Feasible Management of Archaeological Heritage Sites Open to Tourism

By Douglas C. Comer

Archaeological sites opened to the public, and especially those highly photogenic sites that have achieved iconic status, are often major tourist attractions. By opening an archaeological site to tourism, threats and opportunities will emerge.The threats are to the archaeological record, the pre-historic or historic materials in context at the site that can provide facts about human history and the human relationship to the environment.  The opportunities are to share what can be learned at archaeological sites and how it can be learned. The latter is important because doing so can build a public constituency for archaeology that appreciates and will support the potential of archaeology to contribute to conversations about contemporary issues, such as the root causes and possible solutions to conflict among humans and the social implications of environmental degradation.  

In this volume we will consider factors that render effective management of archaeological sites open to the public feasible, and therefore sustainable. We approach this in two ways: The first is by presenting some promising ways to assess and enhance the feasibility of establishing effective management. Assessing feasibility involves examining tourism potential, which must consider 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 second part of the book will provide brief case studies of places and ways in which the feasibility of sustainable management has been improved.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Springer
• Release date: Aug 7, 2018
• ISBN: 9783319927565

Book preview

© The Author(s) 2019

Douglas C. Comer and Annemarie Willems (eds.)Feasible Management of Archaeological Heritage Sites Open to Tourismhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92756-5_1

1. Introduction: Feasibility as the Cornerstone of Effective Management of Public Archaeological Sites

Douglas C. Comer¹, ², ³   and Annemarie Willems⁴, ⁵, ⁶  

(1)

Cultural Site Research and Management, Baltimore, MD, USA

(2)

The United States National Committee for ICOMOS (US/ICOMOS), Washington, DC, USA

(3)

The International Scientific Committee for Archaeological Heritage Management (ICOMOS/ICAHM), Baltimore, Maryland, USA

(4)

Friends of ICAHM, Baltimore, MD, USA

(5)

AW Heritage Consultancy, Jyväskylä, Finland

(6)

Helsinki University, Faculty of Arts, Helsinki, Finland

Douglas C. Comer

Email: [e-mail]

Annemarie Willems (Corresponding author)

Email: [e-mail]

Email: [e-mail]

Email: [e-mail]

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 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, economic, 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 (anthropologists, 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 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.

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 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

Footnotes

1

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

2

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

© The Author(s) 2019

Douglas C. Comer and Annemarie Willems (eds.)Feasible Management of Archaeological Heritage Sites Open to Tourismhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92756-5_2

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

Chris Landorf¹  

(1)

School of Architecture, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Chris Landorf

Email: [e-mail]

Keywords

Broken HillCore value dimensionsMining heritageSustainable tourism assessmentTourism potential

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.

../images/449151_1_En_2_Chapter/449151_1_En_2_Fig1_HTML.png

Fig. 2.1

Map of Australia showing the location of Broken Hill, 510 km from Adelaide to the southwest and 1,150 km from Sydney to the east. (Map data ©2014 GBRMPA, Google)

../images/449151_1_En_2_Chapter/449151_1_En_2_Fig2_HTML.jpg

Fig. 2.2

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

To date, academic studies have considered the role of heritage in economic regeneration (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 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 hazardous features such as disused mine shafts and contaminated waste. Industrial heritage landscapes include layers of technological innovation and expansion, links to broader regional and international networks and a utilitarian aesthetic associated with periods of rapid change and social deprivation (Table 2.1).

Table 2.1

The unique characteristics of industrial heritage