ways. With new apps and signposting (mostly in three languages and with a similar design in each country), leaflets and books all tell visitors that they are on the European Route of Megalithic Culture. Also, events which take place near or inside a monument were used to show how the people lived in the Neolithic, that time period when the monuments were built. This is what the fifth priority field cultural tourism and sustainable cultural development will tell us.

www.TourismB.ir 136 D. S. Hauf

In 2013 the European Route of Megalithic Culture was incorporated into the programme “The Council of Europe Cultural Routes” and now has members in seven different countries (Denmark, England, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden). In August 2013, the Megalithic Routes association celebrated its certification at the megalithic monument of Klekkendehøj on the Island of Møn in Denmark. Ms. Marianne Jelved, the Minister for Culture of Denmark, cut a ribbon with a Stone Age knife as a symbol of the opening of the European Route of Megalithic Culture. Ms. Penelope Denu, the Director of the European Institute for Cultural Routes, also attended the ceremony and presented the certificate to us (Picture 12.7).

European Day of Megalithic Culture

In the meantime, we created a corporate identity and common marketing. Since 2013 we have promoted an International Day of Megalithic Culture (see also Schierhold, Chap. 13, this volume). It is always held on the last Sunday in April. On this date, events take place in our member regions, celebrating the topic of megalithic culture and its manifestations and covering the five priority fields of action specified by the Council of Europe. Every member of Megalithic Routes commits itself to participate in this event. The theme of the European Day of Megalithic Culture for the upcoming year is usually announced at the annual general meeting preceding that date.

www.TourismB.ir 12 The European Route of Megalithic Culture: Pathways to Europe’s Earliest Stone… 137

Picture 12.7 The certificate awarding ceremony at the passage grave of Klekkendehøj on the Island of Møn/DK. (© Kulturstyrelsen)

For the European Day of Megalithic Culture 2016, the theme was “Megalithic Arts”, and in 2017 the theme will be “Moving Stones”. In 2015, it was “Outdoor School” or the “green classroom” (see Schierhold, Chap. 13, this volume). In 2014, it was cycling as a form of sustainable tourism, and in 2013, we celebrated the “Long night of myth and legends” (because all over Europe you find a lot of them in combination with a megalithic monument). The picture shows the “Long night of myth and legends” at the “Hünengrab Jeggen”, Germany. A fire show showed the fight with the devil, because the people in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries believed that the megalithic monuments were built by the devil (Picture 12.8). In 2014 we were selected as the First Cultural Route of the Council of Europe to host a blogger trip. This kind of marketing was absolutely new but fantastic experience for us! It’s the end of April and I am joining a blog tour along the route of megaliths, in north-west Europe. A question arises in my mind: why should a traveller prefer a tour among huge rocks scattered in green meadows, ancient woods and small rural villages, instead of a romantic weekend in a European capital or a relaxing cruise in the Mediterranean Sea. These lines were written by Renato Lamonica a blogger from Naples, Italy, when he visited some megalithic monuments for the first time. Groups of bloggers, photographers and videographers were given the opportunity to experience the thematic itineraries of certified Cultural Routes across Europe by the Council of Europe and the European Commission Joint Programme on Cultural Routes.

www.TourismB.ir 138 D. S. Hauf

The first journey traced the megalithic culture in Europe by exploring the outstanding monuments of Megalithic Routes in Germany and the Netherlands. The trip went from the Hunebedcentrum in Borger, the Netherlands to the Emsland region in Germany, and then to the Landesmuseum in Oldenburg and the Wildeshausen Geest region, and ended in the Stone Age Park in Albersdorf. The blogger visits during the trip the Landesmuseum in Oldenburg, Germany, where they were guided by Henning Haßmann, the head of the archaeology department of Lower Saxony (Picture 12.9). In 2015 the 4th Cultural Routes Summer Seminar (a special conference for the certified Cultural Routes and candidates which takes place once a year) was hosted by the European Route of Megalithic Culture in the framework of the HECTOR Erasmus+ project coordinated by the European Institute of Cultural Routes (http:// www.culture-routes.net/news/4th-cultural-routes-summer-seminar-presentations- online). Fifty participants from 20 countries, representing certified routes, new projects from all over Europe, students, universities and organisations partners of the Erasmus+ HECTOR, attended the seminar. Candidates worked on their certification files with the help of the newly published guide to cultural routes design and management and with the assistance of the team of the Institute and certified routes. That was a great pleasure and honour for us! A growing part in the sector of cultural tourism is the sector of social media, and it is becoming more important to use it. To make your Route interesting for all visitors, it is important to show them also the region and the landscape and not only your special theme (in our case the megalithic monuments). It is also important to show the visitors how the people lived for more than 5000 years (what they wore, ate and drank and what kind of games they played). That is the reason

www.TourismB.ir 12 The European Route of Megalithic Culture: Pathways to Europe’s Earliest Stone… 139

Picture 12.9 The Head of the Archaeological Heritage Department of Lower Saxony explained to the bloggers the finds from the megalithic monuments in the State museum of Lower Saxony in Oldenburg. (© Daniela Stefanie Hauf) why we also include museums with this special topic in our route. You can recognise them because they have a special sign on their door that they are a member of Megalithic Routes. The newest information about the European Route of Megalithic Culture can be found on our Facebook account or on our website www.megalithicroutes.eu. We plan to include here all routes and all megalithic monuments in our member regions. For the Future of Megalithic Routes, it will be desirable that we can expand our network in Europe and create more routes to make the megalithic culture more visible for the people and that we extend the European scientific exchange for a better understanding of this phenomenon. www.culture-routes.net www.megalithicroutes.eu

www.TourismB.ir Chapter 13 Westphalian Megaliths Go Touristic: Archaeological Research as a Base for the Development of Tourism

Kerstin Schierhold

Introduction

The most recent research project of the Commission for Westphalian Antiquities was launched in July 2014 (Schierhold 2015, 2016a). Its aim is to reinvestigate the late Neolithic megaliths of Westphalia. As a second step, these impressive prehistoric monuments will be presented to the public within the European Route of Megalithic Culture. This short overview refers to the first steps and results of these new archaeological investigations, but also to upcoming challenges concerning the implementation of archaeological research in touristic concepts, taking two examples of Westphalian megaliths. The first public relation activities, participating in the European Day of Megaliths in April 2015 and April 2016, revealed broad interest in the megaliths of Westphalia and many positive reactions. Westphalia can be considered as a “megalithic stroke of luck”: two late Neolithic societies, the Funnel Beaker West Group and the Wartberg culture, lived closely in the same region. Both societies had similar burying rituals, in that they both buried their dead in collective graves which were in use from 3500 to 2800 BC, but with different building traditions and grave rituals. In the north and the west of Westphalia, the highly impressive passage graves of the Funnel Beaker West Group are found. They were made out of big boulders and surrounded by smaller stones which were used to form the border of the mound. Some of these megaliths are still visible in the landscape. Large numbers of decorated vessels are typical grave goods. Due to the sandy soils in this region, the preservation of bones is bad. The conditions are better in the southern and eastern parts of Westphalia, where the gallery graves of the Wartberg culture are common. These graves were sunken into the ground and barely visible, respectively hidden in the landscape. They were made out of large limestone or sandstone slabs and covered by a flat mound. The entrance could be found on the

K. Schierhold (*) LWL-Commission for Westphalian Antiquities, Münster, Germany e-mail: [email protected]

www.TourismB.ir 142 K. Schierhold smaller side through an antechamber or on the longer side separated by a porthole construction with a passage. As a striking difference, vessels were almost completely lacking as grave goods. This special case of two different building concepts and burying rituals in close vicinity to each other is unique, not just for Westphalia but also for Germany and beyond, and it therefore has high potential for archaeological research and also for tourist attractions. Archaeological knowledge about the passage graves and the gallery graves of Westphalia is, however, very different. In many cases, small pieces of information have to be gathered and combined into an overall picture, for example, first mentions in literature, early excavations, lost finds, legends and myths, and much more. On the other hand, some of the tombs are present in the actual cultural memory of their region, highlighted by the work of local historical societies, or by being part of a public trail.

Case Study I: The Passage Grave “Große Sloopsteene”

The passage grave “Große Sloopsteene” at Lotte-Wersen, in the municipality of Steinfurt (Fig. 13.1), is located in the northern part of Westphalia and belongs to one of the largest and best preserved of its kind (Schierhold 2016a, b). They were already mentioned in 1672 as “gravesites of giants” (Rump 1672). In 1807, Count Münster- Langelage, a private researcher, described “strong traces of previous researches” at the Sloopsteene. His first drawing of the grave gives a realistic impression of its

Fig. 13.1 The megalithic grave “Große Sloopsteene”, Lotte-Wersen, municipality of Steinfurt. (Photo: L. Klinke, LWL-Altertumskommission für Westfalen)

www.TourismB.ir 13 Westphalian Megaliths Go Touristic: Archaeological Research as a Base… 143

Fig. 13.2 The “Große Sloopsteene”, side view from the south. Above, drawing of Count Münster- Langelage from 1807 (by courtesy of Niedersächsisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege, Archäologisches Archiv); centre, drawing of E. Sprockhoff/H. Schwieger from 1927 (after Sprockhoff 1975, Atlasblatt 179); below, photorealistic 3D model from 2014. (Graphic: Institute for Geoinformatics, WWU Münster/K. Schierhold, LWL-Altertumskommission für Westfalen) condition; even the traces of research, being in fact removals of the chamber fillings, are illustrated (Schierhold 2015, 227 Fig. 13.1). In 1927, one of the most famous researchers of megaliths in Germany, Ernst Sprockhoff, included the Sloopsteene in his Atlas of Megalithic Graves in Germany as No. 984. He and his draughtsman Helmut Schwieger drew the ground plan and a side view from the south (Sprockhoff 1975, pl. 62). No further archaeological research happened until November 2014, when the Commission for Westphalian Antiquities conducted a flight with an unmanned aerial vehicle, supported by the Institute for Geoinformatics of the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster (Schierhold 2015, 228 Fig. 13.3). The main aim was to create a new orthographic photo to check the nearly 90-year-old plan from Sprockhoff. Furthermore, the recordings were also used for creating a first rough 3D model (Schierhold 2015, 227 Fig. 13.2). It is now possible to show nearly 200 years of history of research at the Sloopsteene in an impressive methodological development (Fig. 13.2). Furthermore it may be mentioned that, watching from this angle, the monument has hardly changed during this long time. This is a very positive aspect which will play a major role for touristic presentations of the grave. In 2015, a geomagnetic survey was done to gather more information about the former entrance situation in the south and to look for possible other Neolithic activities around the grave, as they are known from other megalithic sites (Schierhold et al. 2016). Unfortunately, modern installations close to the grave, like park benches and dustbins, disturbed strongly the geomagnetic survey photograph; and an anom- aly some 10 metres south to the grave which might have been a Neolithic feature revealed only a granite pebble. But excavations of two old spoil piles already known from the drawing of Graf Münster-Langelage contained decorated sherds of the Funnel Beaker West Group and some flint artefacts. A scientific highlight is that

