Heritage and Cultural Heritage Tourism: International Perspectives 3031447999, 9783031447990

Citation preview

Pei-Lin Yu Thanik Lertcharnrit George S. Smith   Editors

Heritage and Cultural Heritage Tourism International Perspectives

Heritage and Cultural Heritage Tourism

Pei-Lin Yu  •  Thanik Lertcharnrit George S. Smith Editors

Heritage and Cultural Heritage Tourism International Perspectives

Editors Pei-Lin Yu Boise State University Boise, ID, USA George S. Smith Associate Director Southeast Archaeological Center (Retired) National Park Service Tallahassee, FL, USA

Thanik Lertcharnrit Department of Archaeology Silpakorn University Bangkok, Thailand

ISBN 978-3-031-44799-0    ISBN 978-3-031-44800-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44800-3 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed 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, expressed 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. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Paper in this product is recyclable.

Acknowledgments

This book would not have been possible with the support of Silpakorn University and the funding and logistical support provided by the Re-inventing University System Program. The original plan was to convene a workshop at Silpakorn University, Bangkok, Thailand, in Fall 2020, where participants would discuss papers prepared beforehand, visit several archaeological tourism locations, and synthesize their findings toward an edited volume. The objectives were to create a series of papers from a broad spectrum of perspectives by convening an international team of experts in a workshop format to identify common and cross-cutting issues, scope a wide variety of methods to address those issues, and identify possible solutions. The production of scholarly materials for distribution to an international audience was an important component. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the in-person workshop was postponed and ultimately cancelled. Organizers and participants agreed to proceed with the edited volume, and papers were prepared during 2021. The Silpakorn University Archaeology Faculty designed a public online lecture series for Winter of 2022. In February 2022, the special lecture series was presented by our Workshop Sponsor, Silpakorn University Faculty of Archaeology, through the “Reinventing University System Program.” Five lectures were presented in an online setting between February 14 and 23, 2022 (Yu et al. 2022). We would like to make a special acknowledgement to the 23 individuals who through their steadfast dedication to the project worked with us over the past three years to produce this volume. Their dedication to how an intergenerational shared past can promote social cohesion, inclusiveness, relevance, and resilience is a hallmark of this volume.

v

vi

Acknowledgments

References Yu P, Lertcharnrit T, Smith GS, Chapman W, Shoocongdej R, Deng-Yu Chen A (2022) Report for Lecture Series: Archaeology, Public Engagement and Cultural Heritage Tourism, Faculty of Archaeology, Silpakorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. SPAFA J 6. https://doi.org/10.26721/ spafa.6cmwn6om9y

Introduction

Abstract  The places that are the foundation of cultural heritage tourism have always been subject to the forces of change. Today, global political and economic pressures include sustainable economic development, cultural heritage management, conflict and reconciliation, as well as environmental and health issues associated with climate change and pandemics. Managing sustainable cultural heritage tourism requires effective management and planning, presenting the past, and partnerships at every scale: worldwide, regional, local, and in Indigenous communities in places with colonialized histories. This volume addresses a critical need for contemporary studies of evolving public attitudes about the past, exploring effective ways to present the past and engage the public at local, national, and international levels. Building from historical contexts and economics of heritage tourism, the volume considers its role in building resilient societies and engaging directly with de-colonialization through community engagement and place making. These enterprises facilitate empowerment and build social capital of all communities and stakeholders involved in the heritage tourism enterprise. The interested ‘audiences’ for cultural heritage are large and diverse, as noted in studies worldwide that show explosive growth in visits to museums and heritage sites. This interest is happening against a backdrop of accelerated destruction of cultural knowledge and places by war, pandemics, environmental degradation, migration, and economic forces. By employing an international perspective, this volume examines the ethical responsibility of the cultural heritage and tourism sectors to present the past and engage the public in an accurate, balanced, and fair manner that builds understanding, tolerance, cultural revitalization, and enjoyment, and invests in economic growth and sustainability. Keywords  Cultural heritage sites; Tourism; International; Ethics; Sustainability; Crisis management

vii

viii

Introduction

Introduction: Gateways to Understanding This volume addresses a critical need in the post-pandemic era to explore topics and issues relating to successful and sustainable heritage tourism. Topics include the historic contexts of heritage tourism, heritage management, the role of local museums in heritage tourism, economic and community development, enhancing the heritage tourism experience, pandemic-related impacts, climate change and tourism, de-colonializing heritage tourism in museums and other locales, Indigenous innovations in heritage tourism, and contemporary meanings and relevance. Because the heritage tourism industry has grown especially rapidly in Southeast Asia, the workshop on which this volume is based was planned for Thailand (the physical workshop was cancelled due to the Covid-19 pandemic). For this reason, the themes associated with several of these chapters relate to Southeast Asia. Given the dynamic nature of heritage tourism today, and rapid turnover in heritage tourism scholars and practitioners, volume contributors to this collection include a range of experience levels from senior experts to new voices entering the field. The volume is intended for heritage sector practitioners, cultural heritage managers, government agencies, and organizations dealing with tourism; tour guides; museums; heritage studies programs; Indigenous communities; those involved in making laws, regulations, and guidelines dealing with heritage and tourism; and those dealing with conflict resolution. Our aim is to contribute to help bring theory and practice closer together (Kristiansen 2015; Lahdesmaki et al 2019) and provide a basis for understanding and respecting differences by providing information to the public that allows them to weigh and judge the plethora of information that they face, both as tourists and in their daily lives.

Cultural Heritage and Tourism Heritage has been defined as something acquired from a predecessor, something from the past. The etymology of the term heritage can be traced to the Anglo-French word “heriter” meaning to inherit (Merriam-Webster 2023). As discussed in this volume, this includes both tangible and intangible heritage. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an independent federal agency that advises the US Congress, the White House and federal agencies, and the American heritage sector, defines heritage tourism as traveling to experience places, artifacts, and activities that authentically represent the stories and people of the past and present (ACHP 2023). The World Tourism Organization (WTO), the United Nations agency responsible for sustainable and universally accessible tourism and mainstreaming tourism in the global agenda, defines heritage tourism as discovering both tangible and intangible aspects of other cultures (World Tourism Organization 2023). It recognizes that heritage tourism enhances experiences by promoting sustainable tourism development; knowledge, education, and capacity building; tourism competitiveness; poverty reduction and development, and partnerships (World Tourism Organization 2023).

Introduction

ix

For these reasons, cultural heritage has become central to most international tourism experiences. Global interest in cultural heritage tourism is reflected in the exponential growth in worldwide visits to museums (Jolliffe and Smith 2001; Vareiro et al. 2021; White 2023; also see Shen, Chap. 9, this volume; Nobayashi Chap. 10, this volume; Miksic, Chap. 2, this volume) and heritage sites (see Lertcharnrit and Watanasawad, Chap. 13, this volume; Miksic, Chap. 2, this volume). The entire industry known as cultural heritage tourism has grown out of this interest using information gained through research to provide enjoyable and informative experiences for tourists. The segment of the population interested in cultural heritage is large and diverse, as noted in studies worldwide (Kajda et  al. 2018; Pokotylo 2002; Pokotylo and Guppy 1999; Ramos and Duganne 2000; Synnestvedt 2006). Presenting the excitement of exploring the past, stimulating the public’s interest in the past, and inviting them to visit heritage places are a gateway to understanding the significance of place and community, as well as our collective heritage. Critical to cultural heritage tourism is the fact that heritage sites and the entire tourism industry are subject to global and local political and economic pressures. These include sustainable economic development (see Jansen, Chap. 3, this volume; Chapman, Chap. 1, this volume; Edgell 2006; Zhu 2021), cultural heritage management (du Cros, Chap. 16, this volume), conflict and reconciliation (Timothy, Chap. 15, this volume), environmental and health issues associated with climate change and pandemics (Pennington-Gray and Basurto, Chap. 6, this volume; Yu, Chap. 4, this volume), as well as the economic value of cultural heritage tourism to communities (Gould 2019). Sustainable cultural heritage tourism requires the balancing of these pressures through effective management and planning (see Hassan, Chap. 11, this volume; Edgell 2006; Guyette 2013; Hargrove 2017; Schofield 2008), presenting the past (Deng Yu Chen, Chap. 4, this volume; Miksic, Chap. 2, this volume; Shen, Chap. 9, this volume; Nobayashi, Chap. 10, this volume), and partnerships (du Cros, Chap. 16, this volume; Baxter, Chap. 5, this volume). Such partnerships form not only on a worldwide scale but also at the local level and in Indigenous communities where heritage sites, knowledge, and values reside (Shoocongdej, Chap. 14, this volume; LeMer et  al., Chap. 17, this volume; Lertcharnrit and Watanasawad, Chap. 13, this volume; Lee, Chap. 12, this volume). This volume examines ways to understand public attitudes about the past to more effectively present the past and engage the public at the local, national, and international levels, and methods for studying cultural heritage tourism that are critical to the future of both heritage sites and tourism. Questions about the past present an excellent opportunity to explain how the past is studied, methods used, and interpretations made. Explaining the story of a place or people enhances the story by providing connectors in the modern world upon which the public can build. In addition to providing interesting information and destinations, cultural heritage tourism has been shown to increase appreciation of our shared cultural heritage (Higgins and Douglas 2021; Stritch 2006) and to increase support for protecting the past (Hutt et al. 1999; Smith 2021). With this support comes the responsibility to provide reliable information about the past in a format that is interesting and fact-based.

x

Introduction

The creation of heritage destinations and cultural heritage tourism has a long history (see Baram, Chap. 7, this volume; Diaz-Andreu 2019; McLaren 2003). This relationship is based, in no small part, on the ethical responsibility to present the past and engage the public, in an accurate, balanced, and fair manner that contributes not only to enjoyment but also to understanding and tolerance. Demonstrating the value, relevance, and application of heritage in contemporary society is an effective means for both presenting the past and engaging the public (Yu et al. 2018). The segment of the public that is interested in the past increasingly includes groups who were previously under-represented (Kajda et al. 2018; Pokotylo 2002; Pokotylo and Guppy 1999; Ramos and Duganne 2000; Synnestvedt 2006). This interest is the reason why heritage sites are an important tourist resource, a major component of tourism, and an opportunity to make tourism more inclusive (Adie and Hall 2017; Timothy and Tahan 2020). Prior to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting travel restrictions, the UNWTO (United Nations World Tourism Organization), a special agency responsible for sustainable and accessible tourism, reported that 39% of all international travel was related to cultural tourism (Richards 2018). As a result of the pandemic, the number of tourists experiencing cultural heritage decreased dramatically, resulting in a wide range of impacts at the local, regional, and international levels (Gossling et al. 2021). This phenomenon, and the subsequent explosive recovery in heritage tourism, demonstrates the importance of crisis management plans to mitigate the impacts of decreased travel on cultural heritage tourism, plan for its return, and investigate ways to build resiliency (see Baxter, Chap. 5, this volume; Pennington-Gray, Chap. 6, this volume; Yu, Chap. 4, this volume). Presenting the past and engaging the public through heritage tourism must compete against fantastic myths, stereotypes, misinformation, and conflicting ideas about the past that can be – for some – indistinguishable from factually based interpretations. This can reinforce inequalities as well as recruit uses and abuses of the past for political or social agendas (Carruthers et  al. 2021; Gero 2004, Metcalf 2002; Silverman and Ruggles 2007, Timothy 2011, Zhu 2021). Strategies for engaging the public must take this into consideration. It is critical to educate and train those in the cultural heritage and tourism sectors not only to manage issues of misinformation but also be aware that there are other interpretations of the past that individuals, communities, and nations might hold (Messenger and Bender 2019; Smith 2018). Conflicting ideas about the past are not limited to those differing views by archaeologists and others who study the past. Varied and sometimes conflicting ideas about the past are also advanced by television shows, the news media, cartoons, radio programs, podcasts and other social media, movies, advertisements, popular publications, and political campaigns (Holtorf 2007; Schablitsky and Hetherington 2012). Further conflict comes from political agendas that run contrary to the facts. In these cases, the problem arises when information presented as factual is false, unclear, or misleading (Metcalf 2002). This is not to say that there are not well-researched examples from all these outlets, but when attention to factual

Introduction

xi

accuracy is relegated to a lower status under the guise of editorial license, expediency, or efforts to entertain, information presented as factual might be misinterpreted by consumers. Compounding the problem is the tendency to reduce facts to bullet points or fragments of information with little effort to demonstrate context. Presenters of the past need to make it clear that context is the foundation of studying the past. Clear presentation of context is critical if those who study and present the past are to be effective researchers and presenters in ways that engage the public (Fagan 2002; McManamon 2002; Parry 2019).

Structure of the Volume The themes considered in this volume navigate a broad landscape of caveats, best practices, and more importantly, the state of our knowledge as a means to a more pro-active future for heritage tourism. The volume begins with ‘Historical Contexts and Economics,’ which lead to the role of heritage tourism in ‘Building Resilient Societies.’ Sustainable and inclusive heritage tourism is founded upon ‘De-Colonialization through Community Engagement and Place Making,’ which facilitates ‘Empowerment and Social Capital’ of all communities and stakeholders in the heritage tourism enterprise. Below is a short introduction to the chapters within each part.

Part I: Historical Contexts and Economics Chapman (Chap. 1) leads with the history of heritage tourism in Southeast Asia and traces its growth between the late nineteenth and mid-twentieth centuries noting the significance of heritage sites for Western tourists. He discusses the economic development of heritage tourism and the acceptance in Southeast Asian countries of heritage as part of leisure activities. Miksic (Chap. 2) discusses the development of museums and how local museums in Southeast Asia try to portray and preserve aspects of their culture and heritage tourism, both foreign and domestic, which serve as a potential income stream to enable local museums to survive. Jansen (Chap. 3) addresses the relationship between tourism, economic development, and responsible cultural heritage management and the challenges and constraints to finding shared interests or approaches to cultural heritage within the context of changing environments, international development, and the impact of the global Covid pandemic. In Chap. 4, Deng Yu Chen discusses storytelling and walking tours as a method to enhance and enrich heritage tourism through explorations of multiple facets of the Taiwanese experience.

xii

Introduction

Part II: Building Resilient Societies Baxter (Chap. 5) considers the business environment for heritage and tourism organizations, the ways that heritage has become a major force in the globalized tourism industry, and the need for sustainable preservation of the historic environment and the utilization of that environment for developing tourism economics with diverse cultural experiences. In Chap. 6, Pennington-Gray and Basurto discuss how heritage tourism can be impacted by unexpected disruptions such a disasters, pandemics, and economic crises and the need to effectively manage such disruptions through heritage site managers’ responsiveness and resilience. Baram (Chap. 7) examines the history of heritage tourism travelers and the relationship between tourism and site destinations that may be impacted by political and environmental pressures such as climate change. In Chap. 8, Yu examines the loss of cultural heritage due to the impacts of climate change and presents new strategies for assessing exposure to climate impacts in US National Parks along with recommendations for measuring adaptive change that can also be applied to other stressors such as over-tourism impacts.

Part III: De-colonialization, Community, and Place Making Shen (Chap. 9) discusses the importance of museums as a tourist destination and the role museum objects play in connecting the past and future through the lens of contemporary heritage values and ethics. He presents a case for preserving cultural heritage and the need for museums to make heritage values relevant and understandable to all visitors as well as the importance of museums to the global tourism industry. In Chap. 10, Nobayashi discusses the depiction of Indigenous peoples in museum exhibits and the need for museums to provide the public with an understanding of Indigenous issues that transcends and contextualizes the artifacts on display. Hassan, in Chap. 11, presents a management plan for the World Heritage site of Luxor in Egypt that includes tangible and intangible aspects of the site in an effort to enhance the both Egyptian and international tourists. He emphasizes the need for appropriate governance, capacity building and technical support, education and employment for members of the local community, and the establishment of a center for heritage and development to help maintain sustainability. In Chap. 12, Lee traces the relationship between ritual landscape and cultural heritage of the Amis people in Taiwan and how this connects and reproduces memories and landscape recognition, while also applying contemporary meaning to creative myths and the impact on cultural heritage. Lertcharnrit and Watanasawad (Chap. 13) discuss intangible cultural heritage in Thailand and the growth of intangible cultural heritage tourism concerning events, festivals, and other intangible cultural heritage as a source for heritage tourism through the application of best management practices. In Chap. 14, Shoocongdej discusses knowledge as a powerful tool for heritage

Introduction

xiii

management through the examination of Long Long Rak Coffin Cave in Northwest Thailand and how it is used in local schools and community outreach as a means of creating a sense of ownership and stewardship for cultural heritage sites.

Part IV: Empowerment and Social Capital Timothy (Chap. 15) discusses the potential for heritage tourism to escalate and de-­ escalate conflict and advance benevolence between adversaries through person-to-­ person contact, community empowerment, holistic heritage narratives, and emotive experiences. In Chap. 16, Du Cros discusses the connection between tourism and cultural heritage management that involves partnerships that satisfies both tourists and cultural heritage management through better information sharing and collective problem-solving. LeMer, Cooley and Balenquah (Chap. 17) discuss the disconnected view of Indigenous people in the American Southwest from tour guides who are ill-prepared to speak about Indigenous people. Through Indigenous perspectives, the Grand Canyon National Park has developed a shared program for non-­ Indigenous tourists that provides a respectful and culturally sustaining approach to heritage tourism. Chilton (Chap. 18) provides a synthesis chapter for the volume that carefully considers the issue of which past(s) and which public(s) are addressed with respect to the economic and social development of heritage tourism, and the essential work of including historically excluded voices and communities.

Conclusion Presenting the past in a way that is engaging, inspiring, and inclusive empowers people to interpret what they see and hear from sources of information that they encounter – in unfamiliar places, and in their everyday lives. It is important to help the public understand that the past(s) are not merely sequences of isolated events detached from the modern world, but the building blocks of their very lives (Smith et al 2010; Smith 2006; Yu et al. 2018). This connection with everyday life makes informed consumers of historical facts and findings (McManamon 2002; Yu et al. 2018) which helps to reduce the risk that the past will be misappropriated for other agendas, which may have unforeseen consequences that are very hard to reverse. Creative and exciting methods that transcend the presentation of objects from the past are key to engaging people with the past. Disconnecting the objects from their contexts has no doubt contributed to the worldwide loss of our collective cultural patrimony. Bringing the past to life is more than showing artifacts: it is telling the story of ourselves. In one US study intended to better understand how most people perceive the past and those who study the past, the Society for American Archaeology evaluated public perceptions and attitudes (Society for American Archaeology 2018). The results of the nationwide survey demonstrate that many Americans

xiv

Introduction

appreciate and are interested in the past and understand that knowing something about it contributes to knowledge about today’s world. The survey also shows that, in general, Americans see value in studying and protecting the past (Ramos and Duganne 2000). Similar attitudes were also noted in a Canadian study (Pokotylo 2002; Pokotylo and Guppy 1999) as well as the Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain, Poland, Greece, Italy, Sweden, the UK (Kajda et  al. 2018), and Australia (Nichols 2006). Conducting such studies in other parts of the world greatly enhances the ability to present the past and engage the public. For example, if all that archaeologists do is excavate, analyze, report, and curate, they have missed the opportunity to satisfy and sustain the interest of people who are fascinated with the places, events, and objects of the past – and who support this work through government programs and cultural heritage tourism. Although researchers strive to interpret their data accurately, the public needs to know that our understanding of the past is constantly being updated. New discoveries may change our understanding of the past, and new ways of viewing and connecting existing data give rise to different questions in a way that refreshes our understanding and stimulates curiosity and appreciation. Much of what we learn about the past is brought about by asking new questions of existing data. This is why diversity among those who study and present the past is so important. Different cultural backgrounds and experiences bring with them new ways of looking at the past and a new set of questions for examining and/or reexamining data. This is particularly urgent in colonized nations and those with a history of inequitable policies and behaviors. In addition to understanding and appreciation of the past, there is also the opportunity to expose people to a variety of skills and perspectives that carry over into other areas of their daily lives. These include gathering information, interpreting graphic materials, understanding chronology, and synthesizing and applying knowledge gained (Metcalf 2002). These are the skills an informed citizenry needs in order to sort out and make judgements about what they hear and see regarding the past, and its connection to current and future societies. At the time of this writing, the conflicts between Ukraine and Russia, Israel and Hamas, and the Sudan Civil War are compelling examples of this need. To present the past in ways that capture and engage the interest of the public, it is important to strive for a real dialogue that includes and stems from all the voices of the past (Carman 2002; Carr et al. 2016, Zhu 2021). In this way, those who study and present the past can provide a multicultural environment in which other ways of knowing can be accommodated, creating a connection between the past and present that is meaningful. When the goal is to inform and empower, it provides the means for the public to make distinctions between myths, stereotypes, and misinformation. Additionally, scholars and practitioners necessarily have their own opinions about the past, and should be alert to opportunities to disclose our perspectives and backgrounds. When the public’s interest in the past leads to public support for protecting and studying it, cultural heritage tourism will be enhanced as will the ability to understand our commonalities and differences. Preserving these commonalities and

Introduction

xv

differences is a significant challenge for those who study and present the past (Cernea 2001) and seek to protect it. These efforts must take into consideration how the past is perceived, and must take notice of public attitudes, especially those of descendent communities. The need to protect and present the past must motivate those who study and present the past to improve their efforts to interact with the public in meaningful ways, which means education and training to be effective teachers, researchers, and guides (Bender and Smith 2000; Bender and Messenger 2019; Binoy 2011; Fagan 2000, 2002; Lipe 2002; Mazzola 2015; Messenger and Bender 2019). Those in the heritage and tourism sectors must also be aware that there are many different interpretations of the past, and that there is a constant and compelling human right to have a connection to the past in a form that is fulfilling. The failure to take note of other ways of knowing removes people from their own heritage. Losing a connection to the past or taking that right from others may, in fact, be an underlying cause of many of the world’s conflicts. Everyone involved in presenting the past and engaging the public has an ethical responsibility to make the past accessible, thus empowering the public to draw their own conclusions. Heritage and tourism professionals can add much to the public's understanding and appreciation of the past by providing them with the intellectual tools to interpret the past for themselves. By incorporating the disenfranchised into interpretations of the past, a more balanced picture of the past is presented. Inclusion in the past provides a sense of belonging which facilitates understanding and even cooperation among diverse groups who may view the past in very different terms. Since tangible remains of the past exist in the contemporary world, they continue to play a critical role in cultural continuity and the ability to extend beyond the current generation (Lipe 2002). The same process that can link us as a global community can also serve dangerous political goals. This has been chronicled throughout history (Stone 2018). Given the importance of the tangible past to contemporary society, what should be the role and responsibility of those who present the past and engage the public in world events? In today's global village, practitioners may have a more significant role to play on the world stage than they think, one that may be larger than that which they have been educated and trained to perform. Consequently, we must work on a global scale to prepare practitioners, students, governments, and the public for the challenge and responsibility of being a profession that looks systematically at the human condition through time and in all places (Messenger and Enloe 1991). This is the power of international collaborations. What the past has to offer is not only enjoyment for tourists but also information and insight into successful and unsuccessful attempts to change the human condition. For example, material traces of past peoples and landscapes have revealed information concerning environmental stability and change over time, and provide us with a means of understanding how various human groups were responsible for these changes and succeeded or failed to adapt to them. Those who study and present the past must strive to help others see commonality and diversity and, above all, provide a basis for understanding and respecting differences. There is a tremendous opportunity to take advantage of this interest as a

xvi

Introduction

powerful tool for global education, site protection and study, tourism, and world peace. Providing the necessary skills, knowledge, and abilities to those who study and present the past need to be included in the undergraduate and graduate curricula (Fagan 2002). A grave responsibility facing those who study and present the past is helping to nurture a well-informed public: the best defense against agendas that distort or take the past for their own benefit (Little 2002b). Given the challenges in our modern world, looking to the past may actually be our best chance for the future (Little 2002a, b). This responsibility extends beyond scholarly pursuits and entertainment to engage with issues of climate change, pandemics, democracy, global peace, the consequences of war and mass migrations, and more. Through studying the ways that societies have engaged with each other and the world, students of the past can discern successful ways of living together and sharing the bounty of our diverse cultures to the mutual benefit of not only our species but also the diverse life on a planet that may be unique in the universe. Boise State University  Pei-Lin Yu Boise, ID, USA  [email protected] Southeast Archeological Center, George S. Smith National Park Service (Retired)  Tallahassee, FL, USA   Department of Archaeology  Thanik Lertcharnrit Silpakorn University Bangkok, Thailand  