www.TourismB.ir 144 K. Schierhold

Fig. 13.3 Screenshot from the 3D model: capstones in possible former position virtually reconstructed; view from the south to the middle of the chamber. (Graphic: L. Klinke, Altertumskommission für Westfalen) more than 20 human bone fragments could be identified, whereas the preservation conditions in most other cases are quite bad. Osteoarchaeological analysis (Schierhold et al. 2016; Meyer 2016) revealed at least three individuals: a child, a juvenile or young adult and an adult person. The bones show no traces of cremation, so inhumation burials are probable. The chrono-typological setting of the decorated vessel fragments allows dating the finds to 3200–2900 cal BC (horizon Brindley 4–6). During the excavation, a second 3D model of the Sloopsteene with higher resolutions was produced with the help of “structure from motion” (Schierhold et al. 2016; Klinke 2016). With this method, 3D models are created by simultaneously connected digital photographing and digital measuring. Each single stone was documented from all visible sides. A point cloud was generated from 377 million measuring points, building the base for a photorealistic 3D model. With this model, it will be possible to look beneath the stones as if being on-site, and all visible stones can be put back to their supposed original position (Fig. 13.3). The virtual 3D reconstruction will enable people to get an insight into the grave chamber after at least 5000 years. People will have the chance to immerse virtually in a bygone world, what will be a highlight of the touristic development of the “Große Sloopsteene” and the implementation into the European Route of Megalithic Culture. A first step is already done: a guide on the “Große Sloopsteene” (Schierhold 2016b) contains a QR code currently leading to a video showing the 3D model of the actual setting. In the future, this code will enable people to follow updates concerning new research on the grave, like the virtual 3D reconstruction for example.

www.TourismB.ir 13 Westphalian Megaliths Go Touristic: Archaeological Research as a Base… 145

Case Study II: The Passage Grave of Westerkappeln-Seeste

The passage grave of Westerkappeln-Seeste (Schierhold 2015, 229) was as early known as the Sloopsteene, as Rump referred to them in 1672 (Rump 1672). In 1807, Count Münster-Langelage put the grave in the spotlight. After drawing the well- preserved and highly impressive monument (Schierhold 2015, 229 Fig. 13.5), he started to carry out an excavation. The Count was a very good observer and wrote all aspects which seemed remarkable to him in a detailed excavation report. He made drawings of all found objects, mostly decorated vessels, which are of such precision that they could still be published in a modern archaeological report, and dedicated them to the Provincial Museum of Hanover. One of the decorated vessels was discussed by archaeologists in the early 1920s as missing link between two Neolithic cultures. Nowadays, this vessel serves as an identity marker for the people living in Seeste; it appears on the cover of the anniversary edition of the local male choral society. But the grave’s appearance itself these days is a sad story: remains of only few boulders are now relegated to the edge of a modern bikeway (Schierhold 2015, 229) (Fig. 13.4). Some other stones occur even in front gardens along the road. This situation is one of the difficult tasks when thinking of a touristic concept. But the direct location near the road and the bikeway will allow installing an eye- catching information station, which puts the fate of the grave into the spotlight. The rich history of research, respectively the common memory of the Seeste vessel, may also help to return the barely visible monument back into the cultural memory of the

Fig. 13.4 One of the preserved boulders of the megalithic grave of Westerkappeln-Seeste, municipality of Steinfurt. (Photo: K. Schierhold, Altertumskommission für Westfalen)

www.TourismB.ir 146 K. Schierhold

Fig. 13.5 Beckum-Dalmer, municipality of Warendorf: guided tour at the megalithic grave. (Photo: L. Klinke, Altertumskommission für Westfalen) region. Furthermore, Count Münster Langelage’s excavation report should be published in detail, and the remaining objects should be reconsidered. There are also various possibilities of visualisation, for example, the application of a gener- alised ground plan on the bikeway or the use of augmented reality as part of an app.

First Steps Towards the Public: The European Day of Megaliths in Westphalia

The European Day of Megaliths takes place every year since 2014, on the last weekend of April. It is organised and hosted by the members of the registered association “Megalithic Routes”, which represents the European Route of Megalithic Culture. Each event has a main theme. In 2015, it was the “Green Classroom”. The Commission for Westphalian Antiquities hosted for the first time the European Day of Megaliths in Beckum, municipality of Warendorf, where a well-preserved megalithic grave is located in the district of Dalmer. The site is a Green Classroom since 2003, when a project of the local Kopernikus grammar school was launched. One hundred twenty people visited the place and participated in different activities: Children had a lot of fun kneading Stone Age clay idols under the expert guidance of archaeologist C. Siemann. In a common “cleanup” action, supported by the Association for Local History Beckum e.V., the grave was made visible to all again:

www.TourismB.ir 13 Westphalian Megaliths Go Touristic: Archaeological Research as a Base… 147 leaves were raked and branches were cut from the trees; some old and rotten tree trunks, which had formerly served as seats for the pupils of the Green Classroom, were moved aside. The archaeologists of the Commission for Westphalian Antiquities reported on the latest archaeological research news of the grave and its surroundings. More than 60 people participated in two short-guided tours (Fig. 13.5). A special event started at 15.30h, the “World Café”. The concept of the “World Café” implies different leading themes, enabling a constructive discussion. Everyone is emboldened to express his/her opinion, to find together aims and strategies. In a relaxed atmosphere, with coffee and cakes, 20 interested people discussed three questions concerning the grave: “I am here today, because…”; and “I would come here, when/because…”; and “I would never come here, because…”. These questions were processed in meetings of about 10 min at three tables. The participants wrote their suggestions directly on a paper laid on the tables. Between the meetings, the groups changed. The “World Café” closed its doors with a summary of the main findings: many participants had come because of their interest in their home town, its surroundings and its history and to be informed about news in addition to knowledge acquired from parents or school. As a very important fact, all felt that the place should be better signposted and that scientific news concerning the tomb and its place in history should be better communicated. All participants would also like to bring back the grave into the actual cultural memory: especially school classes should visit the place regularly. However, the integration into existing bicycle routes or cultural routes had also been suggested. Furthermore, some people thought of various forms of regular events at the grave. Finding reasons not to come was difficult, but some were afraid that too much prominence could harm the place: The idyllic and quiet, so to say secluded, location would be deprived of its peaceful atmosphere, for example, if the access road would be asphalted, a car park would be created or if a shelter would be drawn up. These changes might be accompanied by a littering of the place. Furthermore, a nature reserve lies adjacent to the area around the grave, so nature would also probably have to suffer. Therefore, it was proposed to find a volunteer who looks after the place; but it was also made clear that an appropriate person is hard to find. The World Café in Beckum was a great success: it brought together many people of different ages and diverse opinions. Local residents were involved in the discussion, and also pupils contributed their ideas and thoughts. On this base, new ways of presentation of the megalithic grave of Beckum- Dalmer and inspiration also for other visible passage graves can be found for the future. The second European Day of Megalithic Culture took place on 24 April 2016 in Herne, where the Westphalian Museum for Archaeology is located, with the main theme “Megalithic Art”. The engravings of the grave of Warburg with its double oxen teams, the oldest of its kind in Central Europe, were the focus (Fig. 13.6). Two hundred fifty visitors, more than twice as many as the year before, found their way to the museum. During the day, three guided tours informed about the Warburg graves and new engravings which were found in 2015 on an original slab fragment displayed in the museum. Once more, C. Siemann had great ideas for kneading

www.TourismB.ir 148 K. Schierhold

Fig. 13.6 Poster for the European Day of Megaliths in Herne, Museum for Westphalian Archaeology, with the main theme “Megalithic Art”. (Graphic: B. Reepen, Altertumskommission für Westfalen)

www.TourismB.ir 13 Westphalian Megaliths Go Touristic: Archaeological Research as a Base… 149

Stone Age idols and symbols from Megalithic Art. A “Flight into the Past” was displayed in a special kind of film presentation, where the evidence and development of megalithic monuments in Europe in time slices was shown. One of the most interesting games for the visitors was to look for hitherto unknown symbols on the copy of a big slab of the Warburg grave with the help of pocket lamps. On the base of the concept of the “World Café”, people tried to “translate” megalithic into German with the help of two special themes: “What may megalithic symbols mean?” and “Why did people build megalithic graves?” In 20 minutes of discussion and changing groups, many inspiring ideas came to light, for example, concerning the symbols: perhaps some of them may show family emblems? Regarding the building of megaliths, people had many ideas being discussed also in scientific literature, for example, the graves serving as signs for descendants, landscape marks or symbols of power. To sum up, the first two European Days of Megaliths in Westphalia were a great success. For the archaeologists and planners of the Westphalian Megalithic Route, it was most inspiring and also important to discuss with the audience, respectively, the target group, and to hear their point of view. There is lot of interest among the public concerning megaliths which are still visible in the landscape and have stories to tell. With the participation on the European Route of Megalithic Culture, there will be a great chance to (re-)establish the Westphalian megaliths into the common cultural memory in a modern and consistent style.

References

Klinke, L. (2016). Die 3-D-Rekonstruktion des Megalithgrabs. In K. Schierhold, Die Großen Sloopsteene bei Lotte-Wersen, Kr. Steinfurt. Megalithgräber in Westfalen 1 (Münster), 31–33. Meyer, C. (2016). Osteoarchäologische Untersuchung der Knochenfunde. In K. Schierhold, Die Großen Sloopsteene bei Lotte-Wersen, Kr. Steinfurt. Megalithgräber in Westfalen 1 (Münster), 28–30. Rump, G. (1672). Des Heil. Röm. Reichs Uhralte hochlöbliche Grafschaft Tekelenburg (Bremen). Schierhold, K. (2015). Auf megalithischer Schnitzeljagd im Tecklenburger Land – neues zu Sloopsteenen und Co. Archäologie in Westfalen-Lippe 2014, 227–230. Schierhold, K. (2016a). Archäologen wecken Großsteingrab aus Dornröschenschlaf. Archäologie in Deutschland. Heft 2, 70–71. Schierhold, K. (2016b). Die Großen Sloopsteene bei Lotte-Wersen, Kr. Steinfurt. Megalithgräber in Westfalen 1 (Münster). Schierhold, K., Klinke, L., & Meyer, C. (2016). Große Sloopsteene revisited: Erste Ergebnisse neuer Untersuchungen. Archäologie in Westfalen-Lippe 2015, 44–47. Sprockhoff, E. (hrsg. von G. Körner). (1975). Atlas der Megalithgräber Deutschlands, Teil 3. Niedersachsen und Westfalen (Bonn).