References Adie BA, Hall CM (2017) Who visits world heritage: a comparative analysis of three culturalsites. J Herit Tour 12(1):67–80 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (2023) Heritage tourism. achp.gov/heritage_tourism. Accessed 19 July 2023 Bender SJ, Messenger PE (2019) Pedagogy and practice in heritage studies. University Press of Florida, Gainesville Bender SJ, Smith GS (eds) (2000) Teaching archaeology in the twenty-first century. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC Binoy TA (2011) Archaeology and heritage tourism interpretation a study. South Asian J Tour Herit 4(1):100–105 Carman (2002) Archaeology and heritage. Continuum, London Carr A, Ruhanen L, Whitford M (2016) Indigenous peoples and tourism: the challenges and opportunities for sustainable tourism. J Sustain Tour 24(8,9):1067–1079

Introduction

xvii

Carruthers W, Niala J, Davis S, Challis D, Schiappacasse PA, Dixon S, Milosavljević M, Moore L, Nevell R, Fitzpatrick A, Abd el Gawad H, Stevenson A (2021) Special issue: inequality and race in the histories of archaeology. Bull Hist Archaeol 31(1):1–19 Cernea MM (2001) At the cutting edge: cultural patrimony protection through development projects. In: Serageldin I, Shluger E, Martin-Brown J (eds) Historic cities and sacred sites: cultural roots for urban futures. The World Bank, Washington, DC, pp 67–88 Diaz-Andreu M (2019) A history of archaeological tourism: pursuing leisure and knowledge for the eighteenth century to World War II. Springer, New York Edgell DL (2006) Managing sustainable tourism: a legacy for the future. Routledge, New York Fagan BM (2000) Strategies for change in teaching and learning. In: Bender SJ, Smith GS (eds) Teaching archaeology in the twenty-first century. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC, pp 125–131 Fagan BM (2002) Epilogue. In: Little BJ (ed) Public benefits of archaeology. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp 254–260 Gero J (2004) Engaging with heritage issues: the role of the world archaeological congress. In: Roman Y, Baram U (eds) Marketing heritage. Altamira Press, California, pp 287–294 Gossling S, Scott D, Hall CM (2021) Pandemics tourism, and global change: a rapid assessment of COVID-19. J Sustain Tour 29(1):1–20 Gould P (2019) Empowering communities through archaeology and heritage: the role of local governance in economic development. Bloomsbury, London Guyette SM (2013) Sustainable cultural tourism: small scale solutions. BearPath Press, Minnesota Hargrove C (2017) Cultural heritage tourism: five steps for success and sustainability. Rowman and Littlefield, Washington, DC Higgins V, Douglas D (2021) Introduction. In: Higgins V, Douglas D (eds) Community and cultural heritage: global issues, local values. Routledge, London, pp 1–11 Holtorf (2007) Archaeology as a brand: the meaning of archaeology in popular culture. Left Coast Press, California Hutt S, Blanco CM, Varmer O (1999) Heritage resources law: protecting the archeological and cultural environment. Wiley, New York Jolliffe L, Smith R (2001) Heritage, tourism and museums: the case of the North Atlantic islands of Skye, Scotland and Prince Edward Island, Canada. Int J Herit Stud 7(2):149–172 Kajda K, Marx A, Wright H, Richards J, Marciniak A, Rossenbach KS, Pawleta M, Van Den Dries M, Boom K, Guermadi MP, Criado-Boado F, Barreiro D, Synnestvedt A, Kotsakis K, Kasvikis K, Theodoroudi E, Luth F, Issa M, Frase I (2018) Archaeology heritage and social values: public perspectives of European archaeology. Eur J Archaeol 21(1):96–117 Kristiansen K (2015) From the perspective of cultural heritage to critical heritage studies. In: Ven Der Dries MH, Van Der Linde SJ, Strecker A (eds) Fernweh: crossing boarders and connecting people in archaeological heritage management. Sidestone Press, Leiden, pp 47–55 Lahdesmaki T, Thomas S, Zhu Y (2019) Introduction. In: Lahdesmaki T, Thomas S, Zhu Y (eds) Politics of scale: new directions in critical heritage studies. Berghahn, New York Lipe WD (2002) Public benefits of archaeological research. In: Little BJ (ed) Public benefits of archaeology. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp 20–28 Little BJ (ed) (2002a) Public benefits of archaeology. University Press of Florida, Gainesville Little BJ (2002b) Archaeology as a shared vision. In: Little BJ (ed) Public benefits of archaeology. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp 3–19 Mazzola B (2015) Archaeological tourism opportunity spectrum: experience-based management and design as applied to archaeological tourism. All graduate plan b and other reports 531. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/gradreports/531. Accessed 10 Feb 2021 McLaren D (2003) Rethinking tourism and ecotravel. Kumarian Press, Boulder McManamon FP (2002) Heritage, history, and archaeological educators. In: Little BJ (ed) Public benefits of archaeology. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp 31–45 Merriam-Webster (2023) Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, merriamwebster.com/dictionary/heritage. Accessed 18 July 2023

xviii

Introduction

Messenger PM, Bender SJ (2019) History and approaches to heritage studies. University Press of Florida, Gainesville Messenger PM, Enloe WW (1991) The archaeologist as global educator. In: Smith GS, Ehrenhard JE (eds) Protecting the past. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 157–166 Metcalf F (2002) Myths, lies, and videotapes: information as antidote to social studies classrooms and pop culture. In: Little BJ (ed) Public benefits of archaeology. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp 167–117 Nichols S (2006) Out of the box: popular notions of archaeology programmes on Australian television. Aust Archaeol 63:35–46 Parry S (2019) The benefits of archaeology. In: Williams H, Pudney C, Ezzeldin A (eds) Public archaeology arts of engagement. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 38–40 Pokotylo DL (2002) Public opinion and Canadian archaeological heritage: a national perspective. Can J Archaeol 26:88–129 Pokotylo DL, Guppy H (1999) Public opinion and archaeological heritage: views from outside the profession. Am Antiq 64(3):400–416 Ramos M, Duganne D (2000) Exploring public perceptions and attitudes about archaeology. Prepared by Richards G (2018) Cultural tourism: a review of recent research trends. J Hosp Tour Manag 36:12–21 Richards G (2018) Cultural tourism a: a review of recent research and trends. J Hosp Tour Manag 36:12–21 Schablitsky J, Hetherington NJ (2012) Archaeology on the screen. In: Rockman M, Flatman J (eds) Archaeology in society. Springer, New York, pp 139–152 Schofield J (2008) Heritage management, theory and practice. In: Fairclough G, Harrison R, Jameson JH, Schofield J (eds) The heritage reader. Routledge, New York, pp 15–30 Silverman H, Ruggles DF (2007) Cultural heritage and human rights. In: Silverman H, Ruggles DF (eds) Cultural heritage and human rights. Springer, New York, pp 3–22 Smith GS (2006) The role of archaeology in presenting the past to the public. In: Russell I (ed) Images, representations and heritage: moving beyond modern approaches to archaeology. Springer, New York, pp 123–137 Smith GS (2018) Higher education and cultural heritage management: a personal perspective. In: Yu PL, Shen C, Smith GS (eds) Relevance and application of heritage in contemporary society. Routledge, London, pp 91–95 Smith GS (2021) Valuing and protecting the past in contemporary society. In: Higgins V, Douglas D (eds) Communities and cultural heritage. Routledge, London, pp 15–22 Smith GS, Messenger PM, Soderland HA (2010) Heritage values in contemporary society. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek Society for American Archaeology (2018) 2018 Ipsos American perceptions of archaeology poll. Available online at https://www.saa.org/education-­outreach/public-­outreach/public-­ perceptions-­studies. Accessed 31 Dec 2021 Stone P (2018) Lessons since 2003: protecting cultural heritage during conflict. In: Yu PL, Shen C, Smith GS (eds) Relevance and application of heritage in contemporary society. Routledge, New York, pp 11–20 Stritch D (2006) Archaeology tourism as a signpost to national identity. In: Russell I (ed) Images, representations and heritage: moving beyond modern approaches to archaeology. Springer, New York, pp 43–60 Synnestvedt A (2006) Who wants to visit a cultural heritage site. In: Russell I (ed) Images, representations and heritage: moving beyond modern approaches to archaeology. Springer, New York, pp 333–335 Timothy DJ (2011) Cultural heritage and tourism: an introduction. Channel View Publications, Bristol Timothy DJ, Tahan LG (eds) (2020) Archaeology and tourism: touring the past. Channel View Publishing, Bristol

Introduction

xix

Vareiro L, Sousa BB, Silva SS (2021) The importance of museums in the tourist development and the motivation of their visitors: an analysis of the costume museum in Viana do Castelo. J Cult Herit Manag Sustain Dev 11(1):39–57 White C (2023) Museums and heritage tourism: theory, practice, and people. Routledge, New York World Tourism Organization (2023). www.unwto.org/about us. Accessed 18 July 2023 Yu P, Shen C, Smith GS (eds) (2018) Relevance and application of heritage in contemporary society. Routledge, London Zhu Y (2021) Heritage tourism: from problems to possibilities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Contents

Part I Historical Contexts and Economics 1

 Heritage Tourism in Southeast Asia: A Historical Perspective������������    3 William Chapman

2

Development of Local Museums in the Lands Bordering the Straits of Melaka��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   17 John N. Miksic

3

Patterns in Values and Goal Setting: Finding Commonality in Tourism, Economic Development and Cultural Heritage Management ����������������������������������������������������������������������������   27 William H. Jansen II

4

The Power of Storytelling: Changing National Narratives, Collective Memories, and Cultural Heritage as Observed Through Walking Tours in Taiwan��������������������������������������������������������   37 Ashley Deng-Yu Chen

Part II Building Resilient Societies 5

 Heritage and Tourism Organisations in a Disrupted World����������������   49 Ian Baxter

6

The Role of Crisis Management in Managing Cultural Heritage Tourism in a Covid Era�����������������������������������������������������������   61 Lori Pennington-Gray and Estefania Basurto

7

Heritage Tourism’s History: Past as Prologue for the Anthropocene ������������������������������������������������������������������������������   73 Uzi Baram

8

Hot, Dry, Flooded and Burned: Measuring Climate Vulnerability for Cultural Heritage in US National Parks������������������   85 Pei-Lin Yu xxi

xxii

Contents

Part III De-colonialization, Community, and Place Making 9

Tourism, Museums, and Ethics: Preserving Cultural Heritage for the Future����������������������������������������������������������������������������   99 Chen Shen

10 Indigenous  Exhibits at the Museum: A Device of Tourism to Bring Awareness to the General Public ��������������������������������������������  111 Atsushi Nobayashi 11 Heritage  Tourism Management Plan for Luxor, Egypt������������������������  123 Fekri Hassan 12 Environmental  Shift and Multiple Memories of Ritual Landscape: Boat Ritual as Making Culture Heritage for the Nangshi Amis����������������������������������������������������������������  135 Yi-tze Lee 13 Intangible  Cultural Heritage Tourism in Thailand������������������������������  153 Thanik Lertcharnrit and Kriengkrai Watanasawad 14 Engaging  Communities Through the Knowledge Transmission of Archaeological Heritage in Highland Pang Mapha, Northwest Thailand������������������������������������  167 Rasmi Shoocongdej Part IV Empowerment and Social Capital 15 Conflict  and Stability: The Potential of Heritage Tourism in Promoting Peace and Reconciliation ������������������������������������������������  183 Dallen J. Timothy 16 The  Partnership between Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management: Key Actions at the International Level��������������������������  193 Hilary du Cros 17 Heritage  Tourism and Indigenous Communities in the American Southwest����������������������������������������������������������������������  207 Joëlle G. LeMer, Nikki Cooley, and Lyle Balenquah 18 Presenting  the Past(s) and Engaging the Public(s) ������������������������������  219 Elizabeth Chilton

Contributors

Lyle Balenquah  Independent Contractor, Bacavi, AZ, USA Uzi Baram  New College of Florida, Sarasota, FL, USA Estefania Basurto  Richardson Family SmartState Center for Economic Excellence in Tourism and Economic Development, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA Universidad Laica Eloy Alfaro de Manabi, Manta, Ecuador Ian Baxter  School of Social Sciences, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland William  Chapman  School of Architecture, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI, USA Ashley Deng-Yu Chen  Like It Formosa, Taipei, Taiwan Elizabeth Chilton  Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA Nikki Cooley  Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA Hilary du Cros  University of New Brunswick, St John, New Brunswick, Canada Fekri Hassan  Université Française d’Égypte (UFE), Al Shorouk City, Egypt William  H.  Jansen II  International Consultant, Practicing Anthropologist in International Development, Washington, DC, USA Yi-tze  Lee  Department of Ethnic Relations and Cultures, National Dong Hwa University, Hualien, Taiwan Joëlle G. LeMer  Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA Thanik Lertcharnrit  Department of Archaeology, Silpakorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

xxiii

xxiv

Contributors

John  N.  Miksic  Department of Southeast Asian Studies, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore School of Humanities, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Atsushi Nobayashi  National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka, Japan The Graduate University of Advanced Studies, Hayama, Japan Lori  Pennington-Gray  Richardson Family SmartState Center for Economic Excellence in Tourism and Economic Development, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA Chen Shen  Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, ON, Canada Rasmi  Shoocongdej  Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Archaeology, Silpakorn University, Bangkok, Thailand George  S.  Smith  Associate Director Southeast Archaeological Center (Retired), National Park Service, Tallahassee, FL, USA Dallen J. Timothy  Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa Kriengkrai  Watanasawad  College of Innovation, Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand Pei-Lin Yu  Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Angkor Wat, engraving based on a photograph of ca. 1866 by John Thomson, from James Fergusson, History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, Revised edition, Vol. III of the History of Architecture (London: John Murray, 1891), Plate 373, p. 672. (In the public domain)������������������������������������������    5 Fig. 1.2 F. O. Oertel, Note on a Tour in Burma in March and April 1892 (Rangoon: Government Printing Office, 1893), Plate 23. (Photograph by George Bird. In the public domain)���������    6 Fig. 1.3 Wat Thammikarat, remains of the Viharn Kao, from Maxwell Sommerville, Siam on the Meinam: From the Golf to Ayuthia (London: S. Low, Marston and Co., Ltd., 1897), Plate o pp. P. 124. (In the public domain)��������������������������������������������������    8 Fig. 1.4 Guide to Bangkok and Siam, compiled by J. Antonio, revised by W. W. Fegen (Bangkok: The “Siam Observer” Press, 1904). (In the public domain)�������������������������������������������������    9 Fig. 1.5 Charlie Chaplin and Paulette Goddard at Angkor Wat, 1936. Charlie Chaplin Image Bank. (Photo copyright © Roy Export Co. Ltd. Used by permission)������������������������������������   10 Fig. 6.1 Relationship between WHS and Tourism�����������������������������������������   63 Fig. 6.2 Safety expectation of U.S. travelers. (Credit: L. Pennington-Gray)������������������������������������������������������������   70 Fig. 7.1 Historic Spanish Point, September 2020. (Photograph by author)���������������������������������������������������������������������   74 Fig. 7.2 Tourists at Castillo de San Marcos, St. Augustine, Florida. July 2009. (Photograph by author)��������������������������������������   78 Fig. 8.1 The cultural resources vulnerability equation, adapted from Ricci et al. 2019a: 125. Adaptive capacity is separated from vulnerability in the case of cultural heritage resources. (Used by permission)������������������������������������������������������������������������   90 xxv

xxvi

List of Figures

Fig. 8.2 Hypothetical exposure map: Cultural heritage resource types 1, 2, and 3 are represented by three each (A, B, and C). Their geographic location is overlain with a probability map for a given exposure type over the next 5 years. Resources 1A and 3A are projected as the most exposed, 2C is next, and so on. (Credit: P. Yu)������������������������������������������������������������������   93 Fig. 9.1 A Vietnamese heritage temple on the outskirts of Hanoi, worshipping an ancient hero who in second century BC defeated a Chinese army led by Zhao Tou, a famous heroic general of the First Emperor of Qin who was appraised for unified lands of south China. But in Vietnamese history, Zhao Tou was an invader. (Photo: C. Shen)��������������������������������������  100 Fig. 9.2 One of six stone-carving horses, made in the seventh century to commemorate six horses who died for the first Tang Dynasty Emperor, Li Shiming (r. 626–649). Highly praised in historic romantic literature, four survived as national treasures in Xian, China, while two (including the one in the photo) were purchased in 1930s by the MPenn. (Photo: C. Shen)�����������������������  102 Fig. 9.3 One of the ‘of Africa’ community engagement programs at the Royal Ontario Museum after an official apology issued to the public concerning the problematic exhibition Into the Heart of Africa. (Photo: Royal Ontario Museum, used by permission)�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  104 Fig. 10.1 ‘Information Wall’ of Taiwan section, National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka. (Photo credit: A. Nobayashi)��������������������������  118 Fig. 10.2 Indigenous settlements featured in the exhibition. (After Nobuta 2020: 10–11, used by permission and modified by the author)��������������������������������������������������������������  119 Fig. 11.1 Area Map of Luxor and Karnak. In the public domain (https://www.google.com/maps/@25.7016424,32. 648337,12.84z)���������������������������������������������������������������������������������  126 Fig. 12.1 Map of Taiwan and Hualien City, with Nangshi Amis area in the South. (Credit: Y. Lee)������������������������������������������������������������  136 Fig. 12.2 Age-group naming cycle of the Nangshi Amis people (Names represent age-groups, and numbers are calendar year). (Credit: Y. Lee)������������������������������������������������������������������������  141 Fig. 12.3 Historical transition of male racing routes for ‘Palunan’ ritual activity. (Credit: Y. Lee)�����������������������������������������������������������  143 Fig. 12.4 Preparing lunan (sacred boat) to go offshore in Palunan ritual. (Photo credit: Y. Lee)��������������������������������������������������������������  145 Fig. 12.5 Male and Female Youngsters gather for lunch during Bawsa. (Photo credit: Y. Lee)������������������������������������������������������������  145

List of Figures

xxvii

Fig. 12.6 Male head crown with pheasant feathers displayed in Nataoran Local Museum. (Photo credit: Y. Lee)��������������������������  147 Fig. 12.7 “Malahok to Liliw” Bird feast activity at village gathering building outside the Nataoran Local Museum. (Photo credit: Y. Lee)������������������������������������������������������������������������  148 Fig. 13.1 Loy Krathong festival as intangible cultural heritage. (Photo Credit: https://www.tatnews.org. Used by permission)���������  155 Fig. 13.2 Boat racing in Nan River, Phitsanuloke Province. (Photo Credit: Suthat Chaibanyai)����������������������������������������������������  156 Fig. 13.3 Classification of wisdom cultural heritage domains�������������������������  157 Fig. 13.4 E-books of the Inventory of ICH Classified by Each Domain. (Photo Credit: http://ich.culture.go.th/index. php/th/ich/ebook, public domain image. Used by permission)���������  158 Fig. 13.5 Classification of six pivotal areas of ICH as tourist resources����������  160 Fig. 13.6 Some Examples of Commodification of ICH for Tourism. (Photo credit: K. Watanasawad)��������������������������������������������������������  161 Fig. 13.7 Khon Masked dance drama performed at Sala Chalermkrung Royal theatre for tourism. (Photo credit: https://www. renown-­travel.com/daytripsbangkok/khonmaskeddance.html. Used by permission)�������������������������������������������������������������������������  163 Fig. 13.8 The Exhibition of “Khon Masks”. (Photo Credit: https://www.bangkokpost.com. Used by permission)�����������������������  163 Fig. 13.9 Tourist Experiencing Nuat Thai at Wat Pho. (Source: https://www.tatnews.org. Used by permission)��������������������������������  164 Fig. 13.10 Exhibition of Ruesidatton’s Postures and Opening Ceremony of Thai Massage (Nuat Thai) Museum. (Photo credit: K. Watanasawad)��������������������������������������������������������  165 Fig. 14.1 Mapping the Phi Man Long Long Rak cave. (Source: IHE Project. Used by permission)��������������������������������������  169 Fig. 14.2 Tham Lod cave. (Source: https:www.cavelodge.com. Used by permission)�������������������������������������������������������������������������  171 Fig. 14.3 Location of Tham Lod cave, Tham Lod rockshelter, and Phi Man Long Long Rak cave. (Source: IHE Project. Used by permission)�������������������������������������������������������������������������  173 Fig. 14.4 Research teams have regularly consulted and returned archeology knowledge to the community at the Tham Lod temple which is a respected community gathering place. (Source: PCD Project. Used by permission)�������������������������������������  174 Fig. 14.5 A documentary of the 13,000-year-old Tham Lod woman appeared on national television in Thailand. (Source: Thai PBS https://program.thaipbs.or.th/ TherKaoRaoKrai/episodes/63128, used by permission)�������������������  177 Fig. 14.6 A facial approximation of the 13,000-year-old Tham Lod woman. (Source: Hayes et al. 2017. Used by permission)��������  177

xxviii

List of Figures

Fig. 14.7 Students paying respect to the cave spirit on their visit to the Phi Man Long Long Rak cave. (Source: PCD project. Used by permission)�������������������������������������������������������������������������  178 Fig. 17.1 Nankoweap, Grand Canyon National Park. (Photo credit: J. LeMer)�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  208 Fig. 17.2 Founding directors for the Native Voices on the Colorado River program. (Photo credit: J. LeMer)�������������������������������������������  210 Fig. 17.3 Native Voices on the Colorado River program logo. (Used by permission)������������������������������������������������������������������������  211 Fig. 17.4 Native Voices tribal map. (Used by permission)�������������������������������  211 Fig. 17.5 Hualapai agave roasting process. Native Voices of the Colorado River. (Used by permission)����������������������������������������������  213 Fig. 17.6 Native Voices on the Colorado River Tribal Series. (Used by permission)������������������������������������������������������������������������  214

List of Tables

Table 8.1 Examples of databases and tools that can be used for conducting cultural resources vulnerability assessments�����������������  88 Table 10.1 Contents of each section�����������������������������������������������������������������  120 Table 12.1 Yearly ritual cycle of Nangshi Amis�����������������������������������������������  137 Table 12.2 ‘Marengreng’ ritual running points in four routes�������������������������  144 Table 13.1 Top-ten impacting countries of global cultural heritage�����������������  159 Table 14.1 Chronology of research projects carried out in Pang Mapha, Mae Hong Son Province����������������������������������������������������  172 Table 14.2 The knowledge transmission processes between 2013–2021��������  174 Table 14.3 Tham Lod community, school, government and private sector in PDC project involvement on the management of Long Long Rak Cave by the PDC project (Na Nongkai 2021)�������������������������������������������������������������������������  175 Table 16.1 The evolving framework of cultural heritage management and tourism�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  195 Table 16.2 Possible relationships between tourism and cultural management����������������������������������������������������������������  200

xxix

Part I

Historical Contexts and Economics

Chapter 1

Heritage Tourism in Southeast Asia: A Historical Perspective William Chapman

Abstract  This chapter examines the history of heritage tourism in Southeast Asia, identifying factors in its earliest period of development. Looking especially at Angkor in Cambodia, Ayutthaya and Sukhothai in Thailand, Borobudur in Indonesia and Pagan (Bagan) in Myanmar (Burma), the chapter traces the growth of tourism between the late nineteenth and mid twentieth centuries, noting the significance of such heritage sites for Western tourists. Further examining the countries of Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, it also describes national and colonial governments’ efforts to stabilize historic places and make them accessible to visitors. Key players among Southeast Asian governments were Indonesia, Vietnam and Cambodia and independent Thailand, as well as organizations such as the École française d’Extrême-­ Orient (EFEO). Varied approaches are also identified as important to understanding the evolution of tourism over time. A third section covers the history of post-World War II interventions and efforts to tie heritage sites to economic development. The chapter further treats the changing tourist population and the growth of other types of tourist venues, and finally looks at the emergence of new sensibilities and interests among middle class residents of Southeast Asian counties and their own acceptance of heritage as part of leisure activities. Keywords  Heritage · Tourism · History · SE Asia

Introduction Nearly all Southeast Asian countries embrace their heritage sites as an integral part of their tourism-driven economies. Advertising campaigns for Thailand strongly emphasize the traditional culture of Thailand; and the ruins of Sukhothai and Ayutthaya often form a part of this image. For Cambodia, Angkor Wat and W. Chapman (*) School of Architecture, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 P.-L. Yu et al. (eds.), Heritage and Cultural Heritage Tourism, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44800-3_1

3

4

W. Chapman

associated monuments are among the principal engines of economic growth for the poor northern province of Siem Reap as well as the entire nation’s economy. The development of local businesses, access to foreign currency and even the improvement of the education system all ties to the number of international arrivals for many “heritage-­rich” areas. International travelers are now familiar with Southeast Asia’s heritage sites. Prior to the Covid pandemic Angkor Wat had over 2.5 million foreign visitors annually, and the tourism authority were hoping that the figure would double in the next few years (Chapman 2019). In the late 2010s, Borobudur already had as many as five million annual visitors, about 10% of whom came from abroad (How Borobudur 2019). The same was true of other heritage sites throughout the region. Ayutthaya, the ancient capital of Thailand, had two million visitors in 2016. The Grand Palace and adjacent Wat Phra Kaew drew over eight million visitors the same year (Bangkok’s Iconic Grand Palace 2016) (Fig. 1.1). However, this is just a fraction of the total number of visitors to countries such as Thailand and Cambodia. Thailand’s pre-pandemic annual visitor count was approaching 40 million (World Bank 2019). Cambodia had nearly seven million international arrivals. No doubt ancient sites such as Angkor and Ayutthaya continued to attract visitors, but other kinds of touristic activities had begun to rival these more traditional attractions. Beach resorts, amusement parks, safari lands, golf courses, bars and restaurants, and well-publicized annual events, some based on traditional cultural practices, some altogether new—the April Songkran Festival and the Full Moon Party in Hat Rin on the island of Ko Pha-ngan are obvious examples—have begun to eclipse heritage sites in Thailand. The same is true of other Southeast Asian countries as well. Heritage, once the bedrock of tourism in the region, is quite quickly becoming a secondary draw.

Early Tourism in the Region If tourism development can be seen to follow an inevitable sequence, it is fair to say that the celebration of heritage sites constitutes the first stage of tourism’s advancement to be followed, in turn, by the development of tourism infrastructure and finally by competing forms of consumption. A salubrious climate, beautiful scenery, and beaches and historic sites of interest have for long been the foundation of tourism. Whether it is an unusual geological feature, or a unique cultural site, tourism is driven by places of curiosity and interest. “Mature” tourist destinations typically continue to rely on such places, though these are gradually augmented by other forms of entertainment aimed at tourists (Fig. 1.2). In Southeast Asia, international tourism historically focused on ancient ruins and other historic sites. Initial credit for bringing these to the world’s attention goes to Henri Mouhot (1826–1861), who traveled along the Mekong to the famous Khmer religious site and former capital of Angkor (Mouhot 1864). Mouhot wrote of the ruins as something he had “discovered,” adding a veil of mystery to his descriptions.

1  Heritage Tourism in Southeast Asia: A Historical Perspective

5

Fig. 1.1  Angkor Wat, engraving based on a photograph of ca. 1866 by John Thomson, from James Fergusson, History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, Revised edition, Vol. III of the History of Architecture (London: John Murray, 1891), Plate 373, p. 672. (In the public domain)

Published in Le Tour du Monde in 1860 Mouhot set the stage for subsequent travel writers in the region. Anna Leonowens (1831–1915), author of the famous account of her life as a governess at the Thai king Mongkut’s household, also added a fictional retelling of a visit to Angkor, illustrated with unauthorized engravings derived from images by Scottish photographer John Thomson (1837–1921) (Leonowens 1870). Thailand acceded to the interests of foreign travelers at an early period. King Mongkut (Rama IV, 1804–1868, r. 1851–1868) introduced a steamship route to the ruined city of Ayutthaya to highlight Thailand’s own ancient ruins. His successor King Chulalongkorn (Rama V, 1853–1910, r. 1868–1910) ordered the provincial

6

W. Chapman

Fig. 1.2  F. O. Oertel, Note on a Tour in Burma in March and April 1892 (Rangoon: Government Printing Office, 1893), Plate 23. (Photograph by George Bird. In the public domain)

governor to clear the vegetation and lay out pathways through the ruins (Chotikavanit 1995). He also expanded the palace museum in Bangkok (Fine Arts Department 1966). King Vajiravuhd (Rama VI, r. 1910–1925) organized an “archaeological service,” modeled on that of the Dutch in Indonesia to survey the ancient sites of Thailand (Fine Arts Department 1966). In 1918, French scholar George Cœdès (1886–1969) arrived in Thailand at the king’s invitation to begin a through rearrangement of what was then known as the national museum (Cœdès 1928). With the conquest of Burma over a succession of wars beginning in 1824, the British began as had the Thai with a small museum, located in Rangoon (Yangon). A focus of colonial civil and military authorities, the many ancient sites of Burma began to garner attention as well. Henry Yule (1820–1998) was the first to complete an inventory of the ancient city of Pagan (Luce 1949). By the end of the nineteenth century Pagan, Pegu, Inwa, and other ancient collections of ruins had become a nascent tourism attraction. Some, such as Swiss linguist Emanuel Forchhammer (1851–1890) contributed to a knowledge of the monuments; others, notably Fritz von Noetling (1857–1928) spent their holidays extracting ceramic plates from the temples (Strachan 1989). Lord Curzon (George Nathaniel Curzon, 1859–1925), then Viceroy of India, made what can only be considered a tourist’s trip to Pagan and other sites in Burma during his official visit in 1901. Curzon praised the Burmese government’s “minimalist” approach and cautioned that only minor changes be allowed at the famous

1  Heritage Tourism in Southeast Asia: A Historical Perspective

7

teak palace at Mandalay in order to preserve its special character ( O’Conner 1907: 417). George W.  Bird’s photographs show tourists with the monuments in the background (Bird 1897). Somerset Maugham (1874–1965) catches the flavor of early twentieth-century Burma in his The Gentleman in the Parlour (1930), the result of his travels in the region. Staying in the Strand in Rangoon (Yangon) he visited historic temples and palaces, in between calls on friends and meals at English clubs. Soon, English, French and German guidebooks would facilitate travel in Southeast Asia. J. Antonio’s 1904 Guide Book to Bangkok and Siam set the standards for many subsequent guides to Thailand (Van Beck 2017: 34). Erik Seidenfaden’s Guide to Bangkok [with] Notes on Siam (1928) produced for the Royal State railways provided information on natural areas, temples and ruins aimed at European and North American travelers. The itinerary generally included a boat trip to Ayutthaya, with a stop at Bang Pa In. The Grand Palace and Wat Phra Kaew, Wat Po and Wat Arun, the National Museum and Chinatown were also typical attractions. Tourism in Cambodia closely paralleled—and in some ways outpaced—developments in Burma and Thailand. With the advice of the École française d’Extrême-Orient (EFEO), a scholarly organization created in 1898, French architects, archaeologists and planners made the extensive site of Angkor accessible to visitors. Under the supervision of former legionnaire Jean Commaille (1868–1916), crews stabilized ruins and cleared vegetation, creating new roads to facilitate visits to the site (Ang et al. 1998: 100–102). While the government forestry service helped plan the landscape for the newly opened site, French planner and archaeologist Ernest Hébrard (1875–1933) proposed five tourist hotels in Cambodian and Annam (Vietnam) to accommodate the growing number of visitors (Jennings 2003; Le Courrier Saïgonnaise 1929). Hébrard proposed expanding the onsite hotel near Angkor Wat and creating a new 60-room hotel in the provincial town of Siem Reap. Construction of the Grand Hotel d’Angkor began in 1929 and was completed in 1931 (Romancing Cambodia 1998) (Figs. 1.3 and 1.4). The new hotel would soon play host to numerous international visitors (Grand Hotel d’Angkor 2021). Hollywood stars Charlie Chaplin (1889–1977) and Paulette Goddard (1910–1990) visited in 1936 (Charlie Chaplin 2000). British travel writer H. W. Ponder (Harriett Winifred Ponder, 1883–1967), author of Cambodian Glory (1936), compared the new hotel to something on the Côte d’Azur and preferred the more rustic bungalow facing the causeway to Angkor Wat. To cater to what Ponder identified as American tourists, the hotel had also constructed a small golf course on its grounds (Ponder 1936: 242–245). Tourism developed more slowly in the Dutch East Indies. The first popular guidebook to Indonesia was published in 1913 (Vereeniging Toeristenverkeer 1913; Cribb 1995). Shortly afterward, encouraged by the colonial administration Bali began to attract visitors, drawn to Bali’s traditional culture. In 1927, Russian born primitivist painter Walter Spies (1895–1942) initiated a program of both fine arts and performance—including the creation of the Balinese musical drama Kecak— that appealed as well to international visitors (Stowell 2012) (Fig. 1.5).

8

W. Chapman

Fig. 1.3  Wat Thammikarat, remains of the Viharn Kao, from Maxwell Sommerville, Siam on the Meinam: From the Golf to Ayuthia (London: S. Low, Marston and Co., Ltd., 1897), Plate o pp. P. 124. (In the public domain)

The Presentation of Heritage The Dutch were the first to embark upon an ambitious program of restoration for its famous Buddhist and Hindu sites. Moving beyond mere clearance and stabilization, the colonial government gave support to a plan for the restoration of Borobudur, under the direction of Theodoor van Irp (1874–1958). In 1913, the colonial government created the Oudheidkundige Dienst (the Archaeological Service). Its first director was N. J. (Nicolaas Johannes) Krom (1883–1945). His replacement was F. D. K. (Frederik David Kan) Bosch (1887–1967), who established basic protocols for restoration, overseeing a multi-year campaign of repair and restoration (Chapman 2013: 48–50). Bosch began an active collaboration with archaeologists in French-controlled Indochina (Dagens 1995: 108–109). There, the EFEO had initiated an effort to excavate and stabilize Cham monuments—brick complexes dating from as early as the third century, though mostly from the eighth century—led by architect and archaeologist Henri Parmentier (1870–1949). With a small annual budget and a crew of local laborers, Parmentier exposed sites such as Mỹ Sơn and Đồng Dương, establishing new standards for documentation and presentation, which were soon replayed in Angkor (Chapman 2018).

1  Heritage Tourism in Southeast Asia: A Historical Perspective

9

Fig. 1.4  Guide to Bangkok and Siam, compiled by J. Antonio, revised by W. W. Fegen (Bangkok: The “Siam Observer” Press, 1904). (In the public domain)

10

W. Chapman

Fig. 1.5  Charlie Chaplin and Paulette Goddard at Angkor Wat, 1936. Charlie Chaplin Image Bank. (Photo copyright © Roy Export Co. Ltd. Used by permission)

In Cambodia, the new director of the Conservation d’Angkor Henri Marchal (1876–1970) began a systematic program of stabilizing and further delineating roads; it was Marchal who introduced the idea of the Petite and Grande Circuits (Ang et  al. 1998: 100–104). Georges Alexandre Trouvé (1903–1935) took over from Marchal in 1931, to be replaced by Maurice Glaize (1886–1964). Each director produced a guidebook designed to facilitate the visitor’s experience of the site, identifying the best times for viewing, the amount of time the visitor should expect to stay at each site and basic background on each monument’s history (Falser 2013). In Burma, the colonial government gradually provided funding for the repair of thirty sites in Pagan, the work mainly done by the local public works department. In 1904, government epigrapher Taw Sein Ko began a list of monuments throughout the country requiring repair (Strachan 1989: 4). Soon after, Charles Duroiselle (1871–1951) became director of the Archaeological Survey, which answered in part to the Archeological Survey of India in its work (Pe 1951). Never well-funded, the Archeological Survey managed to stabilize many structures, mostly ancient temple ruins; in 1939 Duroiselle remarked on work on 39 monuments, where he explained that “the work was not one of reconstruction, but merely of conservation” (Duroiselle 1939: 328).

1  Heritage Tourism in Southeast Asia: A Historical Perspective

11

In Thailand, Prince Damrong Rajanubhab (1862–1943) led the effort to make the country’s many ancient ruins accessible to visitors. Damrong also oversaw the establishment of the Fine Arts Department (FAD) and expanded the National Museum (Chapman 2013: 144). In 1904, he presided over the founding of the Siam Society, a largely foreign organization devoted to the study of Thailand’s past (Davis 1989). The Siamese Revolution of 1932, a coup intended to transform the country from a monarchy into a democracy, resulted in the expansion the powers of the FAD; the new government also passed the seminal Act on Ancient Monuments, Art Objects, and National Museums, which remains the principal document governing conservation work in Thailand to this day (Fine Arts Department 1998).

Tourism and Development It was only in the postwar era that heritage sites began to get significant funding and national (and international) attention. Picking up after the Japanese occupation of 1942–1945, the Archaeological Service resumed the work of maintaining and restoring Indonesian monuments. A. J. (August Johan) Bernet Kempers (1906–1992) led the effort, even after Indonesia’s independence in 1951 (Chapman 2013: 51). With the assistance of a new generation of Indonesian archaeologists and architects, Kempers laid the groundwork for a new Borobudur restoration effort, with his successor, R. Soekmono (1922–1997), approaching the newly created United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for assistance in a massive new campaign (Atmadi 1999: 27–31). The “Save Borobudur” effort began in 1969, leading to a well-publicized restoration in 1974–1984 (UNESCO 1984). The treatment of the many monuments at Angkor followed a similar trajectory. Philippe Laur (1902–2001) replaced Maurice Glaize in 1956. Bernard Philippe Groslier (1926–1986), took over a few years later (Dagens 1995: 116–119). Groslier, who was the son of the influential curator and educator George Groslier (1887–1945), embarked on a new effort to better provide for visitors. This included the introduction of concrete staircases, the use of reinforced concrete props and beams, and the reconstruction of many temples (Chapman 2013: 78–79). Considered somewhat heavy-handed by many modern conservators, Groslier employed the vocabulary of international modernism in his work, maintaining the character of the monuments themselves but installing an intentionally a-cultural overlay of newer elements suggestive of the new post-war world order. In Thailand the government soon played a larger role. Phibun Songkram (1897–1964) one of the leaders of the Siamese Revolution and prime minister following a second coup in 1947, began with a program of restoration of rural wats (temples), which included rebuilding several monuments at Ayutthaya (Peleggi 2002: 19). This work fell increasingly under the FAD, however, who began to apply stricter international conservation standards to the work. Expanding the powers of the FAD over heritage in 1961, the government approved plans for Ayutthaya, Sukhothai and nearby Si Satchanalai and Kamphaeng Phet in central Thailand

12

W. Chapman

(Fine Arts Department 1966). With advice from UNESCO, the FAD completed development plans for all four parks in the 1970s and early 1980s. The work at Sukhothai called for the acquisition of 28 square miles (7252 hectares), and work on 193 monuments. It also involved the removal of the existing population of the area to a new town outside the park. The combined national historical parks of Sukhothai, Si Satchanalai and Kamphaeng Phet opened officially in 1989 amid considerable acclaim by the Thai public and UNESCO but with criticism from the academic community many of whom objected to the park-like settings, carefully managed pathways and roads and the nighttime spotlighting of the ancient sites (Chapman 2013: 147–149). Ayutthaya followed a similar course of development, with work taking place over the 1960s and early 1970s and a grand opening in 1976. Initial work included the construction of new roads, the removal of about 200 households, and the installation of water features, to evoke the character of the ancient capital’s many canals. Later renditions of the plan expanded to include the royal elephant kraal, bicycle paths, and even replica Portuguese galleons moored in the center of the park (a proposal never met). Facing periodic flooding and threats of removal from the World Monuments list, Thai authorities later introduced sound-and-light shows—with the aim of drawing more international tourists—an innovation that prompted a new round of criticism by experts (Chapman 2013: 149–151). The Thai government also initiated a new program for the conservation and development of Khmer sites in northeast Thailand, notably Prasat Hin Phimai and Prasat Phanom Rung. Relying on the advice of the EFEO and Bernard Groslier, work at these sites began in 1960 and continued up until the late 1980s. As with Sukhothai, the aim was to create new visitor attractions to improve the economy of the area (Palakavong Na Ayudhaya 1987). In subsequent years, the FAD took on the development of the early Mon site of Muang Sing and other early cities and temples at Si Thep and Lopburi. Independent Burma—renamed Myanmar in 1989 by the military regime that came to power in 1962—also began an aggressive plan of reconstruction and restoration throughout the country. A newly established Department of Archaeology extended the work done before the war, completing a list of monuments and working out a plan for their restoration (Nyunt 1989). With few funds available, the government concentrated on the development of Pagan, rebuilding many temples, moving villagers away from the park and underwriting a plan for new hotels, a golf course and a viewing tower at the site. Widely criticized by UNESCO, the effort at Pagan clearly aimed at satisfying tourists over the needs of the ancient site (Brady 2013). The most celebrated efforts of the late twentieth and early twenty-first century were the renewed investment in Angkor. Beginning in 1986 with the end of the civil war and Vietnamese occupation, Cambodia embarked on a multi-year redevelopment of the park at Angkor. This effort relied almost entirely on international contributions, including substantial commitments from India, Japan, France, Italy, Switzerland, China and the U.S. By the late 1990s, Angkor was a hive of activity with projects ongoing at the Baphuon, Angkor Wat, the Bayon, Preah Khan and the Bakheng (Chapman 2013: 88–90). Much of the new work involved stabilization and

1  Heritage Tourism in Southeast Asia: A Historical Perspective

13

provisions for better visitor access. By the 2010s, the investment was paying dividends, with the local authority, APSARA, taking in millions in revenue. Other countries have continued to join in this success. Vietnam, following years of war, returned to work on its many Cham-period heritage sites, as well as promoting the conservation of “living” historic towns such as Hội An. Malaysia similarly gave support to efforts to preserve the ruined temples at Lembah Bujang, unsuccessfully nominating them to the World Heritage list while gaining recognition for the historic port towns of Georgetown, Penang and Malacca (Abdullah 2017). Similarly, Laos has opened Vat Phou in the south and has welcomed international support and commercial investment in the picturesque former capital of Luang Prabang—once again with the international tourism market foremost in mind.

Conclusions Heritage tourism in Southeast Asia has changed from the days when elite Western visitors traveled long distances to see rarified historic sites. Since the 1970s, the numbers of international tourists to the region have increased exponentially, from a few thousand annual visitors to as many 60 million in 2019. Thai temples and Cambodian ruins are still part of the attraction. But many more have been drawn by beaches, relaxation, nightlife, shopping and food. For the many Chinese tourists, visiting Thailand and Cambodia especially, their trips are strictly circumscribed by itineraries set by travel agents: a day of shopping at designated shops, a visit to the Grand Palace and Wat Phra Kaew, a short time at a beach resort, and possibly a daytrip to Angkor Wat. There have been other less foreseen developments as well. Rising middle classes throughout Southeast Asia are now becoming active participants in the tourism market. Again, other venues probably still attract greater numbers. But Thai and other Southeast Asian tourists also go to Angkor Wat, Pagan and Luang Prabang. And nearly every Cambodian makes a visit to Angkor Wat, both a site of religious significance as well as a symbol of the nation. The story is similar elsewhere in the region. Indonesian students and families visit Borobudur and Prambanan, just as Malaysians spend time in Penang and Malacca. Heritage tourism has in fact been democratized, with each type and class of visitor putting their own spin on the experience. Heritage sites have now become simply one of many kinds of attractions in the region. They have also contributed significantly to economic growth. Angkor is now much more than simply an archaeological park; it is really the central attraction for a range of touristic activities and expenditures. Neither Ayutthaya nor Sukhothai have the numbers of visitors that Thai authorities had hoped they might. But they are preserved for the country and serve as reminders of the past. Heritage will certainly remain a significant aspect of tourism throughout the region, sometimes well managed and respected, at other times abused. But fortunately, new interests and changing populations will no doubt give them all a chance to thrive.