Further Information https://www.lwl.org/LWL/Kultur/Altertumskommission www.megalithicroutes.eu

www.TourismB.ir Chapter 14 Archaeology and Tourism – Problems and Possibilities: An Example from West Sweden

Tony Axelsson

This paper presents the experiences of working closely with the tourism agencies in West Sweden within the research and communication project “Varnhem before the monks”. The project raised a huge interest from the public, and from the start archaeology and communication were equally important. Now 10 years after the excavations have ended, the different stakeholders together have made it possible to construct a weather protection and visitor centre. The heritage officials from Västergötland museum have played an important role in this development.

Introduction

Heritage plays an important role in today’s society. There are many people that con- sume different types of heritage within cities and museums and in the countryside. This article explores some of the factors that make heritage and archaeology important and interesting and a part of a local tourism economy. The discussion is based on the archaeological research project “Varnhem before the Monks”. This was an archaeological project undertaken by the Västergötland museum in Varnhem between 2005 and 2008 (Axelsson and Vretmark 2013a, b; Vretemark and Axelsson 2008). The aim was to learn more about the tumultuous period when Västergötland was Christianized in the Middle Ages and became part of a kingdom with cities, bishops, laws and coins: an empire eventually known as Sweden. The excavations in Varnhem attracted thousands of visitors who came to see history, quite literally, dug out of the earth. The project deals with an archaeological site within a heritage site that consists of a church and a ruin of a monastery that attracts approximately 50,000 visitors a

T. Axelsson (*) Department of Historical studies, Gothenburg University, Box 200, Gothenburg 405 30, Sweden e-mail: [email protected]

www.TourismB.ir 152 T. Axelsson year. In this sense our experiences might not be relevant in other, larger contexts. The intent of this paper is to highlight some problems and possibilities when working closely to tourism agencies drawn from the “Varnhem before the monks” project. The archaeological project at Varnhem had a scientific and an educational component with a budget of 250,000 Euro, equally split between the archaeological and communication parts of the project. Thus, undertaking excavations and opening them to the interested public for a close-up view of the historic traces were equally important undertakings. Today approximately 10 years after the startup of the project, public archaeology is an established academic genre with numerous publications and journals that problematize and discuss the role of archaeology in relation to the public (e.g. Skeates et al. 2012; Bonacchi and Moshenska 2015; Vilches et al. 2015; Richardson and Almansa-Sánchez 2015). This development has also had an impact on museums and contract archaeology in Sweden and is in one way or another a part of all major archaeological excavation projects (Axelsson 2015). When the Varnhem project started, there were few Swedish examples of how to work with the public and tourism councils. The key feature of our approach to the public/visitors was to open up the excavation for the public all areas were accessible to visitors. This also included access to the working archaeologists; everyone was expected to answer questions and discuss whatever the visitors wanted to discuss. Our version of reaching out to the public also included hundreds of lectures and guided tours asked for by interested groups. We did not include the public in the planning of the project or the fieldwork. Some of the local stakeholders (the local church and local guide association) had however some influence over the communication activities.

The Project: Archaeological Results

Traces of human habitation in Varnhem date back for thousands of years. Farmers were present far back in the Iron Age, at a time when Roman emperors ruled over the Mediterranean and much of Europe. The Danish Vitsköl Chronicle informs us that a Lady Sigrid donated the large farm of Varnhem to the Cistercians in the middle of the 1100s, where they established the Varnhem monastery (Vretemark and Axelsson 2008). We do not know much about her, other than she belonged to the aristocracy of Västergötland, perhaps even to King Inge the Elder’s Stenkil dynasty. The reigning Queen Kristina – King Inge’s granddaughter – was opposed to the donation, and sources tell us that she regained control of the estates by expelling the monks for a period of time. Traces of Lady Sigrid’s mighty farm lie under the grass on the slope to the south-east of the ruined abbey. An early Christian graveyard occupied the hilltop and was later supplanted by a private farm church with a large surrounding cemetery. The foundations of the church remain below the ground, as do thousands of graves. Even more graves lie beneath mounds and cairns in the pastures on the other side of a stone wall, but these date from the Iron Age and represent older traditions from the generations before Christianity came to the area in the tenth century (Axelsson and Vretmark 2013a, b).

www.TourismB.ir 14 Archaeology and Tourism – Problems and Possibilities: An Example from West… 153

Excavations in Varnhem show that Christianity had come to Västergötland by the tenth century, about a hundred years earlier than we previously knew (Vretemark and Axelsson 2008). New burial practices emerged under Christianity shortly after the year 900. No longer were the dead cremated, but instead they were buried in the ground in an east-west orientation, without offerings aside of dress and associated items. The residents chose a new location for the Christian burial ground, next to the farm but close to the ancient pre-Christian burial mounds. The Christian farm cemetery at Varnhem perhaps served for a few generations before the next step of building a place of worship for the new religion was taken – a church – first in wood and later in stone. Very likely, the owners of Varnhem were among the first church build- ers in the area. For a couple of hundred years, they continued to bury their dead in the church surroundings.

Communicating the Past and Tourism

The background of this project is special in many ways. In the late 1990s, the Swedish author, Jan Guillou, published the first of three books about the Knight Templar Arn. The books are fictional, but the author have gone great lengths to be historical accurate when it comes to the geographical settings. Large parts of the books are set in Västergötland and around Varnhem. In his books, it is Arn’s mother who donates the farm. The books led to a great increase in the number of visitors to the sites mentioned in the books. However in 2004, the stakeholders involved in tourism detected a decrease in visitor numbers and started to think about other possible sites and actions to keep up the interest. At this point, Västergötland museum was approached with a question about “doing something on the authentic medieval period”. In 2007 and 2008 two movies based on the novels had premier that once again put the area in focus. This question from tourism officials touched upon (without them realizing it) a gap in the knowledge about how Christianity had developed and begun in Central West Sweden. As archaeologists we had for a long time acknowledged that the Iron Age burial practice, using flat stone settings, was not used after approximately the year 900. In other parts of Sweden after 900 (the end of the Viking Age period), the typical development was the move from flat stone settings/low mounds to rather big burial mounds although this is not found Central West Sweden. This was our starting point when asked about “doing something authentic on the medieval period”, authentic meaning something that archaeologists and researchers would address rather than the fiction in the books about the Knight Templar Arn, even if these stories for many readers are authentic in some sense. Another factor that influenced us when outlining the project was that within the heritage sector in Sweden, there had been discussions for some years about how to make heritage both more relevant and accessible to the public, with aims to involve people in the practical work (Agenda Kulturarv 2004a, b). In these years, archaeology and the heritage sector underwent some changes as well as many discussions

www.TourismB.ir 154 T. Axelsson about the use and value of archaeology and heritage in contemporary society. These ongoing discussions have in recent years been expressed in different publications (e.g. see; Holtorf 2007, 2004, 2010; Little and Shackel 2007; Rockman and Flatman 2012; Sabloff 2008; Svanberg and Hauptman 2007). These two factors, together with the fact that the initial tourism, following in the footsteps of Arn, was solely handled by the marketing department at Västergötland museum made us move forward with a project proposal with relevant and urgent research questions regarding the early medieval period in Central West Sweden, along with an ambition to work with the different stakeholders in the heritage and tourism sectors of Varnhem. The project was led from Västergötland museum with input from the regional heritage board, the west Sweden tourist agency, the local church board and the guide organization of the Varnhem church and monastery. By listening to these stakeholders, it was possible to construct a project that met both the scientific requirements and the expectations of openness and continuous information.

The Varnhem Case

With the ambition of answering some of the key questions about the early medieval period in Central West Sweden and at the same time being as open to the public as possible and to some extent trying to meet, or at least understand, the needs of the different stakeholders in Varnhem, we outlined a project and applied for funding from a local, independent foundation. It is not possible to present the archaeology of the project in this context. However, it is relevant to mention that we managed to do what we intended. Of course, if we had skipped the public and communicative part of the project we could have excavated 600 hundred graves instead of the 300 we did, we could also have performed 220 14C-datings instead of the 110 we did and so on. The core of the communication part of the project was the openness. We arranged guided tours, and all parts of the site were open to visitors. At the excavation, we were on average six archaeologists on a normal working day. The decision to let people wander around on the site also meant great adjustments for the staff, since we encouraged the visitors to ask questions and talk with the archaeologists. If you did not appreciate engaging with the public, this excavation was not for you. During the 4 years, we did not detect any vandalism or damage to artefacts or burials. Each visitor walked very carefully around the site. When, in some cases, someone did step in the wrong place, it was the archaeologists themselves that did this. From the beginning of the project, we decided that we should try to avoid “archaeological language”. In practice this meant that we avoided words like possibly, likely, we can’t say for sure, likelihood, etc. Instead we tried to use a narrative that stated how things were. All archaeologists know that this in a scientific way is difficult, if at all possible. What we did was change our story, as soon as our interpretations changed. We chose to do this because most visitors are not interested in

www.TourismB.ir 14 Archaeology and Tourism – Problems and Possibilities: An Example from West… 155 the standard deviation of a carbon 14 dating or the difficulties with representation. This approach had an interesting effect; of course many visitors just accepted the facts we presented, but many questioned this approach and asked: “How can you be sure of that?”, and then discussions could start, and, of course, sometimes it ended up in a discussion about carbon 14 dating or our different interpretations and what they were based on. Our approach also had an effect on the discussions with visitors that visited us many times; they noted that explanations had changed and in the following discussion they got a glimpse of the process of excavation and how interpretations change. Another important part of the project was that at all times we tried to be as open as possible. When, for example, we arranged for school children to try archaeology, their excavation area was placed on the burial site. The only alteration from the archaeologists’ trenches was that we only removed 10 cm of the topsoil, instead of the 20 cm that were removed where the archaeologist excavated. We never tried to hide any parts of the archaeological process from the public, even if it was at times quite stressful to unearth a fragile skeleton from a newborn baby with a lot of visitors watching and talking to you. All archaeologists are bound to meet the press, and this can sometimes be time- consuming. However, we looked at these encounters as just a different way of communicating. We regularly invited them to press meetings, and we also frequently sent them information. In order to get the coverage as correct as possible, we decided from the beginning to treat the press as professionals and always gave them enough time and accepted their wishes for photographs. This led to extensive media coverage that informed the public in a good way, and we could note an increase in visitors on the days after a report was in the newspaper or on TV/radio. In order to get to know our visitors a bit better, we tried to collect some statistics. In order to get more information, beside the number of visitors, we placed a guest book in the information tent. We encouraged everyone to write their names and comments in there. Of the 20,000 visitors we had during the approximately 20 weeks of the excavation, nearly 8000 made some form of entry in the guest book. From the entries we learnt that there were slightly more men than women visiting us. In Swedish museums, the trend is the opposite, with slightly more women going to a museum. In our statistics, we could see that most of the children visited as part of a school trip rather than when the schools were closed. Many of the entries also provided information about where the visitors lived. Within the regional tourist organizations in central Västergötland, there was by this time a strong focus on attracting tourists from other parts of the country or even from abroad. We could see that more than 80% of the visitors came from the local area and less than 2% were from other countries than Sweden. This highlights the question: “To whom is heritage relevant?” Of course, the site is easier to access if you live nearby. Still it is interesting to reflect on how the tourism agencies seems to value visitors from abroad more than visitors from the local/regional areas. One could argue that the locals are coming anyway and the campaigns should therefore be directed towards other groups. Visitors from far away generate more income since they often stay overnight and visit the local restaurant to another extent that locals do.

www.TourismB.ir 156 T. Axelsson

The Working Archaeologist

Everyone on the site was a professional archaeologist, and all tours and information were managed by archaeologists. In a museum context, this is not so common, and usually interaction with the public is handled by trained guides. We soon realized that the working archaeologist and the process of carefully unearthing a skeleton or artefact were as interesting as the remains themselves, together with the possibility to individually discuss with the archaeologist, were a very appreciated way of communicating.