14

W. Chapman

References Abdullah A (2017, August 6). Ministry: more studies before UNESCO push for Bujang Valley. Free Malaysia today, https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2017/08/06/ ministry-­more-studies-before-UNESCO-push-for-bujang-valley/. Accessed 10 Oct 2021 Ang C, Prenowitz E, Thompson A (1998) Angkor: a manual for the past, present, and future. 2nd rev edn. APSARA/UNESCO Antonio J (1904) Guide book to Bangkok and Siam. Siam Observer Press, Bangkok Atmadi P (1999) The conservation projects of Borobudur and Prambanan temples. In: Frances A (ed) Affandy and Ahmad Rida Soemardi, (eds) monuments and sites: Indonesia, Report of the Indonesian National Committee of the International Council on Monuments and Sites. ICOMOS Indonesia/ Bandung Society for Heritage Conservation, Bandung, pp 27–31 Bird G (1897) Wanderings in Burma, 2003 Reprint of Burmese historical series. White Lotus Press, Bangkok Brady B (2013, May 15) The ancient Burmese City of Bagan struggles for international recognition. Time. https://world.time.com/2013/05/15/bagan/. Accessed 10 Oct 2021 Chapman W (2013) A heritage of ruins: the ancient sites of Southeast Asia and their conservation. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu Chapman W (2018) Adjuncts to empire: the EFEO and the Conservation of Champa Antiquities. Bull Hist Archaeol 28(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.5334/bhha-­584. Accessed 10 Oct 2021 Chapman W (2019) Heritage of ruins. University of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu, p 3 Chotikavanit S (1995) The conservation of Ayutthaya Historical City. Paper presented at the international conference, the future of Asia’s Past: preservation of the architectural heritage of Asia, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 11–14 January, 1995 Cœdès G (1928) Les collections archéologiques du Musée national de Bangkok. Van Oest, Paris/Brussels Cribb R (1995) International tourism in Java, 1900–1930. South East Asia Res 3(2):193–204 Dagens B (1995) Angkor: heart of an Asian Empire (trans: Sharman R). Abrams, New York Davis B (1989) The Siam society under fiver reigns. The Siam Society, Bangkok Duroiselle C (1939) Burma. In: Cumming JG (ed) Revealing India’s past: a co-operative record of archaeological conservation and exploration in India and beyond. India Society, London, pp 325–337 Falser M (2013) From colonial map to visitor’s Parcours: tourist guides and the spatiotemporal making of the Archaeological Park of Angkor. In: Prado F, Juneja M (eds) ‘Archaeologizing’ heritage?: transcultural entanglements between local social practices and global virtual realities. Springer, New York, pp 81–106 Fine Arts Department (1966) Museums in Thailand: the development of museums and archaeological activities in Thailand under the control of the fine arts department. Fine Arts Department, Bangkok Fine Arts Department (1998) The 87th anniversary of the fine arts department. Fine Arts Department, Bangkok Jakarta Post (2019, July 12) How Borobudur temple affects tourism in Magelang. The Jakarta Post, 12 July. https://www.thejakartapost.com/travel/2019/07/12/how-­borobudur-­temple-­affects-­ tourism-­in-­magelang.html. Accessed 11 Oct 2021 Jennings ET (2003) From Indochine to Indochic: the Lang Bian/Dalat palace hotel and French colonial leisure, power and culture. Mod Asian Stud 37(1):159–194 Le Courrier Saïgonnaise (1929, December 22) Notice. L’Éveil économique de l’Indochine. Le Courrier Saïgonnaise Leonowens A (1870) The English Governess at the Siamese Court; being recollections of six years in the Royal Palace at Bangkok, 1989 Reprint. Oxford University Press, New York Luce GH (1949) A century of Progress in Burmese history and archaeology. J Burma Res Soc 32:79–94

1  Heritage Tourism in Southeast Asia: A Historical Perspective

15

Maugham WS (1930) The Gentleman in the Parlour: A Record of a Journey from Rangoon to Haiphong, Volume 4 of Itineraria Asiatica. 1995 Reprint. White Orchid Press, Bangkok Mouhot H (1864) Travels in Siam, Cambodia, Laos, and Annam. White Lotus Press, Bangkok Nyunt H (1989) A retrospective and prospective review on the conservation of ancient monuments in pagan. In: Yoshiaki I, Yasushi K (eds) Cultural heritage in Asia (4): study on Pagan. Institute of Asian Studies, Sophia University, Tokyo, pp 91–99 O’Conner VCS (1907) Mandalay and other cities of the past in Burma. Hutchinson, London Palakavong Na Ayudhaya S (1987) Country Report of Thailand. In SPAFA, Final Report: Consultative Workshop on Conservation of Ancient Cities and/or Settlements, Jakarta, Malang, Indonesia, June 21–28, 1987. SPAFA, Bangkok Pe MT (1951) The late professor Charles Duroiselle. J Burma Res Soc 34(1):44–46 Peleggi M (2002) The politics of ruins and the business of nostalgia, Studies in contemporary Thailand, no. 10. White Lotus Press, Bangkok Ponder HW (1936) Cambodian glory: the mystery of the deserted Khmer cities and their vanished splendour; and a description of life in Cambodia today. Butterworth, London Seidenfaden E (1928) Guide to Bangkok [with] notes on Siam. Royal State Railways of Siam, Bangkok Stowell J (2012) Walter spies: a life in art. Afterhours Books, Jakarta Strachan P (1989) Pagan: art and architecture of old Burma. Kiscadale Press, Gartmore Straits Times (1998, January 18) Romancing Cambodia. The Straits Times. https://limrichard.tripod.com/archive1/01.htm. Accessed 10 Oct 2021 The World Bank (2019) International Tourism, numbers of arrivals—Thailand. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ST.INT.ARVL?locations=TH. Accessed 11 Oct 2021 Tourism Authority of Thailand (2016, June 20) Bangkok’s iconic grand palace makes world’s most visited tourist attractions list. TAT News (Tourism Authority of Thailand). https://www. tatnews.org/2016/06/bangkoks-­iconic-­grand-­palace-­makes-­worlds-­50-­most-­visited-­touristattractions-­list/. Accessed 11 Oct 2021 UNESCO (1984) Borobudur: the conquest of time. UNESCO, Paris Van Beck S (2017) Thailand tourism: the early days. Dusit Thani Public Company Limited, Bangkok Vereeniging T (1913) Java: information for travelers: trips in the Isle of Java, with notes on the climate, railway- and steamer service, hotels, places of interest for tourists. Official Tourist Bureau, Batavia Wikipedia (2021) Grand Hotel d’Angkor. 5 July 2021. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_ Hotel_d%27Angkor. Accessed 10 Oct 2021

Chapter 2

Development of Local Museums in the Lands Bordering the Straits of Melaka John N. Miksic

Abstract Are museums foreign implants in Southeast Asia? This chapter will attempt to answer this question by examining the development of local private museums in southern Thailand, Peninsular Malaysia, and Sumatra, Indonesia. These areas are marked by considerable cultural diversity. Local groups are using the medium of the museum to try to portray and preserve aspects of their culture in the face of competition from other forms of identity. Keywords  Indonesia · Malaysia · Thailand · Sumatra · Malay · Batak

Introduction In Southeast Asia, national museums are perceived by a proportion of the public as mouthpieces for official cultural policy, aimed at fostering a standardized image of national unity. These attributes of national museums in Southeast Asia have been described by numerous authors (e.g. Levitt 2015: 101–103). As Southeast Asians have become better educated, an audience with time and money to dispose of has been created. This demographic group forms the main type of visitors at most museums of art and history in the world. Southeast Asian official museums have not yet shaken off the image of being dry adjuncts to school textbooks. This stereotype is augmented by the perception that museums are designed with two main audiences in mind: school children, and foreign tourists. Perhaps in part because of a perceived vacuum in the market for museum experiences in Southeast Asia, private and non-governmental museums have multiplied. As long as no seditious or offensive material is presented, museums seem to be able J. N. Miksic (*) Department of Southeast Asian Studies, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore School of Humanities, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 P.-L. Yu et al. (eds.), Heritage and Cultural Heritage Tourism, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44800-3_2

17

18

J. N. Miksic

to spring up almost anywhere. There are many types of non-governmental museums. Some were developed by companies as means of advertising their wares. An example is the House of Sampoerna museum in east Java, sponsored by a famous maker of kretek or clove cigarettes. The museum is well designed and maintained: it showcases the house of the company’s founder and contextual displays and satisfies a desire to indulge nostalgia for the late colonial period. It includes such appurtenances as a museum café and shop, guided tours, and a display of antiques owned by the company’s founder. Another category of museum lies in the interstice between the private and public spheres: university museums. At this moment in history, Southeast Asian university museums seem to share much in common with private museums. Their concerns tend to be local, rather than the development of a national identity. Southeast Asian countries with the exception of Singapore have not tried to develop museums as an attraction for tourists. In Singapore, foreign tourists make up a large proportion of the intended museum visitorship, with the exception of the National Museum, which is aimed mainly at Singaporeans. The Southeast Asian museums which form the focus of this chapter were designed with a specific set of visitors in mind: people who belong to the ethnic minorities who live in the vicinity of the museums. Few of them have any online presence except in Indonesian or Malay language. They would benefit from development of online media and increased visitorship from tourists, but this is not part of their goal or expertise.

 oots of Southeast Asian Museums: Local or Foreign? R The Concept of the Heirloom Are museums in Southeast Asia a foreign implant, or have they grown from local roots? The expansion of private museums has a significant bearing on this question. The answer to this question, if indeed there is one, probably can be found by determining the most significant functions which museums perform, and the relevance of artifacts in today’s world where virtual reality is everywhere, and growing more and more indistinguishable from the other kind of reality, whatever that might be. Discussion of the meaning of the Malay-Indonesian term pusaka can be used to delve into numerous issues, including the way the Dutch perceived the significance of old objects in Indonesian culture, and how various Indonesian groups interpret the word (Miksic 1992). A pusaka is a type of heirloom. The Southeast Asian inflection of the word stems from the idea that items inherited from one’s ancestors can be used to invoke the ancestors’ beneficence to bring success or avert danger. Many Indonesians today assume that pusaka is limited to tosan aji, metal blades, or that only tosan aji can be pusaka. Historically this was true. As the Encyclopaedie van Nederlandsch-Indie vol. 3, s.v. “Poesaka” says, “the most mixed objects, things of all sorts, can be pusaka. Both a manuscript and a stone, a lock of hair or a weapon, a cloth or a domestic item can be found as pusaka” (Anon 1893; translated in Miksic 1992:

2  Development of Local Museums in the Lands Bordering the Straits of Melaka

19

222–223). A path-breaking study of the pusaka or royal regalia of the West Sumatran kingdom of Pagarruyung (Bosch 1930) is one of the few essays on the subject from a historical or anthropological point of view. The word pusaka does not appear in pre-Islamic sources. No parallel notion of pusaka in the Indonesian sense of the word seems to exist in India. Linguistics gives us no help in discerning the origins of this specific cultural concept of the symbolic importance of objects for the everyday lives of people in premodern Indonesia. At this time, we have no firm foundation on which to base a theory of the connection between ancestors, things, and thoughts in Southeast Asian culture. Christina Kreps connected the term pusaka to what she called “Indigenous museology” (Kreps 1994: 356). She quoted “a leading Indonesian museum figure” who felt that Indonesian provincial museums had become “‘administrative offices’ mired in bureaucracy”. Her source advocated the establishment of more private museums (Kreps 1994: 378). There is a very old precedent in Southeast Asia for taking reverential care of objects inherited from the ancestors. Whether or not this cultural attitude can be transferred from genealogical descent to a more abstract concept of national inheritance, whether monuments or collections of national or provincial museums, is not clear. On one level, that of the subculture, it seems that the idea of a link between the conservation of ancient objects and the well-being of the present living inhabitants of an area does exist. This perception may be related to the growth of private museums in the Austronesian-speaking areas of Southeast Asia.

Museums as a Foreign Import The International Council of Museums (ICOM) defines a museum as “a non-profit making, permanent institution in the service of society and of its development, and open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits, for purposes of study, education and enjoyment, material evidence of people and their environment” (International Council of Museums. http://icom.museum/definition.html accessed 1 August 2007). While this definition encompasses the main objectives of museums, the following is perhaps a more accurate description of how museums have developed, “Today, almost anything may turn out to be a museum, and museums can be found in farms, boats, coal mines, warehouses, prisons, castles, or cottages” (Hooper-Greenhill 1992:1). The first museums in the modern sense of the word appeared in Indonesia in the early twentieth century. They were established by government-supported institutions, or private persons, usually missionaries. In the nineteenth century, many European museums originated from royal collections. There is a strong parallel between the evolutionary pattern in Southeast Asia and Europe: the roots of museums in both cases lay to a large extent in the tastes and possessions of royalty rather than commoners. One can argue that in many cases this is still true today. The aesthetic criteria used to choose objects for acquisition are still very similar to those used by royalty many centuries in the past.

20

J. N. Miksic

Private Museums in Southeast Asia Local Indonesian museums in the 1930s were usually initiated by civil servants and Christian missionaries. A UNESCO report of 1973 noted that most private museums in Indonesia were in poor condition (UNESCO 1973: 29–33). Indonesia at that time had just emerged from a long period of turmoil. During the 50 years since the UNESCO report was published, the situation has changed significantly, both in Indonesia in general, and in the museum sphere in particular. The number of local museums has increased much more rapidly than that for official museums in Southeast Asia. When Indonesia declared independence in 1945, there were 26 museums (including aquariums, zoos, and botanical gardens). By 1968, this number had increased to 46 registered museums. According to one survey, in 1993 Indonesia possessed 187 museums meeting ICOM’s definition. This did not include “traditional houses” since “they do not observe a clear distinction between history and ethnography” (Schreiner 1997: 100). Other scholars do not define open-air museums as museums. This distinction now seems irrelevant. In 2010, state-run museums in Indonesia numbered 80, whereas the number of non-­ governmental museums had mushroomed to 201. Local museums are formed with a variety of purposes in mind, but the main objective is often to keep alive a particular view of local culture. Examples we shall examine below are traditional houses in Indonesia, Malay culture in southern Thailand, and Bugis culture in Malaysia. In Indonesia, the project of formulating a “national culture” has been underway since the early twentieth century. At that time Indonesia was a conglomeration of 350 different principalities (Resink 1968). Indonesian nationalists dreamed of a unified country with a common language and a “unity in diversity”. During military rule from 1966 to 1999, a few areas, mainly Java and Bali, were seen as exemplars which should contribute the most to the new “national culture” (Parani 2003). Provincial museums were affected by the new policy (Kreps 1994). The Sonobudoyo Museum in Yogyakarta, established as part of the Djawa Instituut in the early twentieth century, focused on Javanese and Balinese culture. In the 1980s the Instituut’s former museum and library was converted into the museum of the Yogyakarta Special District. Some exhibits were removed since they were not relevant to the museum’s new more limited role. Fragments of the old museum layout still exist, however, such as a Balinese gateway. In 2000 power was devolved to the sub-provincial (regency) level. Most Indonesian regencies do not have enough funds or expertise to establish museums. Two years earlier, in 1998, a new organization called the Badan Musyawarah Museum Indonesia (BMMI; Indonesian Museums Consultative Body) had been formed. In 2004 its name was changed to the Association of Indonesian Museums (Asosiasi Museum Indonesia, AMI). According to its website https://asosiasimuseumindonesia.org/ (accessed 9 September 2021), the association has 428 member organizations based on statistics for 2016, which the website says are “still being

2  Development of Local Museums in the Lands Bordering the Straits of Melaka

21

updated”. The association includes government-supported provincial museums, but the vast majority is private. Some are related to corporations such as the “House of Sampoerna” (mentioned previously). The AMI obtains funding from membership dues, contributions from individuals, governmental and non-governmental sources, and other bodies both within and outside Indonesia, and other activities and enterprises. AMI’s goals are: to advance Indonesian museums through cooperation with bodies at the regional, national, and international levels; to develop museum manpower; act as a partner with government; and strengthen public appreciation and communication. Even before 2000, local private museums had begun to form in provinces such as North Sumatra, where ethnic diversity is high and is accompanied by rivalries leading to efforts to reinforce cultural boundaries and local identities. A few examples will be described here. The Museum Simelungun was set up by a local ruler backed by Dutch authority in 1937. It is supported by a local foundation. Visitorship declined precipitously, from 4,600 per month from 1970 to 2001, to only 156 per month during the period 2005–2010 (http://www.becaksiantar.com/2013/07/ catatan-­ringan-­museum-­simalungun.html, accessed 10 November 2014; this link no longer functions; the current link is https://asosiasimuseumindonesia.org/ anggota/38-­museum-­simalungun.html, accessed 8 September 2021), The collection mainly consists of stone statues of a unique local style imitating Indic statuary or perhaps Malay versions thereof, and probably dates from the precolonial period. Little description or explanation is provided. Some Dutch scholars wrote about the collection (Voorhoeve 1939), but their work is apparently not known by the modern generation. Another private museum 54 kilometres away is Open Air Museum Rumah Bolon Purba, (https://asosiasimuseumindonesia.org/anggota/32-­museum-­huta-­bolon-­ simanindo.html, accessed 9 September 2021). The museum consists of a complex of buildings which are said to have comprised a palace erected in 1864 by Tuan Rahalim, Raja Purba XII. The museum has been managed by a foundation since 1966. It consists of eight buildings made of wooden planks tied together with twine which stand on painted and carved pillars, in which are contextual displays of everyday life, using artifacts which may not be original. Another non-governmental museum devoted to local identity is the Museum Batak, named after the term originally used by outsiders to refer to related ethnic groups in the North Sumatran highlands and now sometimes used by the people themselves. The Museum Batak is run by the T.B. Silalahi Center, named after a former general in the Indonesian Army www.museumbataktbsilalahicenter.com accessed 9 September 2021). This museum consists of two parts. One is a “Resistance Garden” (taman perjuangan) covering 1100 square meters; the term perjuangan refers primarily to the struggle for independence from 1945 to 1949. The garden contains exhibits such as a tank used by the battalion commanded by General Silalahi and a helicopter used by General Silalahi when he was on active duty in the Indonesian Air force. The second part, an indoor

22

J. N. Miksic

museum, covers 400 square meters and focuses on the life of General Silalahi, who after his career in the armed forces became an Indonesian cabinet minister, and in later life was involved in humanitarian, religious, and socio-cultural affairs. The museum’s mission statement is to motivate Batak youth to achieve success through hard work and study. Four cabinet ministers visited the museum prior to its official opening by President Susilo Bambang Yudoyono. The TB Silalahi Foundation also conducts humanitarian, religious, and social activities. Besides the museum, the TB Silalahi Center includes a large Batak traditional house, and a replica of a Batak village which consists of traditional houses said to be several hundred years old.

Malaysia In 2013 there were 189 registered museums in Malaysia. A partial list of these includes sixteen under the supervision of the central government; 35 under state governments; 30 under other government departments, including universities; and eight listed as private (Abu 2015: 27–39). Of the latter, four are located in the state of Penang, three in Melaka, and one in Johor. Abu Talib Ahmad focuses on differences in the depictions of Malaysia’s past between the National Museum in Kuala Lumpur and official school textbooks and those in the various states of Peninsular Malaysia. Most of the museums described in this book are state museums, not private entities. The Muzium Bugis in Johor is in an area where people of Bugis ancestry have lived for approximately 300 years. The Bugis homeland is in south Sulawesi, eastern Indonesia. Bugis are well-known as sailors and traders; they played a significant role in the sultanate of Melaka in the fifteenth century, and their ships voyaged at least as far as India in the pre-colonial era. After Melaka fell to the Portuguese in 1511, some Malays migrated to Makassar, leading to some cultural hybridity. In the seventeenth century, the Dutch supported one Bugis faction against another in Sulawesi, and many members of the losing group left their homeland, establishing new settlements in Java, Sumatra, the Malay Peninsula, and neighbouring islands. Some established their own kingdoms, others became the power behind the throne in Malay principalities. Bugis share many traits with Malays, including devotion to Islam. Bugis descendants in Malaysia speak Malay. Nevertheless, there is some support for the idea that Bugis identity should not be subsumed under national Malay culture but should retain some of its features. The Muzium Bugis is in a private house, in front of which stands a large sign advertising the museum’s existence. The front yard has been converted into a replica of a Bugis ship, one of the most potent symbols of Bugis identity. The front part of the interior of the house is dedicated to an exhibition of artifacts such as basketry and traditional costumes used to symbolize specifically Bugis ways of life.

2  Development of Local Museums in the Lands Bordering the Straits of Melaka

23

Thailand: Narathiwat Museum of Malay Culture The majority of the population of the four southern provinces of Thailand along the border with Peninsular Malaysia is of Malay ancestry. Today most speak and write Thai, but also retain the ability to speak Malay, and are Muslim. They have long resisted attempts to encourage them to become culturally Thai (Bailey and Miksic 1985). In the province of Narathiwat, a private Museum of Malay Culture has been established. This museum is one of the most elaborate attempts by a private individual or group in the three countries studied to keep alive a threatened identity by using the museum medium. The museum consists of a complex of wooden buildings enclosed by a wall with an ornate gateway. The museum’s presence is announced by a large sign in Thai emblazoned on a keris, a traditional Malay weapon freighted with great symbolism. Inside the gate is a row of low buildings on one side, made of plain wooden boards with tile roofs, inside which are exhibits devoted to aspects of everyday life such as a typical kitchen with Malay-style pottery, birdcages (songbirds are popular pets among Malays), toys and games including kites (highly stylized and decorated artifacts in Malay culture), stamps used for making batik cloth (a traditional Malay handicraft), a wooden rice mortar and pestle. Displayed along an open-air walkway in front of these stall-like exhibits are stoneware jars such as were traditionally used in villages to store water. Some of these were made in central Thailand several centuries ago. On the opposite side of the walkway is a much more elaborate two-storey wooden building of much more elaborate style, with ornate wood carving displaying Malay motifs. The main exhibits here occupy a series of galleries on the second storey; to reach them, one climbs a staircase with massive wooden guardian figures in local Malay style typically used for keris hilts. The exhibits in this building are arranged in two ways. Some glass cases typical of official museums contain items displayed according to type of material; some cases display nineteenth-century Scottish, English, Dutch, and Chinese plates made for export to Southeast Asia. On another series of shelves are arranged carved wood coconut scrapers and bookstands usually used for Korans. Sherds of earthenware pottery probably made in the Narathiwat area together with Chinese ceramics from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries occupy another case. Another section is devoted to keris and other bladed weapons and tools (and a six-shooter revolver). Another set of cases utilizes a contextual form of presentation.