Concluding Remarks: Problems and Possibilities

Tourism is a large part of the Swedish economy; the Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth states that it is 3% of Sweden’s GDP and the total turnover is 268,6 billion Swedish kronor (approx. 31 billion euro) (Tourism in Sweden 2014). In Central West Sweden, a large part of the tourism industry is related to heritage and culture. Västergötland museum is one of the attractions in the region. Since tourism is a growing part of the economy, the expectations of the institutions working with heritage and culture are constantly growing. This could lead to a situation where the heritage work is not valued for what it is but rather for how it attracts visitors. We did experience few problems working closely to the tourism agencies. The main reason for this was that we stated from the beginning that the project was an independent research project, even though we tried to understand and meet the needs of the different stakeholders. So, no one tried to influence the project in any direction, and we made the decisions on how public we wanted to be. When we started in 2005, our approach was more or less unique, and we had to experiment our way forward. One problem that we did identify however was that there were many stakeholders and that they all had different goals. The stakeholders in Varnhem are the local parish; they organize guided tours at the church that was built by the monks and the ruins of the monastery. The local parish is also responsible for the gardens and reno- vation of the church. Varnhem is located within in the Municipality of Skara. The main city of the municipality is Skara where the cathedral of the area is located. The municipality is responsible for the tourism within its borders. To have two big attractions, the monastery in Varnhem and the cathedral led to competition. On a regional level, the West Sweden Tourism Council is responsible for the development and coordination of the tourism in the region, and Skara is 1 of the 49 municipalities in the region. Another regional stakeholder is the regional heritage board; they are responsible for all monuments and their conservation. Another stakeholder is of course the local community and the interested public.

www.TourismB.ir 14 Archaeology and Tourism – Problems and Possibilities: An Example from West… 157

We soon realized that the stakeholders had many different expectations about our project and that in some cases there were also fears; the guides in the church were afraid that our results and findings would take the focus away from the monastery. They also feared that they would have to include this new site in their guided tours when our project ended; the municipality of Skara did not straight out talk about competition, but in between the lines, they were initially a bit resistant; the West Sweden Tourism Council saw our project as an opportunity to attract more tourists to the inland of West Sweden. The biggest surprise to us was the public interest and how this started a movement to preserve the ruins of the church that we excavated. This movement also led to discussions between the different stakeholders, and today they are all working together towards establishing a new attraction in the area of Varnhem. One step in this process is to display the ruins in a way that will not damage them and of course prevent future damage. In May 2017 a new building opened. The building will protect the ruin walls and make it easier for visitors to see them. With this building it is also possible to visit the site with wheelchair. In the building there are an exhibition about the archaeological excavations and the results. We, as heritage officials, have been the glue in this project and journey. We have continuously stressed the scientific goals and results, but we have also listened to the other stakeholders and their different perspectives. Together we have created a new attraction in the Varnhem area that meet most of the expectations of the stakeholders. It is sustainable in the way that the ruins now are protected from decay and damage, at same time as it is on display. In the first season (6 months), the building had 70,000 visitors. The monastery still had its average 50,000, so the building with its exhibition has led to an increase in visitor numbers. This in addition to Varnhem has also resulted in that the stakeholders have come together and for 2018 there is now a mutual plan for the organization of the Varnhem site in a way that all the stakeholders’ support.

References

Agenda Kulturarv. (2004a). Programförklaring. http://agendakulturarv.raa.se/opencms/export/ agendakulturarv//dokument/Arkiv/Programforklaring/Slutver.PF.pdf. Riksantikvarieämbetet. Uppdaterad 2006–02–04, hämtad 2014–11–07. Agenda Kulturarv. (2004b). Slutrapport. http://agendakulturarv.raa.se/opencms/export/agendakulturarv//dokument/Arkiv/Slutver.slutrap1.pdf. Riksantikvarieämbetet. Uppdaterad 2006–02– 04, hämtad 2014–11–02. Axelsson, T. (2015). Systematisk destruktion – värde, förlust och kompensation. In B. Grahn Danielson, M. Rönn, & S. Swedberg (Eds.), Kompensationsåtgärder vid exploatering i kultur- och naturmiljöer (pp. 185–202). Fjällbacka: Kulturlandskapet. Axelsson, T., & Vretemark, M. (2013a). Varnhem innan munkarna kom. Skara: Västergötlands museum. Axelsson, T., & Vretemark, M. (2013b). Varnhem before the monks. Skara: Västergötlands museum.

www.TourismB.ir 158 T. Axelsson

Bonacchi, C. & Moshenska, G., (2015). Critical Reflections on Digital Public Archaeology. Internet Archaeology, 40. E-ISSN: 13635387 http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.40.7.1. Holtorf, C. (2004). From Stonehenge to Las Vegas: Archaeology as popular culture. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press. Holtorf, C. (2007). Archaeology is a brand!: The meaning of archaeology in contemporary popular culture. Oxford: Archaeopress. Holtorf, C. (2010). Search the past – Find the present: The value of archaeology for present-day society. Nederland: Erfgoed. Little, B.J. & Shackel, P.A., (2007). Archaeology as a tool of civic engagement, Lanham, Md.; Plymouth: Altamira Press. Richardson, L., & Almansa-Sánchez, J. (2015). Do you even know what public archaeology is? Trends, theory, practice, ethics. World Archaeology, 47(2), 194–118. Rockman, M., & Flatman, J. (red.). (2012). Archaeology in society [Elektronisk resurs]: Its relevance in the modern world. New York. Springer. Sabloff, J. A. (2008). Archaeology matters: Action archaeology in the modern world. Walnut Creek: West Coast Press. Skeates, R., McDavid, C., & Carman, J. (2012). The Oxford handbook of public archaeology: Elektronisk resurs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Svanberg, F., & Hauptman, K. (2007). Publik arkeologi. Stockholm: Historiska museet. Tourism in Sweden. (2014). Tourism in Sweden. Effects of tourism on the economy, exports and employment, and tourism volumes, behaviours and supply and demand. Stockholm: The Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth. Vilches, F., Garrido, C., Ayala, P., & Cárdenas, U. (2015). The contemporary past of San Pedro de Atacama, northern Chile: Public archaeology? Archaeologies, 11(3), 372–399. Vretemark, M., & Axelsson, T. (2008). The Varnhem archaeological research project: A new insight into the christianization of Västergötland. Viking and medieval Scandinavia, 4, 209–219.

www.TourismB.ir Chapter 15 The eScape Project: Combining Archaeology and Art to Merge the Past with the Present

Lene Høst-Madsen, Marianne Purup, and Nina Bangsbo Dissing

Introduction

Aarhus is the European Capital of Culture in 2017, which has generated a wealth of new projects. eScape can be characterised as such a project. From the very beginning of eScape in 2013, the concept was developed as a collaboration between specialists within the fields of archaeology, art and tourism. Later on, the group expanded to include developers, locals, volunteers and children. After a brief introduction to the area in which the project takes place, the different parties involved will be described as well as the general outlay of the concept. Finally, a description of the events that have taken place until this point and the ones that have been planned for the near future will conclude this article. Skanderborg Municipality is a small municipality, situated in Denmark in the middle of Jutland, 30 kilometres southwest of Aarhus, Denmark’s second largest city. The municipality covers an area of approximately 400 km2 and has about 60,000 inhabitants. The area is known for its beautiful and rather hilly nature with lakes and rivers. A tourism marketing strategy from 2016 points out the area’s high potential: “There are great opportunities for the tourism industry in Skanderborg Municipality. If we can inspire the large number of people visiting the area to come

L. Høst-Madsen (*) Museum Skanderborg, Skanderborg, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] M. Purup VisitSkanderborg, Skanderborg, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] N. B. Dissing Kunstråd Skanderborg, Skanderborg, Denmark e-mail: [email protected]

www.TourismB.ir 160 L. Høst-Madsen et al.

Fig. 15.1 Denmark with Skanderborg municipality in orange. (Museum Skanderborg) back, stay a little longer, or spend more money in the local area, we can make the industry grow significantly. This might be achieved through the branding of the Lake District as a one of Denmark’s major outdoor areas with the potential for unique nature experiences” (Søhøjlandet under åben himmel 2016). This is the setting of the eScape project, and as such, this beautiful area serves as an inspiration for the partners on the project (Fig. 15.1). The partners on the project include: • The Skanderborg Municipality Administration for Culture is a very important partner on the project that provides financial and administrative support. In the Skanderborg Municipality, the cultural life has its momentum in the communities and the beautiful scenery around us, and it is in the interaction across these fields that we create a unique, diverse and meaningful cultural life for all. • The Museum Skanderborg is a cultural historical museum under the Ministry for Culture. • Danish museums are located in 40 administrative districts distributed across the country, and each is responsible for archaeological work in the local area (Høst- Madsen and Harnow 2012). The Museum Skanderborg manages the protection of monuments as well as historic heritage and is in charge of several archaeological excavations in the area. The Museum Skanderborg mission is to be a transformative, important cultural player in a local as well as national and global perspective. The partnership with the museum is essential in terms of expert

www.TourismB.ir 15 The eScape Project: Combining Archaeology and Art to Merge the Past… 161

knowledge and work force, and as the project is rooted in archaeology, the museum is a key player as it runs the archaeological projects. Furthermore, the museum is the basis for disseminating and teaching history to children. • The local tourist organisation, VisitSkanderborg, has the overall responsibility for promoting the area to attract tourists. The vision of VisitSkanderborg is to ensure that the Skanderborg area is known as a scenic outdoor destination, where everybody takes part in activities and experiences, enjoys life and can be a part of living history. • VisitSkanderborg has close relationships with all parts of the tourism value chain and collaborates on a joint marketing effort with tourist organisations from other municipalities in the Lake District and Business Region Aarhus. One of the foci is dissemination of certain key narratives that relate to the area. eScape benefits from the collaboration with VisitSkanderborg, as the organisation contributes with labour and expert knowledge in their field. • The Art Council is a selected group of local artists and experts that initiate art projects. As there are no art museums in Skanderborg Municipality, the Art Council is in charge of ensuring high-quality art. The vision of the Art Council is promoting and highlighting visual art in the Municipality and creating activities that stimulate development and networking and create cultural leverage based on the local, professional visual arts. In addition, the Art Council is partially financing the project and is essential to eScape due to their expertise. • Developers play an important role in eScape, and the project collaborates with both private and public developers. Both types have to pay for archaeological excavations and, more often than not, get nothing out of it. When the archaeologists leave the site, all archaeological remains are gone; the site is cleaned for historical testimony. However, as one of the aims of the project is to bring life and energy back to archaeological sites, the project holds the potential to dramatically increase the value of a property. When people look for places to settle down and live, a strong historical brand is one of the parameters that increases the value and interest of specific sites, especially when it comes to newly developed suburban areas. The eScape project is partially financed by developers; furthermore, these developers provide labour and expert knowledge to the project. • Locals, volunteers, children and tourists constitute the last and most important group. This group is fundamental, as it establishes both a local and a global perspective on the project as well as functions as a barometer for success. These people contribute with expert knowledge, and, most importantly, participate in the project, which makes them crucial to eScape.

Concept Description

The eScape concept conveys the historical context of an area and brings energy to newly developed suburban sites. When an excavation site has been “emptied” for historical data by archaeologists, and the area has been developed for modern life,

www.TourismB.ir 162 L. Høst-Madsen et al. it is crucial to tell the place’s unique story to newcomers, to people who already live close to the site and to tourists. There are many ways to do this. Our experience shows that bringing art into the process elevates the storytelling to a higher level. Furthermore, an art installation, as well as the presence of an artist at work, may result in increased local interaction and can make the site a notable tourist attraction. The eScape concept combines art and archaeological science through the creation and communication of art on archaeological sites. This merges the past with the present through a unique medium. Specialists in tourism, art and archaeology work together and combine the three on equal terms. This is done with the participation of locals and children. eScape makes a crucial difference in terms of changing the mindset of the public and creating a sense of ownership, thus battling an indifferent, non-participatory attitude towards the cultural heritage of an area. The project is devoted to engaging people; therefore, it is important to define the target groups. Tourists are here defined as people without direct connections to local cultural history, who show up because of an event. They do not necessarily live far away. Locals are defined as people living nearby the site. They often have a direct interest in local history and feel that it has special meaning to them. Volunteers can be local or non-local. University students participating in the events as volunteers in the hope to gain experience fall into this last category. A series of elements shape and define the concept: • The project leaders represent archaeology, art and tourism with equal representation. • All participants have equal voices and importance. • The starting point is a specific site with considerable archaeological significance. • Finding the right artist or artists to mediate the dialogue between the archaeological site and the public is key. • Another important element is the participation of local schoolchildren, who engage in dialogue with both artists and archaeologists. • The developer, i.e. the host/owner of the property, should be involved and encouraged to participate in the project. • Locals and volunteers play important roles as partners on the project. The aim is to create local/global branding of the area. • There is a production period when all partners are engaged in the development and communication of the art and archaeology. • The production period is followed by an event. • The art installation is on display for a short and defined period. However, decom- position of the art installation may be also part of the process (Fig. 15.2).

www.TourismB.ir 15 The eScape Project: Combining Archaeology and Art to Merge the Past… 163

Fig. 15.2 An example of educational learning and participation of the local schoolchildren who are in dialogue with both artists and archaeologists. (Museum Skanderborg)

Financing

The project is financed by the local developer, Aarhus, European Capital of Culture 2017 and Skanderborg Municipality. The contributors acknowledge that this project increases the site’s value, both culturally, as it offers exceptional cultural experiences, and financially, as it makes unattractive suburban development areas more attractive and easier to sell. In other words, the project can be viewed as a way of attracting successful families with children to the area. The eScape project generates money that benefits the entire municipality. Not only the participating institutions – i.e. the museum, the municipality and the tourist organisation – benefit financially from the project; this is also the case for local businesses such as the baker providing bread for the participants. More importantly, eScape revitalises the municipality and the community. Local volunteers that participate are fundamental to the project’s success because they provide labour and ensure local anchoring. Local participation has another advantage: it promotes communication both within the community and between the community and the partners on the project. A nice example of this was when some of the neighbours to the archaeological site made some hot soup for the participants on an exceptionally cold day.

www.TourismB.ir 164 L. Høst-Madsen et al.

After this short description of the project partners and the concept, it is time to outline the specific events that have been organised within the eScape framework.

The Events

The first project took place in Alken Enge in Denmark in 2014. The project was called “eScape – Ring of Bones”. Since the end of the nineteenth century, human bones have regularly been unearthed in the wetlands of Alken Enge by the lake of Mossø in Denmark. Then, as now, the numerous human remains fascinated and mystified the local inhabitants as well as specialists. When archaeologists excavated the area from 2005 to 2014, the astonishment increased. The results from these excavations provided the specialists with new and surprising information about this spectacular site dating to ca. 0 AD, which yielded skeletal remains of hundreds of warriors that had been deposited into the lake. Ten artists, led by Jørgen Hansen, moved to the Alken area and created a clay sculpture at the site. The sculpture represented their interpretation of the landscape and the archaeology that was being unearthed. The artists stayed in the nearby village, and while they were there, the locals helped them in many ways; among other things, they provided old bicycles for the artists to ride and made them a special dinner. Schoolchildren from the local school visited the archaeological excavation and were taught about the archaeological remains and the research. Afterwards, they were introduced to the artwork and the technique behind clay sculpting. Finally, the students made their own clay figurines inspired by what they imagined the sacri- ficed warriors might have looked like. When the sculpture was finished, it was covered by a sheet and fired for 24 hours. This was part of a large event that almost a thousand people attended. The local schoolchildren that had been part of the process also exhibited the clay figurines they had made as part of the event. They were positioned as though they were in battle. The finale of the evening was when the large sculpture was uncovered, light- ing up the dark night. It was indeed a magical moment! For the next 6 months, the clay sculpture stood by the lake while being slowly eroded by wind and rain. This was part of the project; the decay was another form of art. The only slight issue was that it took longer than expected for the sculpture to degrade, so the official permits had to be prolonged (Fig. 15.3). In 2015, the second project was called “eScape – collaboration and experimenta- tion” and revolved around a unique Viking warrior’s grave containing at least one horse. Based on golden fittings from a bridle found during the archaeologicalsurvey, the burial is presumably exceptionally rich (Bagge 2016). The grave was found when a new residential area was being developed in the town of Hørning in Jutland. The grave has not been fully excavated yet, so the work is still in progress and has been prolonged for various reasons. One of them concerns the great expenses connected to the excavation of the grave because of its delicate contents and another

www.TourismB.ir 15 The eScape Project: Combining Archaeology and Art to Merge the Past… 165

Fig. 15.3 eScape Ring of Bones. The sculpture after it was burnt. (Jørgen Hansen) one the fact that the grave is so rich in contents that the museum is afraid of robbery. The third and final reason is that the area is still under development and houses, gardens, pavements and streets are in progress. It is not possible to place the installation in an environment that is changing so rapidly, as it is the case for the time being. On this location, the art piece is to be of a more permanent character, which will remind the new inhabitants of the area about the history connected to the site. The artist, Kate Skjerning, will create a trail of glowing hoofprints that demonstrate how the Viking’s horse has moved through the landscape. Because of the above- mentioned development in the area, the installation has to wait until 2018. As of spring 2017, the Viking grave will be excavated. At the moment meetings with all involved partners – i.e. the artist, locals and children – are in progress to confirm their involvement in the project. The excavation will be succeeded by workshops and other projects this year, and the installation will not be finished before sometime in 2018. It is still a work in progress. In 2016, the third project took place at the site of Skovby Nygaard. The name of the project is “Skovby Nygaard – My Home Ground – Past and present”. The site is, once again, a suburban development for new housing – this time just outside a small town called Skovby. Here, a rather large area was under development, and the archaeologists excavated several large, rich Iron Age villages (Jensen 2015). This eScape project was actually initiated by a letter from a fourth grade class to the Mayor of Skanderborg in which the children asked for a sign that conveyed the story of the archaeological finds. Prior to this, the children had visited the site with their teacher, while excavations were still going on. The excavating archaeologists introduced them to the archaeological results, and this sparked the children’s interest in the history of the area.

www.TourismB.ir 166 L. Høst-Madsen et al.