Conclusion: The Local Museum and Idealized Pastoral Life One striking generalization that can be drawn from the examples cited here, both private and official, is that the idealized past is rural rather than urban. This perspective does not correspond to historical reality. Many scholars and laypeople assume that Southeast Asian cities were imposed from outside, by India and China (Wheatley

24

J. N. Miksic

1983), and later by Europeans. Historical and archaeological data however show that Southeast Asia was highly urbanized before large- scale foreign migration to the region occurred (Miksic 2000). When Europeans arrived, Southeast Asian cities rivalled those of Europe in population (Reid 1980) but had distinctive layouts. Many private museums have been set up in rural areas or small towns by people on the margins of the dominant society who are hoping to preserve something which possesses nostalgic value for themselves. They do not normally survive very long, which is a shame, because the energy invested by the people involved is often great, but their continuity is difficult to ensure. Once the founders are no longer involved, very often the enterprises decay and disappear. Another problem is that the founders are motivated by an attempt to keep alive cultural values and practices which the younger generation is no longer interested in perpetuating, so that in many cases they are doomed to become irrelevant. Museums were not always public institutions for collecting and displaying culture. Museums have not been conservative and immutable; their history is one of contestation and evolution in tandem with society. In 1982 a scholar predicted that “the institutionalized form [of the museum] is not the final end; in the future it will have eventually completely new forms” (quoted in Simpson 2007: 236). More interaction between museums and communities of traditional owners of artifacts in museums is likely to ensue. This process has been underway in the USA for two decades now, as Native Americans develop their own forms of the post- museum. In 1990, Appadurai noted that globalization could become a stimulus for heterogenization. Many communities around the world, Simpson noted, “are embracing the museum concept but adapting it to suit their own cultural and social needs, often in parallel with local methods of managing knowledge and caring for culture... As the notion of the museum spreads, the concept is changing and adopting new roles and forms that reflect alternative approaches to heritage, preservation and interpretation, and these developments can be seen worldwide as the idea of the museum continues to spread and evolve in local contexts” (quoted by Simpson 2007: 237). Some communities see museums as a place to store and preserve material culture in order to communicate aspects of their history and culture to insiders and outsiders. The Keeping Place model is a means of keeping sacred objects in a restricted environment. This is particularly relevant to the Australian aborigines, the case study used by Simpson. Possibly urban populations feel less rooted to their neighbourhoods than rural dwellers. Much of the urban population of modern Southeast Asia moved there from the countryside. In Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, and Myanmar, buildings and districts have been designated heritage sites, but almost without exception the life in and around the buildings has been entirely snuffed out, and the artifacts associated with that life have been obliterated. The development of private museums in Southeast Asia is likely to continue at its present pace for the foreseeable future, or even to speed up. This phenomenon may spread to other countries where it has not yet made itself felt. The definition of the museum may need to change as local groups adapt it to their concerns and concepts. It is hoped that universities will engage in this evolution, both as outside observers

2  Development of Local Museums in the Lands Bordering the Straits of Melaka

25

and as participants in the development of their own museums and in training curators. One service which universities or other advisors could perform would be to assist the private museums to reach out to a wider audience. Tourists, both foreign and domestic, would be one source of potential income which would enable the private museums to survive and be better able to achieve their aims. Government museums in Singapore devoted to exploring the culture of the minority Indians, Malays, and Peranakans have been successful in attracting foreign tourists. The rather remote locations of the museums described in this chapter however form one major obstacle to achieving that goal.

References Abu TA (2015) Museums, history and culture in Malaysia. NUS Press, Singapore Anon (1893) Poesaka. In: van der Lith PA, Snelleman JF (eds) Encyclopӕdie van Nederlandsch-­ Indië III Naaktslakken Soekapoera. Martinus Nijhoff, s-Gravenhage, p 283 Bailey LC Miksic JN Translators (1985) Ibrahim Syukri (pseud.) History of the Malay kingdom of Patani. Ohio University Center for International Studies, Papers in International Studies, Southeast Asia Series Number 68, Athens (Ohio) Bosch FDK (1930) De rijkssieraden van Pagar Roejong. Oudheidkundige Verslag:202–215 Hooper-Greenhill E (1992) Museums and the shaping of knowledge. Routledge, London Kreps CF 1994 On becoming “museum-minded”: a study of museum development and the politics of culture in Indonesia. Dissertation, University of Oregon Levitt P (2015) Artifacts and allegiances: how museums put the nation and the world on display. University of California, Oakland Miksic JN ed and trans (1992) Pusaka art of Indonesia. Archipelago Press, Singapore Miksic JN (2000) Heterogenetic cities in premodern Southeast Asia. World Archaeol 32(1):106–121 Parani J (2003) Government policy and performing arts in 20th century Indonesia. Dissertation, National University of Singapore Reid AR (1980) The structure of cities in Southeast Asia, fifteenth to seventeenth centuries. J Southeast Asian Stud 11(2):235–250 Resink GJ (1968) Indonesia’s history between the myths. W. van Hoeve, The Hague Schreiner K (1997) History in the showcase: representations of national history in Indonesian museums. In: Kuhnt-Saptodewo E, Grabowsky V, Grossheim M (eds) Nationalism and cultural revival in Southeast Asia: perspectives from the centre and the region. Otto Harrassowitz Verlag, Weisbaden, pp 99–118 Simpson MG (2007) Charting the boundaries: indigenous models and parallel practices in the development of the post-museum. In: Knell SJ, MacLeod S, Watson S (eds) Museum revolutions: how museums change and are changed. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 235–249 UNESCO (1973) Cultural policy in Indonesia. UNESCO, Paris Voorhoeve P (1939) Steenen beelden in Simaloengoen. Cultureel Indie 1:362–366 Wheatley P (1983) Negara and commandery. University of Chicago Department of Geography, Chicago

Chapter 3

Patterns in Values and Goal Setting: Finding Commonality in Tourism, Economic Development and Cultural Heritage Management William H. Jansen II Abstract  Increasing worldwide experience with the relationships between tourism, economic development and responsible cultural heritage management, provides examples of how the objectives or goals of each field of endeavor can be mutually supportive. This chapter examines the factors that contributed to recent opportunities for complimentary efforts within the global environment of goal definition for international development. Additionally, the author reviews recurring challenges and common constraints to finding shared interests or approaches for cultural heritage within the changing environment of goal setting for international development and the impact of the global Covid pandemic. Keywords  Development · Goals · Heritage · Values · Pandemic

Introduction The growing movement to achieve a more coordinated and collaborative international effort to achieve development progress produced new initiatives to find cross-­ country commonality in purpose and goal identification. As common goals for development emerged and grew, whether global or local, their definition or identification were influenced or shaped by shared values. The influence of values affected the establishment of goals as well as the process for prioritizing development funding or program interventions. Commonly held values created opportunities for defining the agreed upon goals and increasing continuity across those entities providing funds, generating plans or implementing programs for development. Within the international dialogue surrounding priority-setting for economic and general development, cultural heritage often has not been at the forefront of W. H. Jansen II (*) International Consultant, Practicing Anthropologist in International Development, Washington, DC, USA © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 P.-L. Yu et al. (eds.), Heritage and Cultural Heritage Tourism, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44800-3_3

27

28

W. H. Jansen II

considerations when goals or objectives were defined. Finding commonality in the values shaping programs for economic development, tourism and cultural heritage has long been a challenge. The efforts to find greater synergies across and between these potentially divergent realms continue. One factor affecting the potential success for defining common ground is the identification of shared or linked values.

 atterns in International Goal Setting for Development P and Inherent Values Globalism, Prescott recently (2021: 194) observed, is “one of the most decisive factors in contemporary international policymaking – and for cultural heritage.” This observation is particularly true in the rise of collective goal-setting for international development efforts. The rise of globalism for policy-making in any one arena, however, did not necessarily create robust opportunities for the identification of shared goals across or between endeavor areas. This was particularly apparent in the linkage between cultural heritage and early development goal definition. By the mid-1990’s, calls for greater coordination and more complementarity in international investments led to the articulation of common goals for economic and social development efforts globally. The International Development Goals (IDG), released in 1996, achieved enough consensus within donor countries to identify three high-level objectives with four sub-goals related to social development (Development Assistance Committee 1996: 8–11). The first goal called for better economic well-being and called for reducing the proportion of people living in extreme poverty in developing countries by at least 50%. The list clearly reflected a priority value for increasing income, particularly at the household level. Other goals were oriented to additional values. Arguably, income generation was one of the highest held values on the list. This interest area would continue to receive priority attention as the identification of objectives and goals evolved. Within the IDG goals, obviously, both efforts related to economic development and the betterment of tourism fell under the first objective and be supported by the operative value of income generation. The opportunities for economic growth that tourism represent created an immediate potential link between the IDG’s poverty reduction goal and tourism. Cultural heritage management, however, wasn’t specifically identified in the set of goals. The goal related to “environmental sustainability and regeneration” (Development Assistance Committee 1996: 10–11) did include the concept of reversing the loss of environmental resources. This wording provided an opportunity for dialogue on how cultural heritage was a resource in the human environment. However, in practice, this opening represented a relative narrow window of opportunity for the full range of concerns important to heritage management professionals. The linkage of common interests between tourism and cultural heritage, however, was part of the development dialogue. The World Bank (1999: 1), for example,

3  Patterns in Values and Goal Setting: Finding Commonality in Tourism, Economic…

29

recognized a dependence linking tourism with cultural heritage and noted, “While culture heritage creates a foundation for tourism’s growth, tourism has the power to generate funds that make conservation possible.” In the same document, The Bank (1999: 1), acknowledged a more direct relationship between tourism and primary goals of development: “… sustainable tourism represents a hitherto largely neglected opportunity for a developing country to generate employment opportunities (including for poor people), growth, and a more viable economy ….” Further global dialogue led the United Nations to adopt The Millennium Development Goals (MDG) in 2000 (United Nations General Assembly 2000). Eight goals were included in the MDG list and these encompassed a total of 18 targets. Consistent with the first goal of the IDG, topping the list of the Millennium Development Goals was “Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger.” Once again, the value of income generation figured prominently and tourism’s ability to contribute to this value was obvious. Each goal reflected its own value set. Three of the MDGs, “reduce child mortality,” “improve maternal health” and “combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases,” had complimentary or overlapping supporting values around achieving better health outcomes. Cultural heritage management was not one of the specified MDGs. This absence limited opportunities for collective effort between cultural heritage and economic development interests. Ndoro and Jaquinta (2006: 12) acknowledged surprise existed within the cultural heritage community that the MDGs contained no reference to cultural heritage and the role it can play in development initiatives, lamenting “… the conservation of historic buildings, towns, landscapes, and collections should have an important role to play in any meaningful poverty reduction programme leading to sustainable economic development.” However, to increase the likelihood cultural heritage factors entered more directly into the goal-setting process, Ndoro and Jaquinta identified a need to create a greater understanding of the potential of cultural heritage to contribute to development goals and to do so: “it will be necessary to put forward the necessary arguments and case studies to convince both policy-makers and local communities” (2006: 12). The seventh MDG goal, “Ensure environmental sustainability,” included wording which, with interpretation, offered some maneuverability to pursue some objectives or interests of cultural heritage management under the rubric of conserving or preserving a wide interpretation of what constitutes the environment. In 2015, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution establishing a new set of “Sustainable Development Goals” which updated and replaced the MDG goals. A total of 193 countries signed the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which became collective global targets in development efforts to be reached by 2030. The SDG list included 17 goals (General Assembly of the United Nations 2015: 12). As was the case with the MDG list, the first SDG goal listed is “End poverty in all its forms everywhere.” Once more, increasing income generation opportunities for the poor reappeared as a high priority value in setting a global development objective. With the formulation of the SDG list, cultural heritage finally received specific reference. SDG Goal 11, “Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe,

30

W. H. Jansen II

resilient and sustainable,” includes a target (11.4) to “Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage” (General Assembly of the United Nations 2017: 15). The indicator (11.4.1) identified to measure progress toward this target is: “Total expenditure (public and private) per capita spent on the preservation, protection and conservation of all cultural and natural heritage, by type of heritage (cultural, natural, mixed and World Heritage Centre designation), level of government (national, regional and local/municipal), type of expenditure (operating expenditure/investment) and type of private funding (donations in kind, private non-profit sector and sponsorship)” (General Assembly of the United Nations 2017: 15). A monetary measurement for progress in heritage preservation is an interesting choice and suggests an underlying orientation to economic factors related to the achievement of the heritage dimensions of the target.

 uilding a Foundation for Cultural Heritage in Sustainable B Development Goals The inclusion of specific language for cultural heritage within the SDGs was a significant change in the collective development dialogue. Hosagrahar (2017: 12) noted the framework for the SDGs prompted the international development agenda to refer to culture for the first time and included “... a conceptual shift in thinking about development beyond economic growth.” Although a positive evolution in what is explicitly valued in development efforts, Hosagrahar (2017: 14) acknowledged the SDG agenda had “… not adequately recognized culture’s significant contribution to the implementation of the SDGs.” Although the SDG indicator list included one specifically related to cultural heritage, the indicator’s measurement limits didn’t reflect the full range of factors important in heritage management. One reason for this limitation may be a sparsity of widely acknowledged measurement techniques for positive heritage management outcomes. Nocca (2017: 6), for example, observes: “… for decades researchers and practitioners have claimed that cultural heritage conservation produces multidimensional benefits, but this assertion has not been usually supported by robust analyses.” To broaden a wider understanding that heritage is “fundamental to addressing the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals” Labadi et al. (2021: 8) noted more work is needed to demonstrate the linkages between heritage and SDGs which led the ICOMOS SDGs Working Group to prepare a policy guidance document illustrating the ways heritage can address the SDGs. Clearly, some believed additional efforts were needed to align more heritage values with those at play behind the various SDGs and their 2030 agenda. Some opportunities to do so arose in SDG targets related to tourism development. For example, UNESCO’s Institute for Statistics (2021: 4) credited two SDG Targets (8.9), “devise and implement policies to promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products” and 12(b), “promoting the value of

3  Patterns in Values and Goal Setting: Finding Commonality in Tourism, Economic…

31

sustainable tourism” as evidence of valuing culture as an enabling driver for sustainable development. Despite omissions in goal statements and progress indicators for development targets, opportunities did exist to link the values and interests of cultural heritage to those associated with development goals. A common pathway to common efforts has been through the relationship between heritage and tourism development. For example, the World Bank Group (2018: 1) stated it “…has long recognized that the restoration and preservation of cultural heritage, urban regeneration, and sustainable tourism can play a vital role in developing countries’ efforts to promote local economic development, accelerate social integration, and alleviate poverty.”

 ridging the Values Between Tourism B and Economic Development Linking the values common to tourism and economic development has been a regular practice for some time. Perhaps the strongest rationale used in connecting the two is tourism’s potential to create revenue streams and generate income for various stakeholders. In the period when MDGs were active, for example, the United Nations Environment Program and World Tourism Organization (2005: 2) noted: “There is also an increasing appreciation of the potential role of tourism in addressing world poverty, by bringing sources of income to the heart of some of the poorest communities.” When the period of sustainable development goals arrived about a decade later, tourism’s close association with leading values of economic growth continued to receive recognition. For example, in reference to tourism development in Indonesia, the World Bank (2016: 2) pronounced: “Tourism is a promising growth sector that could unlock private investment, foster inclusive and job-rich growth, boost export earnings, and guide a targeted infrastructure investment program in tourism destinations.” The clear linkage tourism had to values and goals within the development agenda reinforced connection and perceived relevancy. Kumar (2017: 56) made an even more bold connection between tourism and economic development: “Tourism is now viewed as a political and economic development necessity and is quickly emerging as one of the basic development tools at all levels of government.” Tourism development strategies, developed by national country planners, often make a direct case for making tourism growth a vibrant part of a country’s desired economic betterment. Vietnam’s vision for tourism in which the first goal listed for achievement by 2030 is: “To develop tourism into a key economic sector, accounting for an increasing proportion of GDP, creating a driving force for socio-economic development” (Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Government Portal 2021). Malaysia’s Ministry of Tourism, Art and Culture released a tourism development plan in 2020 with the stated objective of increasing the competitiveness of attracting

32

W. H. Jansen II

more tourists and a stated goal of making the country “a global top ten destination in both arrivals and receipts” by 2030 (2020: 8). In this example, growth and expansion clearly is a key element of tourism development. Both Vietnam’s and Malaysia’s tourism plans illustrate the common context in which cultural heritage offers a direct connection to the tourism development agenda: the ability of heritage sites to attract visitors and paying customers.

The Covid Pandemic and the Rise of New Value Sets Even in the best of times, competing values and varying priorities can make finding common ground for collaborative or collective efforts difficult. The arrival of the global Covid pandemic, however, created new and unprecedented challenges to the achievement of many development goals simultaneously. Countries and international organizations have had to revise pre-existing development initiatives and devise new approaches to achieve pre-existing goals while trying to address impacts from the pandemic. A common concern across countries, companies and international organizations is the pandemic’s negative impact. In particular, there has been widespread alarm over adverse effects on economies and revenue generation at all levels. For example, the United Nations World Tourism Organization (2021) quantified some of the dramatic downturns caused by the pandemic and announced international tourist arrivals dropped by 83% in the period January–March 2021 compared to 2020 and followed an unprecedented drop of 73% in 2020, the worst year on record for international tourism. A commonly held desire to return to prior levels of prosperity is no surprise. The pandemic also has made achieving most goals and targets for the sustainable development agenda by 2030 less likely. In a recent United Nations report on the SDGs (2021:2), the Secretary-General of the United Nations noted, “The current crisis is threatening decades of development gains, further delaying the urgent transition to greener, more inclusive economies, and throwing progress on the SDGs even further off track.” Abidoye et al. (2021: 7) acknowledge the pandemic threatens some countries with potentially devastating impacts on dimensions of the Human Development Index (health, education and standard of living) for months or years to come. Travel and tourism have been hugely impacted by the pandemic. A recent policy brief released by the Secretary General of the United Nations Tourism (2020: 6) states: “Tourism came to a standstill in mid-March 2020.” In the policy brief, rebuilding tourism and sustaining the livelihoods dependent on the sector is a priority; however, the document also notes: “The crisis has revealed the need to rethink the structure of tourism economies to improve competitiveness and build resilience” (Secretary General of the United Nations Tourism 2020:22). Global heritage management also suffered due to the pandemic. With the spread of Covid, visitors to World Heritage sites dropped by 66% in 2020 and 90% of

3  Patterns in Values and Goal Setting: Finding Commonality in Tourism, Economic…

33

countries with World Heritage properties closed or partially closed sites; 71% of these countries still had site closures in February 2021 (UNESCO 2021: 5). The negative impact on heritage sites prompted similar interest to revitalize activities and regain what was lost. Interestingly, UNESCO (2021: 5) reports some countries “recommended a recovery process that includes measures to support the tourism sector and communities and to safeguard livelihoods in the transition towards more versatile and resilient World Heritage site management.” With the impact of the pandemic similarly negative for international development, tourism development and heritage management, all three communities of interest face the need to return to previous rates of progress. This shared need creates new opportunities to identify more common values and, possibly, additional pathways for complimentary effort. Clearly, the range of values and priorities at play are changing with the dynamic of the pandemic. Within this evolving policy and implementation environment, cultural heritage interests may need to find new ways to express relevancy in the broader international decision-making arena. The Covid-19 Task Force of the International Council on Monuments found a possible positive impact of the pandemic in that it: “…has highlighted the important role heritage plays in the economic and social life and enhanced the recognition that heritage sites and objects are a non-renewable resource for economic and social well-being” (ICOMOS 2020: 63).

Conclusion: Lessons for the Future Recent history in global goal-setting for international development illustrates an evolution in the number and the range of objectives considered to be a high priority. The extent of commonly held values within goal-identification groups influenced the number and types of objectives selected for international development focus. These goal definitions have oriented global development efforts for more than two decades. Over this period, the values supporting cultural heritage interests had little influence in goal setting for the International Development Goals or the Millennium Development Goals. Not until the Sustainable Development Goals were defined did cultural heritage receive a direct mention as a distinct target under a broader goal. But, this entry of heritage into the listing of SDG objectives is insufficient to cover the breadth of important heritage values and interests. When commonality within or between held values is not readily apparent, opportunities for coordinated heritage program efforts appear to have been less likely or even non-existent. From my experience in a variety of international and development arenas, the more widely and commonly held the value, the higher the likelihood programs incorporating the value will receive priority in implementation and funding. With the arrival of the Covid pandemic crisis, world policy makers are faced with a new common treat and challenges to find new approaches to achieve progress. Within this changing global policy-setting environment, cultural heritage

34

W. H. Jansen II

has new opportunities to incorporate heritage values within the global development agenda.

References Abidoye B, Felix J, Kapto S, Patterson L (2021) Leaving no one behind: impact of COVID-19 on the sustainable development goals (SDGs). United Nations Development Programme and Frederick S. Pardee Center for International Futures, New York and Denver Development Assistance Committee (OECD) (1996) Shaping the 21st century: the contribution of development co-operation. Organization for Economic Coordination and Development (OECD), Paris Hosagrahar J (2017) Culture: at the heart of SDGs. The UNESCO Courier, April – June:12–14 ICOMOS (2020) The impact of COVID-19 on heritage: an overview of survey responses by ICOMOS National Committees (2020) and paths forward. Covid-19 Task Force, International Council on Monuments and Sites (December) Kumar A (2017) Cultural and heritage tourism: a tool for sustainable development. Glob J Commerce Manag Perspect 6(6):56–59 Labadi S, Giliberto F, Rosetti I, Shetabi L, Yildirim E (2021) Heritage and the sustainable development goals: policy guidance for heritage and development actors. ICOMOS, Paris Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture Malaysia (2020) National tourism policy 2020–2030. Government of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur Ndoro W, Jaquinta MT (2006) Millennium development goals and cultural heritage. ICCROM Newsl 32(June) Nocca F (2017) The role of cultural heritage in sustainable development: multidimensional indicators as decision-making tool. Sustainability 9:1882 Prescott C (2021) Epilogue, engaging global issues and local values – scales, culture, concepts and politics. In: Higgins V, Douglas D (eds) Communities and cultural heritage: global issues, local values, Routledge studies in heritage. Routledge, pp 194–197 Secretary General of the United Nations (2020) Policy brief: COVID-19 and transforming tourism. United Nations, New York Socialist Republic of Vietnam (2021) Strategy on Viet Nam’s tourism development until 2020, vision to 2030. Government Portal, www.chinhphu.vn UNESCO (2021) World heritage in the face of COVID-19. UNESCO, Paris UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2021) Tracking investment to safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage: results of the 2020 UIS survey on expenditure on cultural and natural heritage (SDG indicator 11.4.1). UNESCO, Montreal United Nations (2021) The sustainable development goals report 2021. United Nations, New York United Nations Environment Program and World Tourism Organization (UNEP) (2005) Making tourism more sustainable: a guide for policy makers. UNEP/OMT, Madrid/Paris United Nations General Assembly (2000) United Nations millennium declaration. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 18 September 2000, 55/2. United Nations, New York United Nations General Assembly (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations, New York United Nations General Assembly (2017) Work of the statistical commission pertaining to the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 6 July 2017, 71/313. United Nations, New York United Nations World Tourism Organization (2021) World tourism barometer, Update May 2021, www.unwto.org World Bank (2016) Program-for-results information document (PID), Indonesia tourism development program. Report No.: PIDC0070288. World Bank, Washington, DC

3  Patterns in Values and Goal Setting: Finding Commonality in Tourism, Economic…

35

World Bank Group (1999) Sustainable tourism and cultural heritage: A review of development assistance and its potential to promote sustainability. Working Paper 36993. World Bank, Washington, DC World Bank Group (2018) Cultural heritage, sustainable tourism and urban regeneration: capturing lessons and experience from Japan with a focus on Kyoto. World Bank, Washington, DC

Chapter 4

The Power of Storytelling: Changing National Narratives, Collective Memories, and Cultural Heritage as Observed Through Walking Tours in Taiwan Ashley Deng-Yu Chen Abstract  As a newly established democracy and sovereign state shaped in the midst of international disputes and geopolitical conflicts, Taiwan is no stranger to quarrels regarding national identity and its cultural heritage. Now more than 20 years since its first democratic national election in the 1990s, the younger generation of Taiwanese continues to find their own voice and identity in a fast-­changing world through ongoing negotiations with the past and future of the island nation in the form of storytelling and revisiting local history. This chapter is based on the author’s own experience from working as a walking tour guide in Taipei, Taiwan. A mixed approach of qualitative and anecdotal data is featured along with relative literature on the topic. Keywords  Nation-building · Walking tour · Cultural heritage

Introduction First starting off in Berlin in 2004, the format of free or pay-what-you-want walking tours has transformed the depth of backpack travels, as well as gathered popularity for its personal touch and theatrical-like interaction compared to traditional tours. A decade later in 2015, like-minded entrepreneurs established Like It Formosa as one of the first companies in Taiwan to follow the free walking tour model. In 2017, I was fresh out of school and had just returned from my year abroad at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. I had become familiar with the idea of walking tours through my travels around Europe and decided to join the team. After weeks of training and orientation, I became one of the new tour guides at the organization and continued to work on the position for the next 2 years.

A. D.-Y. Chen (*) Like It Formosa, Taipei, Taiwan © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 P.-L. Yu et al. (eds.), Heritage and Cultural Heritage Tourism, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44800-3_4

37

38

A. D.-Y. Chen

As the format of walking tours goes, and perhaps more so in the context of Taiwan, the tour guides’ positionality as local residents is often the key element in the construction and distribution of the narratives shared with foreign visitors. As part of the tourism industry, many visitors tend to overlook the fact that the local storytellers are of different political and economic backgrounds. In Taiwan, the situation is further complicated by the reality that the national and historical narrative of individuals varies from one group to another. In many ways, the performance of the local tour guides is a presentation of our knowledge as much as an act of reaffirmation of selected collective memories. For this reason, the narrative we tell the travellers is seen as a living commodity that is constantly being worked on, revised, and improved on a daily basis as we further understand ourselves and the land we live on. In the case of Taiwan, the overlapping cultural and political components visible throughout the island nation have inspired, for better or worse, a number of conflicting perceptions of local history and communities. Factors including the underdefined political regimes, unspoken relations with neighbouring countries, and the paradoxical collective identity as a nation all feed into the existing accounts that have settled for agreeing to disagree. From site to site, and from one historical event to another, this reality poses an ongoing riddle to local residents and outsiders alike when attempting to unravel our identity. Among experts and scholars on international politics, Taiwan remains the topic of lively debate on the meaning of nation-­ states, the development of postcolonial identities, and as a possible form of post-modern democracy. Meanwhile, the locals must learn to live with the available heritage and narratives left behind from the inconsistent political regimes and their cultural productions – a process that is vividly experienced even more so as a walking tour guide. Along with relevant literature, these concerns will be addressed in this chapter as an approach of reflection and discussion on the topic of culture-based tourism and the power of storytelling in the context of international politics.

Negotiating Heritage and Tradition as a Walking Tour Guide While many might recognize language ability and textbook knowledge as basic skills to qualify as a good tour guide, it takes much more to be a great one. One such example is the expertise in understanding your clients. As a walking tour guide, the typical day starts off with greeting our guests at the meeting metro station as the first stop. Some of these clients might come with a profile if they had booked any reservations, but more than half of them would be walk-in travellers. Once gathered, the tour guides begin the tour with an opening. The opening sequence, with details differing from one tour guide to another, often includes ice-breaking jokes and selfintroductions. For the tour guides, this is the first opportunity to know our clients of the day – their names, their country of origin, and why they are visiting Taiwan. While the tour typically takes no more than three hours, it is crucial for the guides to understand the social background and personalities of the daily clientele, and

4  The Power of Storytelling: Changing National Narratives, Collective Memories…

39

evaluate what style of the tour is supposed to take place. If administered properly, the mere ten to fifteen minutes’ first impressions could inform us what sensitive issues or joke punchlines should be avoided, and what version of the history fits best with the room. In the case of walking tours, storytelling is a customized commodity that is processed and tailored through every form of communication with the customers. As the product manufacturer, the tour guide is responsible for transforming historic events and everyday artifacts into colourful patterns of culture and urban legends that entertain their audience. Another essential skill set, perhaps the most rewarding and yet challenging, is the ability to showcase local society to foreign visitors without incoming prejudice and preconception while navigating one’s positionality. Oftentimes only in the country for a week or mere days, the visitors see Taiwan and its culture, society, and history as a whole only through our lens. The process of such storytelling is thus a constant negotiation of our authentic experiences and selecting what we should tell an outside audience. Occasionally, be it disagreement on historic, political, or ethnic perspectives, fellow tour guides even find themselves at odds with each other  – some are accused of overgeneralizing historic events, while others of remaining oblivious to the absurdity of our political status in the international community. In most cases, the representation of our lived experiences appears as a form of immersive theatre, where the storyteller is invested in the narrative as much as the spectators. The relationship between tour guides and their foreign customers is a space for a recital of events and knowledge-based exchange. Through such exchanges, the stories – or the interpretation of past occurrences – are internalized and exhibited to outsiders as a seemingly coherent account to our best ability. Beyond the commercial success, it is also common that some in the industry of walking tours frequently neglect or fail to discuss the performative element of their understanding of culture and tradition. While the idea of Taiwan as a shared living space might have sustained itself beyond the political, it remains a notion constantly negotiated and amended by and between the residents. Between the use of multiple languages, marked ethnic differences, and complicated regional history, the value of ambiguous identification extends beyond the question of marketability as it is just as academically and politically profitable. In this context, as the local population contributes to the creation and preservation of “folk culture”, they are actively shaping the narratives of Taiwan as a polity and an imagined community (Anderson 1983). The characteristic of local communities, and thus the idea of modern Taiwanese society as a whole, thrives on performance and the reinvention of tradition as ways of reaffirming their collective memories and identity. To a certain extent, this trait can be attributed to the political reality of and in Taiwan. With the divided understanding of past and current regimes, as well as little representation available in international politics, the citizens have sought elsewhere to conceptualize a nation-state with already existing resources. Through tools commonly observed in the tourism industry such as storytelling and performing culture, the actuality of Taiwan – along with its features and flaws – comes alive and outlives the shell of its political constraint.

40

A. D.-Y. Chen

Re-imaging Taiwan: Nation-Building Through Storytelling In the rare case of Taiwan, where the state has little external power that determines the direction of its nation-building, “culture production” is a vital instrument utilized by and involves all participating parties. The basis of this form of national imagination is overtly sociocultural and reads between the lines of international politics when possible. While some might suggest this pattern to be unexceptional for any political community with a lesser global presence, the Taiwanese experience is unique in the way that it must recreate itself for strategic survival. To begin with, the numerous yet short-lived colonial governments in Taiwan serve as the classic model for diverging outlooks on historic events and political regimes. The inconsistency in the political order has made the local population extremely adaptable and receptive to incoming customs and cultures. At the same time, present-day Taiwan finds itself in an inconclusive conversation when it comes to collective heritage and identification. For this reason, many – be it the tourism industry, a political party, or local artists – have made the reimagination of Taiwan an ongoing quest that could be achieved through storytelling, cultural production, or a reinvention of tradition. Traditionally, the account about Taiwan differs widely based on contemporary historic contexts. First and foremost, while the Indigenous peoples of Taiwan (Austronesian Taiwanese) have lived on the island for over six thousand years, contact with exterior visitors remained rare until the 16th century when Chinese and Japanese pirates incorporated its shores into their trading routes. Yet as the age of European colonization approached, the Dutch East India Company sought control of southwestern Taiwan as a colonial settlement in 1624. The Spanish occupied northern Taiwan 2 years later but lost its territories to the Dutch in 1642. The Dutch continued to rule a significant portion of western Taiwan until 1662 when Koxinga, the Chinese- Japanese pirate king and Ming Dynasty loyalist, took over with his own dynasty. Finally, in 1683, the fleet of the Qing dynasty annexed Taiwan and captured the remaining Koxinga family, placing Taiwan under Chinese rule for the first time and ending the decades of turbulent regime change (Dirlik 2018). In many ways, the Qing dynasty’s rule set forward the existing social and cultural structure of Taiwan today. For over two hundred years, Taiwan was managed by the Qing empire as a regional territory and outlawed land for the aborigines and pirates. Yet as floods of illegal immigrants from southern China risked the deadly journey to arrive ashore, the dominant ethnic group and culture began to shift, with those of Han Chinese-descent gradually taking up the majority of the local population. If the Qing dynasty rule was the period that reset the ethnic composition, the subsequent Japanese (1895–1945) and the Republic of China (ROC) governments (1945-present) would be those that mapped out the diverging political imagination of modern Taiwan (Sheridan 2016). As colonial subjects under Imperial Japan, local communities in Taiwan embraced the Japanese language and culture to their best ability. The colonial structure rewarded the best assimilated, and the imperial mapping was the most exhaustive during World War II. In the last decade of the Japanese regime, Taiwanese were encouraged to adopt Japanese names and customs as part

4  The Power of Storytelling: Changing National Narratives, Collective Memories…

41

of the “Kōminka (Subjects of the Emperor) movement (Ching 2001).” With young Taiwanese on the frontline for Imperial Japan, their worldview was unsurprisingly framed by Japanese imperialism. This narrative was soon met with disdain when ROC authorities arrived from China following the surrender of Japan in 1945. The Mainlanders from China, as the backbone of the ROC administration in Taiwan (Chen 2021; Simon 2010: 87–88), saw the island as a province that was freshly liberated from Japanese colonization. Coming to Taiwan after WWII and the subsequent Chinese Civil War between the Nationalists (Kuomintang, or KMT) and Communist (Chinese Communist Party, or CCP) war, the Mainlanders were raised with an entirely contrary framework from the local Taiwanese; yet to their dismay, Japanese culture and language were evidently entrenched in local society after the half-century control. Formerly an integration that was encouraged by the colonial government, the lasting impact of Japanese rule was now frowned upon by the WWII victor who had of late resisted harsh waves of Japanese invasion. Following the relocation of the ROC government, the KMT imposed a Sino-centric social order (Wang 2013; Wong 2001) that attempted to not only wipe out any trace of Japanese colonization (Simon 2003: 116) but also any localized identity that suggested its rule in Taiwan to be illegitimate (Manthorpe 2005). Originally a culture-­ based friction, this clash between Taiwanese of Japanese upbringing and the Mainlanders crystallized into a prolonged socio-political discord that was underlined throughout the thirty-eight years of Martial Law until 1987 (Simon 2003: 117-118; Wong 2001: 186). In the end, despite a series of acts of democratization prompted by the local government and activists in the 1990s, the contemporary party politics in Taiwan continue to parallel the contrasting political reality outlined by the two regimes. The peculiar reality of Taiwan as a member of the international community furthermore perplexed the national imagination and the local narratives. Since the 1970s, the ROC government of Taiwan has been passed up by the majority of the world as a recognized state in favour of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). As of 2021, Taiwan is not represented in the United Nations or any affiliated organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and maintains official diplomatic relations with less than twenty foreign countries. Meanwhile, Taiwanese participation in international events is often reduced to a fractured name and symbol instead of the official national anthem and flag. These concurrent affairs in international politics have shaped not only the self-understanding of the Taiwanese but also their collective insight into the land they live on. The ongoing engagement in nation-­ building is thus seen as an imperative and proactive action, with individual political imagination amplified by the process of storytelling. An unintentional yet frequently used instrument for nation-building, storytelling in Taiwan is a way for local residents to revisit their history with a modern lens. This observation is especially apparent in regards to the tour guides walking the foreign clients through the city. As the local tour guides pose as both the merchandise and the merchant of the cultural production, details of historic periods and events such as the Japanese colonization, the Martial Law era, and the 228 Incident – an infamous conflict of violence

42

A. D.-Y. Chen

between the ROC government and local Taiwanese – are presented differently to the foreign visitors. Through principles of imagined communities as theorized by Benedict Anderson (1983), the local population in Taiwan and their perspectives are repeatedly reproduced and internalized, separate yet paralleling each other in the most trivial occurrences. In the end, there is no doubt that the process of nation-­ building through reimagination persists in Taiwan  – amid independently, within each community.

Feasibility and Sustainability of Culture-Based Tourism As tourism in Taiwan continues to profit from culture production, the available heritage – in the forms of local cuisine, colonial histories, and political uncertainty – is often promoted and sold as an exotic attraction to foreign visitors. This trend, however, poses the question of whether it is a structure that is sustainable or possible in the long term as Taiwan further develops as a polity and imagined community. Firstly, the feasibility of many tourism resources today relies heavily on the appeal of Taiwan in its current state. That is, if any factor attributing to the success of the tourism format is replaced or alternated, or when the culture is no longer of interest to travellers, the industry would see a deteriorating shift for all those involved. Secondly, the probability of Taiwan losing its cultural attraction is heightened due to the similarity and constant comparison with neighbouring countries. Between the cultural festivals common to all East Asian countries and the shared official language with China (and to a certain extent, Japan), the design of culture- based tourism in Taiwan is due to face certain challenges unlike any other nation-state with more solidified traditions. Lastly, as the local population capitalizes on their past and present, some have become concerned that the emphasis on cultural presentation will ultimately overweigh the preservation. In the case of storytelling, the past events and political difficulties of Taiwan are portrayed theatrically to locals and outsiders alike as a tool for reimagination. Building on the narratives that have been actively guided by different historic perspectives, the recitations are often criticized for being echo chambers instead of a conservation of collective memories. In 2020, the question of sustainability for culture-based tourism met its possibly most substantial trial when international borders and travel routes were shut down as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Even in Taiwan, where the outbreak was relatively controlled, the industry quickly stumbled without the arrival of international tourists. Vendors such as food stands, backpacker hostels and resorts, and language tours who have traditionally catered to foreign clients lost their source of income almost overnight due to the strict regulations for all those entering the country. Once a model considered to be profitable, economic, and mutually beneficial for all those involved, many began to reflect on the long-term feasibility and actual stability of culture-based tourism. That is to say, if the viability of the industry depends solely on external factors, its future development is decidedly unpredictable for both financial and professional investments. The tourism industry in Taiwan

4  The Power of Storytelling: Changing National Narratives, Collective Memories…

43

was therefore forced to restrategize its business model. This trend is exemplified with the cultural resources at Like It Formosa turning to a local audience with its subsidiary, Meet Up Formosa. Unlike its parent company, which draws its clientele mainly from English-speaking and foreign visitors, Meet Up Formosa focuses on cultural lessons for local Taiwanese. Originally created as a side branch for education, Meet Up Formosa became the main operation throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and seems to have resolved, if only temporarily, the shortage of incoming travellers for the company. That being said, the central issue of sustainable tourism in Taiwan often extends beyond the subject matter of international customers. While the foreign visitors might return after the global pandemic sees its end, many are left wondering about the commercial durability of the local heritage and what that means for the future of culture-based tourism. As the perpetual dilemma for all lands that were once colonized and exploited, local culture production in Taiwan continues to struggle between the question of its originality and fusion elements. Through the constant comparison with neighbouring and often more culturally established countries, the concept of a Taiwanese tradition is a recurrent debate among visitors and local residents. Between arguments on whether Taiwan is the last surviving home of authentic Chinese culture, the effects of its colonial governments, and the necessary recovery of Indigenous legacy and land, being Taiwanese often entails positioning oneself in the conflicting understanding of our history and society. Meanwhile, local tourism has attempted to utilize every form of resource to create a pattern that is unique, characteristic, and profitable. Consequently, the impression of Taiwanese culture today can be perplexing to outsiders as well as those who live within. Behind the perky presentation of its blended heritage that has blossomed into an anomaly in international politics, the island nation remains underdefined apart from its membership in the East Asian ethnic sphere and geopolitical significance. For this reason, many have criticized the culture-based tourism in Taiwan to be fundamentally frail and insecure – with only superficial achievements in revenue and less so as an industry-wide reform. On the other hand, one must be reminded that the value of culture-based tourism in Taiwan should not be seen solely through an economic lens. Unlike other nation-­ states that have employed their political framework to ensure the growth and continuation of collective consciousness, the imagined community of Taiwan appears to be constructed primarily through its internal discussions of local elements and representative symbols. Through such an unconventional approach, Taiwan is one of the rare instances where, if operated successfully, its culture writing and storytelling could drive its progress in nation-building to compensate for the lack of political support. In this case, the fluidity and variability of heritage resources in Taiwan, while not so much as an exclusive property, are unparalleled as assets for the invention and reworking of tradition and narratives. While its outcome remains uncertain, this innovative design has shed new light on the possibilities for up-and-coming political communities that have long fought for legitimacy and recognition. In other words, the feasibility and sustainability of culture production observed in Taiwan, regardless of forms, perhaps should not be discussed in the context of tourism and financial gain. Instead, the process must be examined as an experiment as well as an

44

A. D.-Y. Chen

effort to recreate the political community out of any available medium. Through nation-building tools such as storytelling, the performance of tradition, and the reimagination of history and heritage, culture-based tourism in Taiwan thus exists as an outlet of a prolonged operation that seeks to solidify the peculiar lifestyle and reality of local communities in Taiwan at this time and day – even if they do not always see eye to eye.

Conclusion Overall, working as a walking tour guide in Taiwan was an empowering experience that allowed me the privilege to be on the front line as a narrator and creator of our stories. As part of an industry that works to innovate tourism as well as rebuild local culture, the position was a rare opportunity where one was provided with a practical stage to unravel – albeit experimentally – the abstract yet widely-felt political and social issues in Taiwan concerning shared memories and changing narratives. That is, while the puzzle for a nation-belonging and collective identity might not be resolved overnight, the dedication of each community in Taiwan to conserve as well as sustain their own accounts should be valued as progress towards a collaborative heritage. Despite these conversations often appear as quarrels and heated debates to outside observers, they have also demonstrated the resilience and adaptability of the Taiwanese stories, as exemplified by their survival through political oppressions, regime changes, and the strategic replanning of the local tourism business. Through constant negotiation, recreation, and reimagination of the existing practices of tradition, the outline of Taiwanese society and culture has undoubtedly become more defined and material. Ultimately, the power of storytelling lies in its comprehensive ability that connects the current reality of Taiwan to its unsettled past as well as its indeterminate future for all those dwelling within. The stories  – inclusive of all accounts, expectations, and memories  – are what shape and carry the Taiwanese experience as a whole beyond its ongoing present and, with luck and a bit of empathy, towards a compatible collective – in both socio-cultural and political ways.

References Anderson B (1983) Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso, London Chen ADY (2021) The lingering patriots: an ethnography of Chinese nationalists in post-­ authoritarian Taiwan. Thesis, University of Ottawa Ching LTS (2001) Becoming Japanese: colonial Taiwan and the politics of identity formation. University of California Press, Berkeley Dirlik A (2018) After colonialism: Taiwan’s predicament, China’s hegemony and globalization (trans). Acropolis, Walker’s Cultural Enterprises Ltd, New Taipei City Manthorpe J (2005) Forbidden nation: a history of Taiwan. Palgrave Macmillan, New York

4  The Power of Storytelling: Changing National Narratives, Collective Memories…

45

Sheridan D (2016) Uncle Sam said very clearly you are not a country: Independence activists and the mapping of imperial cosmologies in Taiwan. Verge Stud Glob Asias 2(2):115–137 Simon S (2003) Contesting Formosa: tragic remembrance, urban space, and national identity in Taipak. Identities Glob Stud Cul Power 10(1):109–131 Simon S (2010) Negotiating power: elections and the constitution of indigenous Taiwan. Am Ethnol 37(4):726–740 Wang FC (2013) A prolonged exile: national imagination of the KMT regime in postwar Taiwan. Oriens Extremus 52:137–172 Wong TKY (2001) From ethnic to civic nationalism: the formation and changing nature of Taiwanese identity. Asian Perspect 25(3):175–206

Part II

Building Resilient Societies

Chapter 5

Heritage and Tourism Organisations in a Disrupted World Ian Baxter

Abstract  The business environment for heritage and tourism organizations and the relationships between them has matured over the last two decades to see heritage become a major driving force for a globalized tourism industry. The complex interactions between these organizations has charted the equilibrium between the need for sustainable preservation of the historic environment, and utilization of that historic environment for developing tourism economies with diverse cultural experiences in a market where the key desire by visitors is to experience authenticity. In the past year however, typical forms of disruption and external challenge which have driven organizations in the field have been magnified by unprecedented external forces such as the global Covid19 pandemic, and also by wider social and political forces which have gained momentum  – around cultural representation and diversity, environmentalism, and financial sustainability. This is rapidly requiring organizational paradigm shifts in how we think about heritage and tourism organizations themselves, and our ability to manage the heritage and tourism ‘caring and sharing mission’ into the future. Keywords  Heritage · Tourism · Experience · Business environment · Disruption

Introduction Exploration of the organisational landscape for heritage organisations has developed over the last 20  years as the sector has increasingly professionalised its approach to managing assets, places and knowledge. Concurrently the organisational structures, networks and corporate development in and between different parts of the sector have matured in this period. A heritage business sector is clearly recognisable, and whilst the concept of a ‘business environment’ might still sit at I. Baxter (*) School of Social Sciences, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 P.-L. Yu et al. (eds.), Heritage and Cultural Heritage Tourism, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44800-3_5

49

50

I. Baxter

times uncomfortably in a sector that is has long been filled by professional specialists, those workers, volunteers, activists and communities of practice and are now generally cognisant of the overarching business aspects of managing heritage, and the wider web of relationships in which heritage work sits. The inter-relationships between organisations in a sector which has fuzzy boundaries (very much associated with the fluid definition of what heritage is) mean that the organisational and business landscape is dynamic, though arguably still not understood well (Barczak et al. 2021). There is a vast range of organisations involved in managing heritage assets, historic objects, landscapes and intangible heritage at different scales across the globe. These include central Government organisations and ministries with direct responsibility for legislation and policy and provision of cultural and heritage protection services; non-governmental organisations (NGOs) which may be public-sector organisations funded by or undertaking government functions but not part of central government (such as many National museums like the British Museum, or regeneration agencies like the Diriyah Gate Development Authority in Saudi Arabia). The NGO sector also includes an array of charitable or not-for-profit organisations which preserve and enhance understanding of different aspects of the historic environment (Higgins and Douglas 2020). There are diverse philanthropic organisations which support organisations in the sector or promote engagement with heritage by different communities. There is also the growing commercial for-profit group of companies and organisations which have developed innovative products and services via both business-to-business relationships (B2B) for sector organisations themselves as well as developing business-to-consumer relationships (B2C) with technological products, services and interpretive experiences from international operators such as Merlin and Disney, to consultants and suppliers such as Lord Cultural Resources or Nomad Exhibitions (Blooloop 2021). The final major organisational category for heritage is the largest – where heritage assets are held in trust, looked after, owned or managed by private individuals, families and communities who act as long-term stewards, curators and conservators of priceless cultural objects, traditions buildings and places. This ‘ownership category’ can often be overlooked in organisational analyses, but is perhaps the most important. It manages the bulk of heritage assets, and provides many publicly accessible experiences and access to cultural assets, archives and social histories of communities (de Clippele and Lambrecht 2015). This range of organisational categories involved in heritage management is matched by the range in scale of that management practise. Small scale voluntary organisations and individual owners look after and manage individual items and assets, such as houses, monuments, and small museums which might be considered modest in scale. National and multinational organisations also exist, such as the National Trusts which exists in different countries (International National Trusts Organisation 2021), or the museums which operate on a global scale as recognisable brands such as Tate or Guggenheim. These can be recognised as highly professionalised organisations with extensive commercial, estate and asset management

5  Heritage and Tourism Organisations in a Disrupted World

51

experience managing collections, monuments, and land holdings providing distinct visitor engagement experiences (Plaza et al. 2021).