The mayor forwarded the request to the Museum Skanderborg, who produced a sign in collaboration with the children. The sign still stands in the area, and both sign and area are under the children’s protection. These schoolchildren became the most important ambassadors for this eScape project, and since then, they have received special invitations to all eScape-related events. Several projects took place throughout the year because of the rich archaeological finds at this site. The first was a piece called “Antiquities to go”. The artists Bodil Sohn and Else Ploug Isaksen created a portable installation inspired by a number of archaeological finds that could fit in a suitcase. The art piece was first exhibited at the Museum Skanderborg and later at the tourist agency, at the library and at the local school, and it will continue travelling around the area. This project was followed by on-site art installations, i.e. land art. Once again, two artists were appointed by the art council. Artist, Michael Bredtved, envisioned an Iron Age house out of thin, white and red wooden planks, called the “Skeleton House Project”. The other artist, Morten Barker, created a fully accessible modern mound with a poetic interior and an observation post on the top called “New Views and Forgotten Horizons”. The two installations were situated in the landscape next to the finds. During the art creating process, all the children from the nearby school visited the site and were introduced to both the archaeological findings and the art. The children also made their own pieces of art under the guidance of Michael Bredtved. In total, more than 400 schoolchildren visited the site. When the installations were made, there was a grand event attended by among others the Danish Minister for Culture, who opened the site. More than 3000 people visited the site during the 3-month period when the installations were open to the public. After this period, everything was removed from the site except the sign. This project ran alongside a sales exhibition of houses on the site, and it was evident that each project benefitted from the other. People who came looking for modern houses became aware of the long history of the area and the developer sold far more plots than expected (Fig. 15.4). Thus, the projects that have been carried out so far have been briefly introduced, but this is not the end of the story. Aarhus’ status as the European Capital of Culture in 2017 had the eScape team generate ideas for events connected to this great, cultural event. In 2017 May, a project took place in the ruins of the medieval monastery of Øm. The site is the best documented monastery in Denmark due to a long series of archaeological excavations, but it doesn’t have actual buildings preserved. In collaboration with locals, the French artist, Olivier Grossetête and his team of two, rebuilded one of the impressive gables of the monastery in cardboard boxes. With a height of 17.5 metres, this was an extraordinary installation that generated national and international interest. More than 4000 people participated in the event – and this will give rise to a completely new focus on the Lake District’s unique monastery landscape. In the following autumn, there will be yet another project that will have a spiritual focus instead of a monumental one, and it will be phenomenologically

www.TourismB.ir 15 The eScape Project: Combining Archaeology and Art to Merge the Past… 167

Fig. 15.4 Logo from eScape at Skovby Nygaard. (Museum Skanderborg) experienced through the use of light effects and silence (Guldhammer and Dissing 2011) (Fig. 15.5). In 2017, we will also continue our work on the Viking warrior grave in Hørning.

Final Remarks

The eScape concept has been developed and refined during the last 4 years, and we have created a model that enables us to create meaningful and sustainable cultural experiences for both locals and tourists. Branding of the area is a common goal for the partners on the project. Key issues for success are mutual respect for all partners on the project; it is also important to embrace the fact that there are many forms of expert knowledge, both among scholars and among locals. Formulating this concept will help us keep focus and continue to develop and refine the product instead of merely reinventing the events every year. Feel free to be inspired and adopt the concept of eScape. We have made a few small films • Timelapse Øm Abbey: https://vimeo.com/221583394 • The concept eScape: https://vimeo.com/179773097 • My Home Ground – Skovby Nygaard – past and present: https://vimeo. com/179861359

www.TourismB.ir 168 L. Høst-Madsen et al.

Fig. 15.5 The impressive gables of the Øm Monastery rebuild in cardboard boxes. (Museum Skanderborg)

• Art and Archaeology – Ring of Bones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= H8hxXj7rA5Y • Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/eScapeSkanderborg

References

Bagge, M. S. (2016). Ryttergraven i Fregerslev – et uopklaret mysterium. In H. Lyngstrøm, & J. Ulriksen (red.), Død og begravet i vikingetiden, Artikler fra et seminar på Københavns Universitet den 26. februar 2016 (s. 87–94). Guldhammer, A., & Dissing, N. B. (2011). En oplevelse med sanserne på Sculpture by the Sea. Liv i skolen, Årg. 13, nr. 3, 6–9, Via University College. Høst-Madsen, L., & Harnow, H. (2012). Historical Archaeology and archaeological practice in Denmark. In H. Harnow, D. Cranstone, P. Belford, & L. Høst-Madsen (Eds.), Across the North Sea later historical archaeology in Britain and Denmark, C. 1500–2000 AD (pp. 39–50). Copenhagen: University Press of Southern Denmark.

www.TourismB.ir 15 The eScape Project: Combining Archaeology and Art to Merge the Past… 169

Jensen A. V. (2015). Skovby – Galtens glemte forgænger. Museum Skanderborg Årbog 2014, 77–86. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1969). Tegn: udvalgte essayes. Rhodos. Søhøjlandet under åben himmel. (2016). Søhøjlandet under åben himmel, Vision for VisitSkanderborg.

Lene Høst-Madsen Director of Museum Skanderborg since 2013. Before this she was curator in archaeology at the Museum of Copenhagen (2000–2013). During these teen years, Lene conducted large-scale excavations in Copenhagen. Her research interest lies within the post-medieval and later historical archaeology with special interest in material culture and politics. She has published articles and attended international conferences giving papers regarding these themes. Chairperson of the Archaeological Advisory Board for Archaeology at the Danish Cultural Agency under the Ministry of Culture (2009–2013). (2006–until now) Editorial advisor for Post-Medieval Archaeology. Since 2006 Examiner at the University of Copenhagen, Aarhus and Southern Denmark in Archaeology. Since 2014 Examiner of Medieval and Renaissance Archaeology at Aarhus University.

Marianne Purup Director of Tourism at Visit Skanderborg since 2008 with responsibility for branding/storytelling/marketing of the destination as well as innovation/development of new products and optimisation of good hostmanship. She has also been and is a board member for Museum Skanderborg for most of this period. Earlier head of communications at the Danish Agricultural Council, Skejby (2004–2008), Aarhus Festival Week, Aarhus (2002–2004) and Bang & Olufsen, Struer (1999–2002), among others. Marianne Purup has worked with international public relations and internal communication, as a journalist at the daily newspaper in Aarhus, Århus Stiftstidende (1994–1999), with focus on retail, lifestyle and children’s culture, and as a freelance communication consultant, for example, helping to brand the small Danish islands and developing East Jutland tourism. She went straight from journalism school (1977–1981) to various leading posts within pr, information and communication (1982–1994). She is an excellent journalist, communicator and mentor. Among her interests are language, literature and philosophy. You could say that she has a way with words and people.

Nina Bangsbo Dissing Work experience: Project Manager, eScape – Art Council and the Skanderborg Municipality 2014. Since 2013: Culture Consultant, the Skanderborg Municipality 2013. Education Coordinator and communication at Sculpture by the Sea, Centre of Children Culture 2010–2013. Teaching Art history and Visual Culture, Senior folk high school for Art 2011. Intern Sculpture by the Sea, Centre of Children Culture 2009. Information and communication employee and guide at ARoS – Aarhus Art Museum 2005–2013. Organiser and coordinator Up with People, USA and Europe 1998/1999 www.upwithpeople.org

Education Cand. Mag. Art history and Visual Culture, Aarhus University 2010 Art history, Università degli Studi di Firenze (4 month), 2007 Project Management 2011

www.TourismB.ir Chapter 16 Conclusion: Feasibility Assessment at Public Archaeological Heritage Sites

Douglas C. Comer and Annemarie Willems

Yet to do this requires an initial assessment of effective and sustainable management feasibility. Are the assets that are required for sustainable management in place? If not, can they be put into place, and how? All of this should be done before an archaeological site is opened to the public. The degree to which the elements essential to a sustainable management are present and are integrated into a functioning system should determine how many visitors are invited to the site, how they move through the landscape to arrive at the site and travel through it, and if in fact the site or some por- tions of it should be opened to the public at all. In many instances, the notion of feasibility has not been considered prior to opening a site. In these cases, feasibility studies are needed to determine the degree to which and how access to the site can be permitted without irreversible damage to the site and the qualities that make it important.

D. C. Comer (*) Cultural Site Research and Management, Baltimore, MD, USA The United States National Committee for ICOMOS (US/ICOMOS), Washington, DC, USA The International Scientific Committee for Archaeological Heritage Management (ICOMOS/ICAHM), Baltimore, MD, USA e-mail: [email protected] A. Willems Friends of ICAHM, Baltimore, MD, USA AW Heritage Consultancy, Jyväskylä, Finland Helsinki University, Faculty of Arts, Helsinki, Finland e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

www.TourismB.ir 172 D. C. Comer and A. Willems

Archaeological Sites Open to the Public

The percentage of all known archaeological sites that have been opened to the public is exceedingly small. There are many good reasons for this, but two are paramount: Firstly, most of the archaeological sites in the world do not include extant structures. Humans for the most part have used non-durable materials in the construction of everything from habitations to irrigation systems. Where durable materials like stone or brick were used, they have often been taken away to be reused elsewhere. No matter how rich the material culture at an archaeological site might be below ground, this provides little in the way of an experience that can be a point of departure for appreciating and understanding a site to the average person. This type of site is not opened to the public because only a few people might have an interest in visiting it. Secondly, it is generally understood among those with responsibility for managing archaeological resources that allowing people to visit archaeological sites endangers the cultural material at the site and the context in which the material is found. The analysis of cultural material in original context can provide information about human history and human relationships with the natural environment and other human groups that is available in no other way. Even revealing the location of archaeological sites opens them up to looting and vandalism. For the most part, archaeological sites to which the public is invited are visually impressive, the more so, the greater the probability that the public will be invited to them and will visit in large numbers. Photogenic sites are especially likely to become economic assets and touchstones of identity for human cultural aggregates that include but are not limited to the local, ethnic, religious, national, and regional. The economic and social importance of the visually impressive structure or landscape can overwhelm concerns about the integrity of archaeological deposits, specifically, the need to preserve archaeological materials and the context in which they were deposited until they can be scientifically excavated. In the experience of the authors, it is not uncommon to hear the opinion from those most enmeshed in the tourism industry that degradation of the material that makes up an archaeological site should not be regarded as a serious problem because repairs can be made that will restore the site to its original, attractive appearance. Experience has shown that the development of facilities and infrastructure required to provide visitors services and to vend goods to tourists often pose a serious and immediate threat to the environment. Many countries, and virtually all of what are commonly termed developed countries, have legislation and regulation in place that studies be undertaken that assess the environmental and social impact of significant development projects. In developing countries, while such legislation and regulation might be in place, mechanisms to enforce regulation are sometimes not effective. Even when the required studies are undertaken, funds are sometimes not sufficient to ensure that threats to the environment and to social equilibrium are identified and steps to prevent adverse impacts are presented. Moreover, in the case of development for tourism, it typically accretes, that is, development occurs in

www.TourismB.ir 16 Conclusion: Feasibility Assessment at Public Archaeological Heritage Sites 173 small steps that sometimes do not trigger the need to comply with environmental regulation. This is especially true when archaeological sites are located far away from cities and regions where procedures to protect against environmental damage and social disruption are not well established. The most serious threats to the integrity of archaeological sites open to the public, as well as the experience that such sites can provide to visitors, can arise from development outside the site itself and sometimes far outside. Not only can development intrude upon the site visually and aurally, but development outside the boundaries of the site can produce environmental change on a regional scope that can damage archaeological remains inside the established core and buffer zones of the site, to say nothing of archaeological remains outside those zones that are related but have not yet been discovered. For example, impervious surfaces such as roads, buildings, and parking lots often change the hydrology of an area in ways that can produce flooding that erodes and abrades archaeological sites and introduce pollutants that damage masonry and other materials (Comer 2013). Rendering access to the site more easily accomplished also presents dangers. In the absence of around the clock surveillance, looters and vandals can do a great deal of damage quickly. Tourism is unavoidably cyclical, numbers of visitors change according to the season, days of the week, concerns over safety when regional conflicts arise, natural events such as flooding and earthquakes, and even fashion. For local residents who have made the transition from traditional hunting and gathering or agrarian lifeways or in developed regions manufacturing, farm- ing, or other businesses to vending to tourists, downturns in visitation can provide a strong incentive to loot.