Heritage and Tourism Heritage is a fundamental part of the tourism sector, which itself is often a major industry for specific locations (Timothy and Boyd 2003). Individual places of historic interest are the focus for tourists searching for unique and authentic experiences which meaningfully relate to different places and communities. In a globalised industry more often than not it is ‘heritage’ which provides a unique selling point (USP) for destination image (Su et al. 2020a). The value of heritage is now better recognised with analyses quantifying economic contribution to the tourism economy, and contribution to national economies, expressed as Gross Value Added (GVA figures taking into account the wider impact of workforce, products and services (Lawton et al. 2018). Understanding heritage as a subset of the tourism industry can still prove challenging in terms of recognising fully its wider contribution to places and societies (Holtorf 2011). Whilst the historic built environment provides the canvas in which tourism industry can flourish, it remains challenging to fully recognise the implicit ways heritage supports successful community building within those locations. Tourists are clearly attracted to historic places with varied architecture and a high quality built environment, but making the case for the successes of a tourism industry to fully reinvest in proactive beneficial management and conservation of the historic environment remains hard fought (Caserta and Paolo Russo 2002). Nonetheless, tourists spend more at historic sites and spend longer exploring heritage locations. Tourists are prepared to travel further in order to tick high profile historic sites off bucket lists, and feel more positive about spending time in a historic location (Mudarra-Fernandez et al. 2019). Analyses demonstrate high enjoyment levels and motivation to visit historical cultural locations and tourism attractions (Kim and Kim 2019). Heritage underpins many cities success on a world stage despite rhetoric around the attractiveness of futuristic urban development and design. The study of different locations’ ‘destination image’ and marketing campaigns often under-appreciate the use of heritage imagery within the image-making (Hankinson 2004). Food, ambience, and the wider hospitality experience linked to intangible aspects of society remain intimately tied to heritage cultural expressions of the culture of distinct communities, regional identities and nationalities (Hernandez-Rojas and Alcocer 2021). Equally, heritage influences design across development, hospitality settings, retail and product design which see vestiges of the past through use of colour, imagery, or style (Barron 2021). The commercial offerings of organisations providing touristic experiences have heritage front and centre in gift shops’ ranges of merchandise. This is notably seen in growth of global museum brands which cities compete to attract.

52

I. Baxter

Professionalisation and Policy From a tourism growth perspective, feeling in the heritage sector sees viewpoints expressed of it being negatively exploited for purely economic purpose associated with quantity over quality. However, seeing health, social, environmental, and spatial issues have been gaining better traction as equal considerations by policy makers and within industry expounding to consumer trends. This has finally caught up with academic debate which has had a more rounded consideration of the inter-­ related contexts for heritage over a more prolonged period (Jones 2017). The need for sophistication in organisational strategy and operations of both tourism and conservation focused organisations has driven professionalisation within the sector. Recognition is made of the web of complexity in relationships as an organisational development issue, and the aims and objectives of organisations and the need to understand its stakeholders have meant that the role (or value) for heritage has had to be re-articulated in these multiple contexts and relationships (Kryder-Reid et al. 2018). Heritage management might be argued to be maturing as an industry sector with practitioners interacting daily with other policy and practice contexts, in allied sectors such as development, spatial planning, land management, community development, healthcare and so on (Labadi et al. 2021). The longstanding debate between conservation and development is ongoing (Ying 2020; Pendlebury 2013). We are now trying to sustainably balance preservation with the utilisation of the historic environment and heritage assets for other purposes. Traditional viewpoints prevail whereby damage to heritage may occur from the point of view of the heritage professional, or an underlying feeling that heritage protection is a barrier to development from the point of view of the developer. There continue to be contested issues such as debate on over tourism (Szromek et al. 2021), the relationship between tourism economy and local jobs and access to affordable housing, or iconic heritage assets threatened from development perceived as unsympathetic. Push-pull pressures between heritage and tourism persist, and are stoked for good media coverage, but maturity is normally now seen in conversations between stakeholders and managers of the historic environment. As consideration of heritage as a policy issue matures, the wider contexts and opportunities for heritage are more fully considered. These might be termed moral, social and intergenerational (MSI) where found at the nexus of heritage management and tourism management practice. These MSI duties incorporate issues, rights and expectations such as equality, diversity, access, equity and environmental stewardship, and where embraced through recognition and discussion recognise the role of heritage within society supporting liveability in and experience of places for stakeholders – whether host communities or visitors (Oppio et al. 2018). The social success of places are what draw tourists and should help to sustain those communities. A virtuous circle remains a key goal, and the mainstreaming of heritage as a policy issue in many countries now enables consideration in economic and social policy instruments.

5  Heritage and Tourism Organisations in a Disrupted World

53

Global Business Environment Heritage tourism organisations operate in a globally competitive service environment of products and experiences. Macro and micro trends and other external influences drive and challenge development and change within heritage tourism (Nica 2015). The monitoring of these trends is highly sophisticated with granular analysis for different types and motivations of consumer groups (Chen and Zhou 2020). Trend analysis, with classic management tools for understanding the business environment, can be usefully applied to heritage in all its forms as product, service, experience or built environment, thus reinforcing and providing evidence for the wider articulations of intrinsic or instrumental value of it (Su et al. 2020b). Where heritage is understood and articulated in political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental realms it is better leveraged for positive co-creation and management of tourism rather than exploitative use (American Alliance of Museums 2017). A further key driver is health, both mental and physical. Heritage engagement is good for people where it positively links to cultural expression for individuals and community interrelationships. These links can be seen as an enhanced aspect of the authenticity searched for in tourism as a leisure time activity, recognised through the analysis of macro trends as a reaction to the pace of modern working lives and the effects on globalisation and mediatisation of the world around us. Though a term which is hotly debated, authenticity is a key motivator for visitors looking for places and experiences that are ‘real’, ‘matter’ and provide a depth of experience beyond the transactional (Nguyen 2020). This reaffirms heritage as being an embedded part of the wider built and natural environment, and where signified through effective marketing and interpretation becomes a fundamental part of what are seen by visitors as vibrant places with creative expressions of the identity and culture of places and people.

Disruption and Challenge Disruption, challenge and innovation means the notion of change is a constant in business thinking and adaptation to and taking advantage of its wider business environment. Tourism businesses have to be highly responsive and as they compete for the attention of potential visitors in a global marketplace of leisure experiences (Zafari et al. 2020). The ability to adapt to change is expressed by businesses, places and sites, through strategic, tactical and daily operational decisions of those managers responsible for the provision and marketing of tourist experiences. Selling heritage as a tourism commodity via marketing, interpretation, experience development and service provision takes place against the backdrop of that shifting world. The heritage tourism offer therefore needs to encompass those wider shifts and trends which move at different speeds depending on different variables associated with

54

I. Baxter

scale. The macro to the micro influences what the tourism offer needs to do to gain attention and be successful. Individual mega-events can cause seismic paradigm shifts for both the operating environment and the need to reflect and consider strategic and tactical response (ibid.). They further radically alter the present and future for organisations, sites, places and people. Over the past 2 years, there have been three major ‘event horizons’ which have affected heritage tourism, emerging from longer term influences charted widely, although not prepared for. The most high profile one is the emergence of the global COVID-19 pandemic. The virus’ emergence as an existential and real threat to the way that we interact and the way in which tourism businesses can operate, whilst sudden, was predicted through zoonotic disease studies over an extended period. The second major event horizon is the social change movement advocating a more equal and diverse society. Multiple social, political and cultural pressures coalesced around the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement in 2020, also encompassing into its orbit wider issues related to rights and treatment of ethnically diverse communities in different locations, interpretation of history and culture politicised and mediatised under the label of ‘Culture Wars’ and reaction against cultural appropriation. A highly complex and contested area of argument, discussion, reaction and expectation, the uniting of events and influences outside the heritage or tourism sector brought about a distinct need to come to terms with the issues and demonstrate commitment to fairness in society. The third major event horizon is the emergent climate crisis, and acceptance of the requirement for sustainable development. Again, behavioural shift in this realm has been long needed, but record weather events in the past 3 years, growing calls of the global environmental movement with unassailable arguments for intergenerational equity, and the political commitments made in global forums such as the gathering of governments to discuss environmental policies at the COP26 summit in Glasgow have combined with other factors such as those already mentioned above to prompt determined response from the heritage tourism community. The human interaction behavioural ramifications triggered by COVID-19 along with the push for sustainable travel behaviour further show where drivers combine to have a compound effect.

COVID-19 The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound effect on heritage tourism. Controls on movement of people saw tourism as an industry virtually shutdown overnight as travel was restricted to essential movement, and non-essential facilities and sites were ordered to close. Visitor locations were shuttered and streets were empty as the pandemic spread. Bustling cities and normally packed tourist sites were deserted (Rosin and Gombault 2021). This triggered a crisis within tourism organisations as the customer base vanished due to people limiting their social and leisure

5  Heritage and Tourism Organisations in a Disrupted World

55

interactions to a short period of daily outside exercise in a small radius from their homes. Restricted recreation for fresh air and exercise in some of the most controlled social situations anybody had ever experienced. However, leisure and tourism demand didn't so much stop as reset with this global behavioural change, with different kinds of demand for heritage engagement coming to the fore. Local open space, parks, walks, village squares, and highly localised physical activity that might previously have been overlooked as mundane occurrences or the everyday unnoticed physical environment in which we lived became special and more appreciated. As lockdowns lasted longer, physical and mental engagement with the world beyond the home came to be deemed as hugely important to mental and physical health in order to maintain social and cultural connection. As forms of recreation changed with group activities becoming solitary pursuits, it meant that human interaction and behavioural norms changed as social distancing and mask- wearing took effect. This prompted a fundamental rethink of how visitors interact with each other and the space around them from a risk management perspective (Historic Environment Scotland 2021). The pandemic changed the structure of the heritage and tourism workforce and the experiential provision by the sector. Workforce reduction was required in many organisations: volunteer teams, the mainstay of many heritage sites operations and smaller community attractions and museums, had to be stood down. The older demographic group that makes up the volunteer sector was the one most at risk from the disease, so capacity within organisations was hugely reduced with knock-on longer-term consequences. Organisations had to look inward to maintain the very basics of organisational operation, then think quickly about core activity, then adapt to the changed circumstances and plan for possible futures. Finance and resilience of organisations had priority over service provision, and even the largest and most successful heritage organisations and museums have had to had to rely on government bailouts, undertake reorganisations and limit activities to maintain basic business continuity (National Lottery Heritage Fund 2021). The closure of physical sites led to a surge in interest to engage with cultural experiences via virtual means and through media, bringing about new and different pressures for organisations to pivot to virtual communication and engagement (Magliacani and Sorrentino 2021; Cardozo and Papadopoulos 2021; Vinals et al. 2021). Many organisations with limited capacity for digital engagement had to prioritise up-skilling to take advantage of this desire for engagement via online content and media. The standard communications and interpretation that heritage sites were providing was just not enough – with a surge in demand for deeper engagement, stories, virtual meetings, live-streamed talks and workshops. Skills gaps had to be supported by sector support and policy bodies, pushing long-standing organisational development investments across organisations which may previously had been the preserve of the marketing and communication teams. From fully curated and slickly designed content to Tik Tok memes, heritage tourism organisations over the course of 18 months exponentially increased the opportunities for new types of ‘visit’ and engagement opportunity (ibid.). The upheaval that the pandemic brought to the education sector and schooling meant that the heritage sector saw increased

56

I. Baxter

demand for enhancement and repurposing of resources to support cultural engagement and learning from home for children and adults alike. Equally, those few sites that were still accessible and ‘passively’ managed visitor sites, such as monuments or assets in the wider built and natural environment have in many cases seen engagement and interest increase. As people were unable to travel beyond their local area, natural and cultural heritage have been increasingly appreciated by those communities. This has separate synergies with reconfiguration of towns and cities with debate around ‘20-minute neighbourhoods’ as communities have reprioritised their focus on the local and community resilience in a global crisis. As sites began to re-open following the easing of lockdown restrictions, many heritage sites became places for people to gather in socially distanced fashion to reconnect with friends and family. The benefits of engaging with heritage and culture took on a further dimension as sites were perceived as safe locations to visit and a focus for enhanced emotion and reflection as an escape from the confines of restrictions on social lives (Sofaer et al. 2021).

Social Change The macro social change associated with representation and equality has affected tourism and heritage in a very particular way reacting to widespread groundswell feeling within marginalised societies, and played out physically in specific locales at flashpoints. This has forced heritage sector organisations to rethink its approaches and reaffirm its commitments to diversity and change, and reflect further on its practises and workforce development. The growth of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, particularly in the United States, has gained widespread media attention worldwide. Where statues and monuments were often a focus of attention, similar protest and resistance against power structures in society have been seen with cultural heritage organisations elsewhere. In the UK this has manifested itself in vandalism and graffiti in the public realm, with demonstrations in Bristol seeing the Edward Colston statue toppled and simmering debate around monuments and cultural collections, such as the Rhodes statues in Oxford college and the Benin collection in the British Museum, fiercely debated in the media and academia (Hicks 2021; Casbeard 2010; Moody and Small 2019). Heritage organisations were responding to this macro-driver considering sites’ alternative or poorly represented histories and cultural connections. The National Trust and English Heritage both undertook research projects to explore links between their publicly open sites and colonial links to slavery, as well as other alternative narratives which could be presented for a diverse visitor experience. The National Trust work on slavery was at the very sharp end of a widespread media debate dubbed ‘Culture wars’ diverting from the valid attempts of the organisations to interpret and engage with the widest possibly community of stakeholders and visitors (Huxtable et al. 2020). This debate spilled from the media into the political area, leading to hastily convened meetings between government ministers and

5  Heritage and Tourism Organisations in a Disrupted World

57

leaders of heritage organisations, museums and art galleries in receipt of public funding and a directive to ‘retain and explain’ rather than remove items from collections or demolish statues. This inevitably led to a resurgence of debate around the independence of heritage sector organisations to manage their own affairs, and the role of heritage within society, echoing the debates around the authorised heritage discourse which have played out in critical heritage studies. The wider context of social change, recognition of diversity and representation of different ethnic groups and communities has continued and will hasten the drive­in organisations for greater authenticity and cultural connection. A good example of this is seen with First Nations and Indigenous peoples continuing to fight for recognition and support both in terms of land rights and community development, as well as interpretation and raising of awareness around their cultural identity. The appointment of a First Nations community member as Secretary of State for the Interior is much welcomed in the USA.  In a trickledown effect, the National Park Service, acting as one of the major heritage and tourism management organisations in the USA has seen high profile director level appointments from more diverse backgrounds. The increasing debate around rights, ownership, and cultural appropriation can be linked to the debate associated with overtourism and the relationship between host communities and guest visitors. This debate has moved beyond the direct pressures of having too many people in a specific location into renewed discussion and consideration of the longer term effects on tourism’s relationship to places, and what ‘good tourism’ looks like to support community development and economic and community welfare in different locations (Vargas 2020; Giampiccoli et al. 2020).

Environmental Existentialism The third of the event horizons sees the climate crisis is more of an existential challenge for heritage and tourism organisations. It has both direct and indirect effects on sites, places and people whether it is through tourism flows, travel, energy use and transport, visitor trends and motivations, sustainable products and services, carrying capacities and long-term economic viability. Green tourism has matured as a concept over the past 30 years and is now a mainstream consideration by both providers and consumers. Green tourism behaviours may be associated more closely with heritage visitor attractions which are seen as part of the wider natural and cultural landscape continuum. The role which the heritage aspects of the built environment play in sustainable development, from the embedded carbon in historic buildings to the design and enhancement of the public realm which visitors use means that the role which heritage tourism organisations play in regeneration in wider conversations around places is of expanding importance (Onecha et al. 2021; Wise and Jimura 2020). The disruption elsewhere means that there is a discussion prompted within the sector considering heritage as an asset in variant forms for use, repurposing, and engagement with not only for responsible  tourism, but also for wider society.

58

I. Baxter

Conclusion Each of these major shifts (or event horizons) have triggered a tipping point in how we think about management of heritage and tourism, the management of organisations themselves, and their ability to create, recreate, co-create, and innovate heritage and tourism experiences. The visitor experience has never been more intimately linked with the notion of stewardship and cause, long espoused by NGOs such as the National Trusts and other voluntary sector organisations which have capitalised on communities’ desires to look after and share their cultural assets with others. The paradigm of what the heritage-tourism relationship is, and how heritage and tourism organisations work, has shifted from product to people and place. This has ramifications for the relationships between cultural assets, owners, managers, stakeholders and the understanding of motivations, needs and desires between them. New kinds of tourism have appeared, driven by these event horizons, and there is an imperative to mould these on a ‘good growth’ or responsible trajectory without the sole goal of economic benefit. The notion of the triple bottom line, widely accepted in business as a corporate responsibility to benefit the environmental and social realm has implicitly been a raison d’etre for many heritage and tourism organisations which are impact focused for a long time. This articulates as heritage mainstreamed in policy consideration. Equally the change in the nature of engagement with the users, consumers and stakeholders for heritage products, services and innovations mean that the embedded nature of thinking hard about what sustainable management is and does within heritage organisations is irreversible.Disruption and shock on a global scale has challenged us all, and priority in the sector now is acceptance that new normal is lean, agile, embedded and community harnessed sustainable approaches with new financial models, and a constant reconsideration of what the heritage and tourism organisational environment and experience of the future might be.

References American Alliance of Museums (2017) TrendsWatch (Center for the Future of Museums). AAM, Last Modified 2017-12-04. https://www.aam-­us.org/programs/center-­for-­the-­future-­of-­ museums/trendswatch/. Accessed 17 Dec 2022 Barczak B, Kafel T, Magliocca P (2021) Network approaches and strategic management: exploration opportunities and new trends. J Entrep Manag Innov 17(3):7–35. https://doi. org/10.7341/20211731. Accessed 17 Dec 2022 Barron L (2021) The creative influence of history in fashion practice: the legacy of the silk road and Chinese-inspired culture-led design. Fash Prac J Des Creat Process Fash Ind 13(2):275–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/17569370.2020.1866857. Accessed 17 Dec 2022 Blooloop (2021) “blooloop.” @blooloop. https://blooloop.com/. Accessed 17 Dec 2022 Cardozo TM, Papadopoulos C (2021) Heritage artefacts in the COVID-19 era: the Aura and Authenticity of 3D models. Open Archaeol 7(1):519–539. https://doi.org/10.1515/ opar-­2020-­0147 Casbeard R (2010) Slavery heritage in Bristol: history, memory and forgetting. Ann Leis Research 13(1–2):143–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2010.9686842

5  Heritage and Tourism Organisations in a Disrupted World

59

Caserta S, Paolo Russo A (2002) More means worse: asymmetric information, spatial displacement and sustainable heritage tourism. J Cult Econ 26(4):245–260. https://doi.org/10.102 3/A:1019905923457 Chen J, Zhou W (2020) The exploration of travel motivation research : a scientometric analysis based on CiteSpace. Collnet J Scientometric Inf Manag 14(2):257–283. https://doi.org/10.108 0/09737766.2021.1906779 de Clippele MS, Lambrecht L (2015) Art law & Balances. Increased protection of cultural heritage law vs. private ownership: towards clash or balance? Int J Cult Prop 22(2–3):259–278. https:// doi.org/10.1017/s0940739115000119 Giampiccoli A, Mtapuri O, Dluzewska A (2020) Investigating the intersection between sustainable tourism and community-based tourism. Tourism 68(4):415–433. https://doi. org/10.37741/t.68.4.4 Hankinson G (2004) The brand images of tourism destinations: a study of the saliency of organic images. J Prod Brand Manag 13(1):6–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420410523803 Hernandez-Rojas RD, Alcocer NH (2021) The role of traditional restaurants in tourist destination loyalty. PLoS One 16(6):e0253088. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253088 Hicks D (2021) Brutish Museums: the Benin bronzes, colonial violence and cultural restitution. Pluto Press, London Higgins V, Douglas D (2020) Communities and cultural heritage: global issues, local values, 1st edn. Routledge, London Historic Environment Scotland (2021) Minimum operating standards for property management and visitor operations. Historic Environment Scotland, Edinburgh Holtorf C (2011) The changing contribution of cultural heritage to society. Mus Int 63(1–2):8–16 Huxtable, SA, Fowler C, Kefalas C, Slocombe E (2020) Interim report on the connections between colonialism and properties now in the care of the national trust, including links with historic slavery. https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/who-­we-­are/research/addressing-­our-­histories-­of-­ colonialism-­and-­historic-­slavery. Accessed online 17 Dec 2022 International National Trusts Organisation (2021) Who we are – The International National Trusts Organisation (INTO). https://www.into.org/who-­we-­are/. Accessed online 17 Dec 2022 Jones S (2017) Wrestling with the social value of heritage: problems, dilemmas and opportunities. J Community Archaeol Herit 4(1):21–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/20518196.2016.1193996 Kim H, Kim B (2019) The evaluation of visitor experiences using the peak-end rule. J Herit Tour 14(5–6):561–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873x.2019.1575388 Kryder-Reid E, Foutz JW, Wood E, Zimmerman LJ (2018) I just don’t ever use that word’: investigating stakeholders’ understanding of heritage. Int J Herit Stud: IJHS 24(7):743–763. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1339110 Labadi, S, Giliberto F, Rosetti I, Shetabi L, Yildirim E (2021) Heritage and the sustainable development goals: policy guidance for heritage and development actors: ICOMOS. https://www. icomos.org/en/focus/un-­sustainable-­development-­goals/91455-­icomos-­releases-­sustainable-­ development-­goals-­policy-­guidance-­for-­heritage-­and-­development-­actors. Accessed 17 Dec 2022 Lawton R, Fujiwara D, Mourato S, Bakhshi H, Lagarde A, Davies J (2018) The economic value of heritage: a benefit transfer study. Nesta, London Magliacani M, Sorrentino D (2021) Reinterpreting museums' intended experience during the COVID-19 pandemic: insights from Italian university museums. Mus Manag Curatorship 37:353–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2021.1954984 Moody J, Small S (2019) Slavery and public history at the big house remembering and forgetting at American plantation museums and British country houses. J Glob Slavery 4(1):34–68. https:// doi.org/10.1163/2405836x-­00401003 Mudarra-Fernandez AB, Carrillo-Hidalgo I, Pulido-Fernandez JI (2019) Factors influencing tourist expenditure by tourism typologies: a systematic review. Anatolia-Int J Tour Hosp Res 30(1):18–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2018.1495086