The Example of World Heritage Sites

Although this book has dealt mostly with sites that are of national, regional, or local interest, as opposed to global, we can learn from the 45-year history of tourism at archaeological World Heritage Sites. When an archaeological site is inscribed on the World Heritage List, the formal acknowledgment of its global importance generates a sense of pride such that it typically becomes a symbol of the nation in which it resides and often of the region and any groups that have demonstrable historic or cultural connections to the site. Thus the silhouette of Angkor Wat is prominently displayed in the flag of Cambodia; sites like the Colosseum, the Megalithic Temples of Malta, and Altamira Cave have been depicted on Euro coins; photos and other images of Al Khazna in Petra are commonly seen in homes, offices, and retail establishments in Jordan; and the Hummingbird geoglyph in the Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Palpa World Heritage Site can be found on coins and paper currency in Peru. Damage to the Hummingbird geoglyph by the Greenpeace organization in 2015 prompted then Deputy Minister of Culture Luis Jamie Castillo Butters to tell the Associated Press that “it’s a true slap in the face at everything Peruvians consider sacred” (CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/12/travel/

www.TourismB.ir 174 D. C. Comer and A. Willems greenpeace-nazca-lines-damage/). World Heritage Sites are also seen as economic drivers. The Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index of the World Economic Forum takes into account the number of World Heritage Sites when determining competitive rank for each country (2017, World Economic Forum). Sensibilities and perceptions concerning both identity and the economic value of sites at the national, regional, or local level are often similar.

Suitability

An archaeological site is inscribed on the World Heritage List primarily by virtue of what is termed by UNESCO Outstanding Universal Value (OUV). The 2016 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention

Criteria for Cultural Sites on the World Heritage List

(i) to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius;

(ii) to exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town- planning or landscape design;

(iii) to bear a unique or at least exceptionaltestimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared;

(iv) to be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history;

(v) to be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change;

(vi) to be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance. (The Committee considers that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria)

Fig. 16.1 The six criteria used for establishing outstanding universal value for cultural sites

www.TourismB.ir 16 Conclusion: Feasibility Assessment at Public Archaeological Heritage Sites 175

(Paris, UNESCO 2016) define Outstanding Universal Value to mean “…cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity.” According to Article 1 of the World Heritage Convention, sites are “works of man or the combined works of nature and of man, and areas including archaeological sites which are of Outstanding Universal Value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological points of view.” Six criteria can be used to demonstrate OUV for a cultural site (see Fig. 16.1). The dossier that must be prepared in order to nominate a site to the World Heritage List must present an argument for OUV based upon one or more of these criteria. If the argument is successful, then the site will be judged to be suitable for inclusion on the World Heritage List. The concept of suitability is central to the formulation of all lists, registers, gazettes, or other listings of important archaeological sites. These are found in most places in the world, from Singapore, with its Government Gazette of buildings and structures of historical, cultural, archaeological, architectural, or artistic interest (1970: Singapore Government Printing Office), to the United States, with its National Register of Historic Places (1966: US Government Printing Office) that lists sites, buildings, structures, and objects deemed worthy of preservation. While all of these address the special significance of some archaeological sites, they are not explicitly concerned with the implications of opening them to the public, much less inviting the public to the sites as tourism destinations.

Feasibility

Is sustainable management of an archaeological site—management that preserves the scientific, historic, social, and economic values of the site—feasible when the public is permitted access to an archaeological site, and especially when they are invited there in large numbers? Assessing feasibility requires inventorying and evaluating cultural and environmental assets and conditions, including archaeological sites and natural features, community interest and concerns, infrastructure from roads to utilities, management facilities required for maintenance, administration, research and conservation, and personnel. If sufficient assets are not in place, the question becomes, can they be put in place and how? In the absence of such assets, sustainable management will not be feasible. That is, admitting the public to the site will ultimately impair or destroy those qualities that rendered it eligible for inclusion on a list of significant archaeological sites. Because World Heritage Sites are now perceived to be economic drivers, and in some cases very clearly are, The Operational Guidelines for the Management of World Heritage Sites (Section 71) (Paris, UNESCO 2016), which are updated frequently, now include this statement, which begins to address this issue: “To be deemed of Outstanding Universal Value, a property must also meet the conditions of integrity and/or authenticity and must have an adequate protection and management

www.TourismB.ir 176 D. C. Comer and A. Willems system to ensure its safeguarding.” Following that statement, the Operational Guidelines provide sections that discuss the concepts of integrity and authenticity and then another on protection and management. It is notable that the concept of authenticity has evolved since the ratification of the World Heritage Convention, moving away from what was once a focus on the preservation of original fabric and the need to clearly identify contemporary material used in the stabilization of ancient structures as such so as not to mislead the public. The Nara Document in Authenticity was a turning point. The Nara Document made a very strong case that a reconstruction is authentic if it is made using the same materials and procedures used in the original construction, so long as there is sufficient evidence that these have remained unchanged over the intervening years. While this definition of authenticity is clearly as valid as one that privileges original materials, it is also quite evident that by removing original materials and disturbing the context in which they were found, the archaeological research potential of the site occupied by the reconstruction has been compromised. The emphasis has been shifted from preservation of material to the experience that the archaeological site provides to the visitor. Similarly, much of the discussion of integrity revolves around a concern for the experience that the site provides. For example, Section 88 of the Operational Guidelines for the Management of World Heritage Sites (Paris, UNESCO 2016) states: Integrity is a measure of the wholeness and intactness of the natural and/or cultural heritage and its attributes. Examining the conditions of integrity, therefore, requires assessing the extent to which the property: (a) Includes all elements necessary to express its Outstanding Universal Value. (b) Is of adequate size to ensure the complete representation of the features and processes which convey the property’s significance. (c) Suffers from adverse effects of development and/or neglect. This should be presented in a statement of integrity. Feasibility is not a term that is used in the Operational Guidelines. The section of the Operational Guidelines that deals with protection and management specifies that Outstanding Universal Value, including integrity and authenticity, must be sustained over time. Also, properties on the World Heritage List must have legislative, regulatory, institutional, and/or traditional protection that will ensure that they are safeguarded. Site boundaries and buffer zone boundaries are presented as essential requirements. Section 111 provides even more specific requirements: In recognizing the diversity mentioned above, common elements of an effective management system could include: (a) A thorough shared understanding of the property by all stakeholders, including the use of participatory planning and stakeholder consultation process (b) A cycle of planning, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and feedback (c) An assessment of the vulnerabilities of the property to social, economic, and other pressures and changes, as well as the monitoring of the impacts of trends and proposed interventions

www.TourismB.ir 16 Conclusion: Feasibility Assessment at Public Archaeological Heritage Sites 177

(d) The development of mechanisms for the involvement and coordination of the various activities between different partners and stakeholders (e) The allocation of necessary resources (f) Capacity building (g) An accountable, transparent description of how the management system functions These are necessary and important requirements, but the question remains: is it feasible to meet these requirements, and if not, can meeting these requirements be made feasible? We have a description of what must be done, but now how. The ICOMOS International Scientific Committee on Archaeological Heritage Management (ICAHM) developed the Salalah Guidelines for the Management of Public Archaeological Sites. These guidelines were put forward and approved at the 19th ICOMOS Triennial General Assembly in New Delhi in December of 2017 as an ICOMOS doctrinal text. The guidelines are essentially an argument for studies of feasibility, preferable before a site is put forward for nomination to the World Heritage List, but also for sites that are now inscribed on the World Heritage List and for all archaeological sites in general that are or will be opened to the public. These guidelines are intended to describe how the feasibility for effective and sustainable management of archaeological sites open to the public can be assessed. In bullet form, these guidelines suggest that the following steps be taken: • Inventory and evaluate archaeological and other cultural resources. • Inventory and evaluate natural resources. • Inventory and establish standards for infrastructure (lodging, dining, roads, utilities, etc.). • Inventory and protect traditional use areas and intangible culture that is valuable to effective management and interpretation. • Establish core and buffer zones necessary to site protection. • Negotiate agreements with local governments and communities that will support site protection. • Develop management zones that are suited to desired uses and conditions. • Conduct environmental assessments and studies or ensure that these are conducted. • Monitor the condition of cultural and natural resources, maintenance, the satisfaction of local residence, and the satisfaction of tourists. • Develop an archaeological research plan. • Prepare and implement an interpretive plan, and update the plan as needed. • Identify and put in place management facilities necessary to effective and sustainable site management. • Prepare and implement a staffing plan that identifies the personnel required for effective and sustainable management, the qualifications needed for each type of position, and the roles and responsibilities for each type of position. • In concert with local communities, prepare and implement a public engagement plan for the management of the site. The focus should be on engagement that encourages economic and social benefit to local communities.

www.TourismB.ir 178 D. C. Comer and A. Willems

• Incorporate all of the above in a General Management Plan for the Region. In this publication, the chapters addressed some of these diverse factors that render effective management of archaeological sites open to the public feasible and therefore sustainable. In the cases presented, the focus is on sites of national, regional, or local importance, as opposed to those considered to be of global importance. This is the next logical step in advancing the concept of feasibility as one that must be considered in order to establish sustainable management. We approached this in two ways: The first was by presenting some promising ways to assess and enhance the feasibility of establishing effective management of archaeological site open to the public no matter where they might be. As noted in many of the chapters, assessing feasibility involves examining tourism potential, and this should be done by considering the demographic sectors from which visitors to the site are drawn or might be in the future, identifying preservation issues associated with hosting visitors from the various demographic sectors, and the possibility and means by which local communities might be engaged in identifying issues and generating long-term support for effective management. The book presented brief studies of places and ways in which the feasibility of sustainable management has been improved. These were offered in the hope that they will inspire others concerned with archaeological heritage management to continue down similar avenues of scholarship that considers feasibility of sustainable management to be a prerequisite to opening any archaeological site to the public.

Literature Cited

(1966: US Government Printing Office) 16 U.S.C. 470–1.0. Comer, D. C. (2013). Tourism at Petra: Driver to development or destruction. New York: Springer. Republic of Singapore. Government Gazette. Acts Supplement. (1970, December 11). The Preservation of Monuments Act 1970 (Act 45 of 1971, pp. 481–490). Singapore: Government Printing Office. Call no.: RSING 348.5957 SGGAS. UNESCO. (2015). Policy for the integration of a sustainable development perspective into the processes of the World Heritage convention. Paris. UNESCO. (2016). Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage convention. Paris: UNESCO. Willems, A., & Dunning, C. (2015). Solving the puzzle – The characteristics of archaeological tourism. In M. van den Dries, S. J. van der Linde, & A. Strecker (Eds.), Fernweh (pp. 68–72). Leiden: Sidestone Press. World Economic Forum. (2017). The travel & tourism competitiveness report 2017. Geneva: The World Economic Forum.

www.TourismB.ir Index

A Archaeotourism, 2, 6 Adventure Travel Trade Association (ATTA), 71 definition, 116 Archaeological festivals economic benefits, 70 in Biskupin “Smaki Przeszłości”, 119, 120 factors, 70 in Europe, 118 funds, 70 open-air events, 118 guidelines, 71, 72 participation, 116 impacts, 70 Archaeological Institute of America (AIA), local communities, 69–71 69, 71 stakeholders, 69 Archaeological parks, 55 Audience development programme, 26 Archaeological reconstructions, 116–118, 122 Authentic experiences, 4 Archaeological research Authenticity, 96, 98, 99 Commission for Westphalian Antiquities, 143 cultural values, 3 tourist attractions, 142 description, 3, 4 touristic concepts, 141 domain, 3 Archaeological sites Nara approach, 3 economic and social importance, 172 management approach, 81 B concept, 80, 81 Boutique’ heritage attractions, 93, 96 episcopal complex, 81 Broken Hill remedies, 82 assessment, 17 sustainability, 81 Australia, 8 the public, 172 authenticity and integrity, 14 Archaeological tourism cultural values, 17 development, 115 industrial sites, 10 historical re-enactment tourism, 116 informative walking and driving trails, 13 levels, 116 mining infrastructure and civic buildings, 15 in Poland, 116 self-guided tours and noninteractive touristic adaptations, 115 information, 13 Archaeology, 27, 87 Strategic Tourism Plan 2010 to 2020, 16 croatian legislation, 80 surface workings, 9, 15 Herculaneum (see Herculaneum) United Kingdom and Australian mining city, 8 planning process, 79 visitor experience, 15 sites, 80 Bustling clothes market, 29

www.TourismB.ir 180 Index

C European Association of Archaeologists California Archaeological Site Stewardship (EAA), 72 Program (CASSP), 74 European Day of Megalithic Culture, 146–149 Christianization, 151 European heritage, 134 Commercialisation, 118–124 European Route of Megalithic culture Communication acoustic concert, 136 archaeological, 152 blogger trip, 137 in West Sweden, 151 in Copenhagen, 131 Conservation the 4th Cultural Routes Summer Seminar, archaeological research, 101 131–133, 138 interpretation, 102 in Germany and Netherlands, 138 mediaeval church of St Nicholas, 94 “Grumfeld West”, 135 Rindoon conservation plan, 99 Head of the Archaeological Heritage short-term capital funding sources, 90 Department of Lower Saxony, 139 Core value dimensions HECTOR Erasmus project, 138 cultural values, 11 Klekkendehøj, 137 experience values, 12 “the long night of myth and legends”, 138 physical values, 12 megalithic monuments and guided tours, product values, 12 135, 136 sustainable development, 12 “Moving Stones”, 137 Council for British Archaeology (CBA), 108 natural and cultural sciences, 129 Croatia archaeological sites Neolithic monuments, 130, 134 Novigrad na Dobri, 85, 86 in North-West Lower Saxony, 130 Salona, 83–85 Official Cultural Routes, 133 Stari Grad on Hvar, 86, 87 Osnabrück and Oldenburg, 131, 134 Vučedol, 82, 83 reconstruction, 134 Cultural heritage sites, 21 social media, 138 “Straße der Megalithkultur”, 130 in Stone Age, 133 D thematic itineraries, 137 Demographic sectors, 5 in tourism, 129

E F Earthwatch Institute, 105 Feasibility Economic vulnerability, 26 demographic sectors, 5 Education, 72, 73 description, 5, 6 Edutainment, 121 economic and social benefit, 6 Enlarged partial agreement (EPA), 132 Fieldwork, 111–113 eScape project Aarhus, 159 art council, 161 G concept, 161, 162 Great Zimbabwe developers, 161 colonial trespass laws, 52 educational learning and participation, 163 descriptions, 47–49 events, 164–167 local narratives, 48–51 final remarks, 167–168 Große Sloopsteene, 142–144 financing, 163–164 locals, volunteers children and tourists, 161 museum Skanderborg, 160–161 H partners, 160 Hard data, 3, 24 Ring of Bones, 165 Herculaneum Skanderborg municipality, 159, 160 collapsing structures, 23 at Skovby Nygaard, 167 larger scale, sustainability, 28–29 VisitSkanderborg, 161 site scale, sustainability

www.TourismB.ir Index 181

approaches, 25, 28 Megalithic grave of Westerkappeln-Seeste, 145 audience data, 27 Meillionydd Field School, 106–108 audience development programme, 26 Mining heritage, 16 economic vulnerability, 26 Monumentality services, 25 colonial experience, 45 viability, 24 heritage, 46, 47 sustainability, archaeological sites, 22–25, interpretations, 45 27–31 mapping, 46 Herculaneum Conservation Project (HCP), natural affinity, 45 22–27, 30, 31 public enjoyment, 45 Heritage visuality, 46, 55 in Ireland, 90–93 Multi-vocality, 4 industry, 37 management, 24, 26, 30 tourism, 115, 124 N archaeotourism, 70 Narratives EAA, 72 cosmological network, 51 Hill of Uisneach, 93–100 cultural landscape, 50, 51, 55 Historical re-enactment, 116–118 walking pots, 50 National tourism market, 39 Newtown Jerpoint, 93–100 I Industrial heritage characteristics, 8–10 O dimensions and criteria, 11 Office of Public Works (OPW), 92 five-dimensional instrument, 7 Oseberg Viking ship, 39 McKercher and Ho instrument, 11 Osnabrück municipal, 131 visitor experiences, 13, 14 Outreach, 70, 72, 75 International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), 90 International Cultural Tourism Committee P (ICTC), 58 Physical values dimension, 4, 5 International Scientific Committee on Plurality, 3 Archaeological Heritage Public participation, 106 Management (ICAHM), 177 Irish Tourism Association (ITA), 91–92 R Rindoon, 93–100 L Ladder of participation, 30 Local communities, 69–71, 73, 77 S Sacred landscapes benefits, 52 M conservation efforts, 54 Management standards cultural landscape, 52 authenticity, 61 desecration, 54 cooperation, 64 mismanagement, 52 economy, 64 red hills, 52 information dissemination, 65 social structures, 53 interpretation, 62–64 Uluru, 52 preservation and protection, 60, 61 unhindered access, 53 private initiatives, 65 Salona public consultation, 65 archaeological museum, 83, 84 quality, 60, 61 cultural significance, 83 Mediaeval monastic site, 92 interpretation, 83

www.TourismB.ir 182 Index

Salona (cont.) sectors of Varnhem, 154 monuments, 83 strategic thinking, 80 troubles, 84 Swedish economy, 156 Site preservation West Sweden Tourism Council, 157 AIA Tourist product, archaeological, 119, 123 holistic manner, 72 Touristic concepts, 141, 145 local communities, 73 Training, 74, 75, 77 significance, 73 Triple bottom line (TBL), 24 strategies, 72 strengths, 73 education, 72, 73 U local communities, 76 UNESCO Outstanding Universal Value outreach, 72 (OUV), 174, 175 training, 74 United Nations Educational Scientific and Skanderborg municipality, 159–161, 163, Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 37 165–167 Skovby, 165, 167 Society for California Archaeology (SCA), 74 V Stakeholders, 5, 23, 27, 28, 52, 55, 72, 76, 77 Varnhem Substantial challenges, 1 archaeological project, 152 Sustainability, 98 case, 154–155 approaches, 2, 4, 5 Christianity, 153 description, 4, 5 excavations, 151 dimension, 2, 4–6 heritage and tourism sectors, 154 element of, 5, 6 human habitation, 152 levels of, 4 stakeholders, 156 Sustainable archaeological heritage tourism and Västergötland, 153 conference, 65 Vestfold’s nomination process, 35 definition, 58 Viability, 24 implementation, 59 Viking Age sites management, 59, 60 archaeological heritage tourism, 35 public archaeology, 57, 58, 66 Vestfold Ship Burials (Norway), 35, 36, research, 60 38–41 sustainability, 57, 60 Visitation, 35, 40, 41 training, 60 VisitSkanderborg, 161 Sustainable development, 2, 5, 24–29, 31, 32 Visualisation, 118–124 Herculaneum Volunteers larger scale, 28, 29, 31, 32 age, 108 site scale, 24–28 archaeological knowledge, 111 Sustainable relationship, 35 archaeology, 108–111 Sustainable tourism, 4, 7, 11, 28 education, 109 excavations, 110, 113 pros and cons, 111–113 T Voluntourism Time and archaeology, 105–106 Skovby, 165 Meillionydd Field School, 106–108 Tourism assessment, 16 cultural heritage, 80 W industrial heritage, 7 West Sweden in Ireland, 90–93 archaeological site, 151 local tourism economy, 151 aristocracy of Västergötland, 152 natural heritage, 79 cities and museums, 151 sector, 79 Economic and Regional Growth states, 156

www.TourismB.ir Index 183

in East-West orientation, 153 World heritage sites heritage officials, 157 in developing countries, 172 heritage sector, 153 experience, 172 human habitation in Varnhem, 152 feasibility, 175–178 Iron Age burial practice, 153 historic/cultural connections, 173 local stakeholders, 152 Hummingbird geoglyph, 173 Municipality of Skara, 156 impervious surfaces, 173 public archaeology, 152 integrity, 173 stakeholders, 157 instrumental shift tourism agencies, 151 benefits, 37, 38 Varnhem case, 154–155 status, 37 Västergötland museum, 151, 154 tourism and economic gains, working archaeologist, 156 37, 38 Westerkappeln-Seeste, 145, 146 local residents, 173 Westphalia (Germany) strategic synergies archaeological research, 142 accommodation, 40 European Day of Megaliths, 146, 147, 149 databases, 40 European Route of Megalithic Culture, 141 planning, 40 Funnel Beaker West Group, 141 regional and political spheres, 39 Große Sloopsteene, 142–144 regional heritage sector, 38 megalithic stroke of luck, 141 surveys, 40 research project, 141 suitability, 174–175 Westerkappeln-Seeste, 145, 146 Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Wildeshausen Geest region, 138 Index, 174