60

I. Baxter

National Lottery Heritage Fund (2021) Responding to coronavirus (COVID-19) | The National Lottery Heritage Fund. NLHF, https://www.heritagefund.org.uk/funding/responding-­ coronavirus-­covid-­19. Accessed 22 Sept 2021 Nguyen THH (2020) A reflective-formative hierarchical component model of perceived authenticity. J Hosp Tour Res 44(8):1211–1234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348020944460 Nica AM (2015) Cultural heritage and tourism competitiveness in central and Eastern Europe. Int J Econ Pract Theor 5(3):248–255 Onecha B, Dotor A, Marmolejo-Duarte C (2021) Beyond cultural and historic values, sustainability as a new kind of value for historic buildings. Sustainability 13(15). https://doi.org/10.3390/ su13158248 Oppio A, Maltese I, Mariotti I (2018) Integrated valorization of cultural heritage: A case study of the Cammino dei Monaci Route. In: Integrated evaluation for the management of contemporary cities. Springer, pp 401–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­78271-­3_32 Pendlebury J (2013) Conservation values, the authorised heritage discourse and the conservationplanning assemblage. Int J Herit Stud: IJHS 19(7):709–727. https://doi.org/10.1080/1352725 8.2012.700282 Plaza B, Aranburu I, Esteban M (2021) Superstar museums and global media exposure: mapping the positioning of the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao through networks. Eur Plan Stud 30:50–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1935753 Rosin U, Gombault A (2021) Venice in crisis: the brutal marker of Covid-19. Int J Arts Manag 23(2):75–88 Sofaer J, Davenport B, Sorensen MLS, Gallou E, Uzzell D (2021) Heritage sites, value and wellbeing: learning from the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Int J Herit Stud 27:1117–1132. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2021.1955729 Su DN, Nguyen ANN, Quynh NTT, Thao PT (2020a) The link between travel motivation and satisfaction towards a heritage destination: the role of visitor engagement, visitor experience and heritage destination image. Tour Manag Perspect 34:100634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tmp.2020.100634 Su XW, Li X, Wang YC, Zheng ZM, Huang YS (2020b) Awe of intangible cultural heritage: the perspective of ICH tourists. SAGE Open 10(3):215824402094146. https://doi. org/10.1177/2158244020941467 Szromek AR, Kruczek Z, Walas B (2021) Stakeholder attitudes towards tools for sustainable tourism in historical cities. Tour Recreat Res 48:419–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/0250828 1.2021.1931774 Timothy DJ, Boyd SW (2003) Heritage tourism (themes in tourism). Pearson Education, New York Vargas A (2020) Covid-19 crisis: a new model of tourism governance for a new time. Worldw Hosp Tour Themes 12(6):691–699. https://doi.org/10.1108/whatt-­07-­2020-­0066 Vinals MJ, Gilabert-Sansalvador L, Sanasaryan A, Teruel-Serrano MD, Dares M (2021) Online synchronous model of interpretive sustainable guiding in heritage sites: the avatar tourist visit. Sustainability 13(13). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137179 Wise N, Jimura T (2020) Changing spaces in historical places. In: Wise N, Jimura T (eds) Tourism, cultural heritage and urban regeneration. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 1–19 Ying KK (2020) Heritage preservation versus development: the case of Queen’s pier. Springer, Singapore Zafari K, Biggemann S, Garry T (2020) Mindful management of relationships during periods of crises: a model of trust, doubt and relational adjustments. Ind Mark Manag 88:278–286. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.05.026

Chapter 6

The Role of Crisis Management in Managing Cultural Heritage Tourism in a Covid Era Lori Pennington-Gray and Estefania Basurto

Abstract  Cultural Heritage tourism can be greatly impacted by unexpected disruptions. These can range from natural disasters to pandemics to economic crises. The long-term sustainability of these destinations are dependent on effectively managing for these disruptions. Effective management includes being prepared and responsive. Some argue that lack of preparedness heightens the impact of the disruption and can lead to a crisis. If a cultural heritage tourism destination is to be able to mitigate disruptions and bounce back better, there needs to be an active process that managers of the destination as well as cultural heritage sites can invest in in an ongoing process. This chapter will examine (1) types of disruptions that are particularly concerning for cultural heritage sites, (2) a process for stakeholders to create or enhance which will make the destination more responsive and (3) a variety of criteria to be considered by cultural heritage site managers to improve their responsiveness and resilience. Keywords  Crisis management · Covid · Heritage sites · Tourism · Recovery

L. Pennington-Gray (*) Richardson Family SmartState Center for Economic Excellence in Tourism and Economic Development, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA e-mail: [email protected] E. Basurto Richardson Family SmartState Center for Economic Excellence in Tourism and Economic Development, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA Universidad Laica Eloy Alfaro de Manabi, Manta, Ecuador e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 P.-L. Yu et al. (eds.), Heritage and Cultural Heritage Tourism, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44800-3_6

61

62

L. Pennington-Gray and E. Basurto

Introduction United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Heritage destinations represent the cultural and natural legacy of the world. They have an enormous sentimental value for communities and, in most cases, are a symbol of pride among locals (du Cross and McKercher 2015; Timothy 2011). There is a special nexus between tourism and heritage, mainly because many tourism activities are highly dependent on cultural and natural resources. Tourism arrivals tend to be higher when there are cultural heritage attractions within the destination, this leads to increased revenues which provide funding for promotions, in addition to preservation and conservation efforts (Basurto-Cedeño and Pennington-­Gray 2016). In most UNESCO heritage sites, the community is highly dependent on tourism activities; thus, the destination tends to struggle financially when a crisis occurs. Since tourism is volatile and vulnerable to external drivers of change, crisis management becomes pivotal to ensure the destinations’ financial sustainability and the continuity of funds for preservation, especially in heritage sites. In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, the decrease of international tourism arrivals reached 78%, causing a loss of $1.2 trillion in export revenues from tourism in 2020 (Shirvani Dastgerdi et  al. 2021). Although these values are on the rise, the long-term impacts have indirectly affected communities, livelihoods and funds to preserve heritage destinations. Many strategies have arisen due to the spread of COVID19. These typically have centered around limiting contact, spreading out crowds and keeping the doors open to allow for visitation, so as to minimize the negative economic impact of COVID. Due to the implementation of the global vaccination program and the availability of information about personal protection measures related to COVID19, many heritage tourist destinations have gradually opened on more traditional schedules. As part of the reactivation process and in the light of recent events, investment in crisis management frameworks has become more necessary than ever to mitigate the impact of future crises and increase preparedness for emerging risks. Thus, the purpose of this chapter is to obtain a comprehensive understanding of health- related crises issues within the heritage sites and to provide practical recommendations for both practitioners and scholars. Specifically, this chapter is divided into three parts: the first part briefly reviews the relevant concepts and definitions related to cultural heritage tourism and crises, the second part examines current measures related to COVID19 and management, and the third part provides recommendations for both practitioners and researchers.

 elated Concepts and Definitions UNESCO World R Heritage Sites The World Heritage Site List is a program promoted by UNESCO to preserve extraordinary natural, cultural, and mixed sites for generations to come. The rationale behind this idea is that certain places in the world have intrinsic characteristics

6  The Role of Crisis Management in Managing Cultural Heritage Tourism in a Covid…

63

which make them unique and worth maintaining. However, the World Heritage Centre (WHC) argues that the preservation and sustainability of such places need to be overseen by an external unbiased party (the WHC) because governments are different worldwide. For a site to be considered a “World Heritage Site,” it needs to demonstrate it has a genuinely outstanding universal value, and it is the best representation of its category available on the planet (Leask and Fyall 2006; UNESCO 2021b). A site’s outstanding universal value (OUV) needs to be documented and at least fulfill one of the criteria proposed by the WHC. World Heritage Sites (WHS) could be natural, cultural, or mixed. Being part of the World Heritage List is considered an honor and recognition of value, but it is also a commitment to engage in a sustainable approach.

Relationship Between World Heritage Sites and Tourism Tourism is an economic activity capable of generating billions of exports across the world. However, the tourism industry is not self-sufficient and often relies on the destination’s resources. Thus, WHSs constitute crucial tourism assets. According to Leask and Fyall (2006) and Timothy and Boyd (2006), there has been an increase in visitor numbers to WHSs in the past decades. This growth in visitation could be attributed to the intensification of promotion and marketing campaigns by destination managers, the decrease in the cost of airline transportation, the increase of awareness of diverse cultures, and the use of social media as a promotional channel. The close relationship between WHS and the tourism industry (Fig. 6.1) has been categorized as codependent (Timothy and Boyd 2006). The tourism business depends on the availability of natural and cultural resources that could be used to attract visitors, and WHSs depend on the economic revenues generated by tourism.

Fig. 6.1  Relationship between WHS and Tourism

64

L. Pennington-Gray and E. Basurto

Crisis and Health-Related Crises A crisis is defined as “the perception of an unpredictable event that threatens important expectancies of stakeholders and can seriously impact an organization’s performance and generate negative outcomes (Coombs 2014: 2).” Crisis events are perceptual, unpredictable, associated with severe impacts, and capable of shifting stakeholders’ expectations (Coombs 2014). In a tourism context, these crisis events can produce distorted images of the destination and related hospitality products and negatively affect tourists’ perception of the destination/hospitality products’ comfort, attractiveness, safety, and appeal (Santana 2004). The tourism crisis management framework covers several types of crises, ranging from natural disasters, technological or man-made crises, health-related crises, or conflict-based incidents (Pennington-Gray and Pizam 2011b). Due to the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, more attention has been given to those destination crises and their impact due to disease. Health- related crises can be divided into (1) epidemic diseases, which can rapidly spread among people (e.g., influenza), (2) pandemic diseases, which can spread through populations across different regions on a large scale (e.g., COVID19, cholera, smallpox), and (3) endemic diseases which are associated with specific geographical locations and that many times they are transmitted by vectors, such as mosquitoes (e.g., Malaria in Africa) (Pennington-Gray and Pizam 2011a, b). Furthermore, diseases can be divided into food-borne diseases (e.g., Salmonellosis, botulism), water-borne diseases (e.g., cholera, enterotoxigenic, E. coli, typhoid), and respiratory infections (e.g., COVID19).

Impacts of Health-Related Crises In the tourism sector, many disease outbreaks, if not appropriately managed, become a crisis. When they move to the tourist level, tourists often cancel or modify their trips to avoid getting infected. From an individual perspective, tourists’ concerns about potential health risks can seriously affect the reputation of destinations and their ability to sustain continuous flows of economic income (Kozak et al. 2007). Additionally, the effect generated by crises can impact both the business level and affect the image of an entire destination. (Williams and Baláž 2015). From the business point of view, a crisis can severely affect the regular operation, even compromising its economic sustainability in the short, medium, and long term, depending on the magnitude of the crisis, and the levels of preparation of the company, and the importance that was have given to risk management. When a crisis generally impacts the image of a destination, the consequences translate to a decrease in the number of visitors and cancellations that affect both the hotel sector, tourism operators, and entities directly linked to tourism (Rittichainuwat and Chakraborty 2009). It is important to note that this impact may worsen the quality of life of communities, especially those dependent on tourist activity, as is the case in many cultural destinations.

6  The Role of Crisis Management in Managing Cultural Heritage Tourism in a Covid…

65

 ignificance of Managing Health-Related Crises S in the Tourism Industry Due to recent global events caused by climate change and the appearance of new disease outbreaks, and especially after the COVID19 pandemic, there is a growing interest in health- related risk management. The hotel industry is a tourism subsector that has paid particular attention to investment in crisis management (Spennemann 2021; Pennington-Gray et  al. 2011a; Ritchie 2008). The impact that the COVID19 pandemic has had on the hospitality sector borders on a 73% decrease in income, and an equally alarming figure occurs with tourist businesses located near UNESCO heritage sites, where an average decrease is reported 63% worldwide (UNESCO 2021a, b). Faced with a post-COVID19 scenario, the new paradigm of the tourism industry focuses on offering a healthy and safe environment for guests, residents, employees, and other interested parties (Brouder et al. 2020; Williams and Baláž 2015). Crisis management, therefore, has greater preponderance today. Implementing strategic crisis management plans can help destinations and tourist establishments prepare for a crisis, mitigate adverse outcomes, and recover (Pennington-Gray et al. 2011a, b). From a macro perspective, a comprehensive crisis management plan should consider the different stages of a crisis event (i.e., before the crisis, during the crisis, and after the crisis) and assess the intrinsic characteristics of the crisis typologies. (Coombs 2014; Pennington-Gray and Pizam 2011a, b). From a micro perspective, crisis management practices must cover different aspects, including preparedness, reduction, response, and recovery (Ritchie 2008). Finally, effective communication is essential to transmit security to the public, assure interested parties, and protect the reputational assets of organizations (Coombs 2014; Ritchie 2008; Pennington-­ Gray et al. 2011a, b).

Handling Crisis in Cultural Heritage Sites Heritage tourism has always been a driver of visitors at the local and international levels. It is inherent among human beings to reconnect with their past while being driven by different motivations (novelty, self-exploration, enriching knowledge, connecting with their roots, etc.). At the international/global level, people relate heritage tourism with monuments and sites that are well known and symbolize regions, countries, ethnic groups, and even periods (Timothy 2011). These sites and monuments, in many cases, are listed (or tentatively listed) on the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage List (WHL). For many years, preservation efforts to maintain natural and cultural heritage resources have been focused on keeping the pristine state of the assets. This approach has ignored the influence of what is happening in the next-door systems and areas located outside the buffer zone, ignoring the nature of the relationship between the heritage resources and their surroundings (Berkes et al. 2002). Furthermore, crisis

66

L. Pennington-Gray and E. Basurto

management has not been a priority for many heritage sites managers or governments for which the crises have had a more significant impact. However, some risk management literature has been recommended by UNESCO.  The most widely distributed are (1) UNESCO, WHC, ICOMOS, ICCROMS, IUCN manual for managing disaster risks (framework); (2) Ten essentials UNISDR (framework); (3) UNESCO, WHC, ICCROMS, ICORP, MARSH Heritage, and resilience, issues, and opportunities for reducing disaster risk. The manual recognizes the necessity of engaging in a risk assessment framework to protect the OUV in WHSs. Primarily this framework provides logical and sequential steps for managing risks in cultural sites. It revises the importance of improving infrastructure, risk monitoring, the inclusion of stakeholders, and the role of traditional knowledge in risk management and building resilience. It focuses on providing case studies to acknowledge the importance of risk management and implementing it in heritage sites. Since 2010, the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) has championed the need for building resilient cities through their Making Cities Resilience Campaign (Oteng-Ababio et al. 2015). The primary goal is to get cities ready to recover after disasters. The UNISDR campaign advocates for the involvement of the governmental bodies and citizens in collaborative efforts to reduce risk and increase engineering resilience. The relationship between tangible and intangible heritage is established through this publication, and the importance of multi-hazard monitoring of external and internal threats is mentioned. It also acknowledges the importance of heritage in developing important constructs for sustainable development, such as social cohesion, sense of pride, adaptation, commitment, and psychological well-being.

 ajor Health-Related Crises in UNESCO World M Heritage Sites Outbreaks of health-related crises concern the potentially severe health consequences and the high costs to the industry, community, and the environment (CDC 2015). Specifically, the World Health Organization [WHO] (2020) has identified COVID-19, Norovirus (NoV), and influenza outbreaks as the significant public health challenges for the tourism industry in UNESCO heritage sites. Thus, this section reviews these three health-related crises respectively.

Coronavirus COVID 19 At the end of 2019, the world experienced a new disease, COVID-19, caused by the SARS- COV2 virus, a coronavirus variant with higher mortality rates and percentages of complications in older adults. With more than 4.8 million deaths until

6  The Role of Crisis Management in Managing Cultural Heritage Tourism in a Covid…

67

October 2021 and cases reported in all countries, COVID19 is cataloged as a massive health crisis. The limited knowledge of the transmission of the virus during the first months of 2020, added to the lack of vaccines, resulted in many countries taking lockdown measures, as close borders and implement mobility restrictions. Therefore, one of the sectors with the most significant negative economic implications was tourism. With a decrease of more than 73% in international arrivals and devastating financial impact, COVID19 transformed the way of doing tourism. Destinations were forced to take measures to safeguard the health of their visitors, and UNESCO heritage sites were no exception. According to UNESCO’s World Heritage in the face of COVID 19 report, published in May 2021, visitors to UNESCO destinations had a 66% decrease, and up to 53% of jobs (permanent and temporary) were lost in heritage destinations. On average, UNESCO destinations worldwide were completely closed for 157 days, and economic problems in surrounding communities are reported in 78% of cases. As of the second half of 2020, some UNESCO destinations opened their doors, in some cases with limited capacity. Some implementations include social distancing, the use of masks, and the availability of sanitary dispensers for hand disinfection. Reactivation measures vary in each destination, and their effectiveness is yet being studied. According to UNESCO (2021a, b), the vast majority of properties that are part of the list of world heritage sites experienced some form of closure. Today, there are still 13% that remain closed as a preventive measure against the spread of COVID19. Beyond the economic repercussions, the properties have reported an increase in mining and illegal logging cases and vandalism cases mainly due to the reduction of park rangers and monitoring and maintenance personnel; Compromising the sustainability of the outstanding universal value. It is important to note that the fundamental role of heritage is to act as a catalyst for employment, knowledge, scientific research, and cultural emergence. The massive closure of UNESCO heritage sites during the COVID19 pandemic made it impossible for this role to be fulfilled in many cases. For example, devastating economic impacts have been reported in the sites’ communities, which compromised their way of life and plunged many people into poverty (UNESCO 2021a, b).

Different Impacts of COVID 19 The UNESCO World Heritage List properties have reported a wide range of impacts during the COVID 19 pandemic. For example, some properties reported favorable effects, especially those threatened by over tourism in the past (UNESCO 2021a, b). Similarly, some natural areas registered an increase in the number of visitors and even received local recognition for being considered spaces that promote the community’s well-being in the face of social interaction restrictions (Hodor et al. 2021). In the same way, some sites reported the adoption of new trends for visits and

68

L. Pennington-Gray and E. Basurto

collection of funds through the use of virtual platforms, which to a certain extent, guaranteed their conservation during lockdowns (UNESCO 2021a, b). However, in general, difficulties were reported in allocating resources for maintenance. Thus, one of the primary sources was entrance fees, which in some cases decreased up to 52% in 2020 (UNESCO 2021a, b). Likewise, most of the sites implemented some form of infrastructure (use of sanitizers, signage for distancing, etc.) or implementation of good health practices to ensure safety (use of a mask, frequent washing or disinfection of surfaces, etc.). Finally, there seems to be a consensus that the way of doing tourism in heritage sites has changed, and therefore, there has been an opportunity to build back better (Hodor et al. 2021; UNESCO 2021a, b; Rutynskyi and Kushniruk 2020).

 indings from the Tourism Crisis Management Initiative F (TCMI) Study TCMI studied the behavior of tourists in the United States and other destinations around the world during the COVID19 pandemic from its inception to the present. Results showed changes in the traveler’s behavior regarding perceived severity of the virus, perceived vulnerability. Throughout the different stages of data collection, it was possible to denote that tourists’ anxiety levels were related to exposure to the media and their ability to protect themselves against the virus. In accordance, the study showed that post-COVID travel in the United States tended to demand the implementation of new infrastructure in tourism destinations that provides some protection against the virus. The results highlight that tourists perceive the following are essential for traveling in the US: the availability of touchless hand sanitizer stations at all entrances and exits (91.4%), signage encouraging social distance (86.9%) and the availability of online alternatives (virtual infrastructure) for those who do not want to be physically in the tourist destination (90.1%). Regarding good practices and biosafety protocols, tourists require the continuous disinfection and sanitization of shared spaces (90.5%), cleaning and disinfection of surfaces (88.7%), and providing employees with personal protective equipment (88.3%). From the point of view of communication, it is essential for tourists that the destinations provide clear communication of the implemented sanitation practices (90.5%) to feel safe during their visit. Finally, regarding changes in tourist behavior, it is suggested to reinforce social distancing (86.9%) to avoid crowding, and to indicate that tourists with flu symptoms need to stay at home (89.4%). The current tourism environment has been improving for heritage tourism sites, due to the availability of vaccines and the extensive vaccination campaigns. Many destinations are reopening their doors to tourists, and thus, their needs are being addressed through management practices which help reduce the spread of COVID19 and other potential disease outbreaks.

6  The Role of Crisis Management in Managing Cultural Heritage Tourism in a Covid…

69

It is important to note that before the COVID19 pandemic, heritage destinations, particularly those that have the UNESCO designation, experienced an increase in the flow of visitors and an increase in funds from tourist activity. However, due to international mobility restrictions to which some destinations are still subject, the continuity of international tourists to heritage destinations has been limited, and domestic tourism has been encouraged. Given this, it is essential to promote the image of a safe destination that meets the requirements of the demand, both internationally and in the domestic market. Implementing the strategies suggested by the TCMI study (Fig.  6.2) will help accomplish that goal and reduce anxiety levels among tourists and visitors. Moreover, active awareness campaigns are vital. Destinations must implement biosecurity protocols and actively communicate to the community, national and international visitors what they are doing to promote safety. Finally, self-protection measures for tourists play a fundamental role in preventing the spread of diseases. Therefore, heritage destinations should also implement campaigns to educate tourists and visitors.

Crisis Communication Practices The management of the spread of pathogens in UNESCO heritage sites could focus on establishing standards of good practice and continuous disinfection of surfaces where required and possible. The establishment of monitoring and control programs for potential threats is highly suggested as a constant practice in places with more significant tourist traffic. It is essential to point out that effective communication cannot be ignored as a risk control measure. With globalization, the widespread use of the internet, and the media coverage of disease outbreaks, it is necessary to reinforce internal and external communication strategies. Internal communication focuses on giving continuous updates on the state of the crisis. On the other hand, external communication includes exchanging information between different destinations that may present similar situations and with the official health agencies of each country (Bert et al. 2014; Coombs 2014).

Conclusions Crises are inevitable events that could disrupt the tourism industry (Pforr and Hosie 2008). The tourist sector has been identified as one of the most vulnerable in the face of crises, especially after the COVID19 pandemic. The ongoing outbreak of health-related crises has significantly impacted the management practices of the tourism industry. From a theoretical perspective, the findings of this study highlight the need for future research in this area, which should extend the scope beyond

70

L. Pennington-Gray and E. Basurto

Fig. 6.2  Safety expectation of U.S. travelers. (Credit: L. Pennington-Gray)

UNESCO heritage sites and include crisis management practices related to destinations. Additionally, the findings of this study have several practical implications. First, to reduce exposure to health risks and to become more prepared, a sanitary environment should be guaranteed as the baseline.

6  The Role of Crisis Management in Managing Cultural Heritage Tourism in a Covid…

71

To do so, practitioners need to maintain partners with health authorities, stay in full compliance with guidelines, update the protocol regularly with consideration of emerging health issues, and carefully monitor the condition of the UNESCO heritage site. Second, our findings suggest that the UNESCO heritage sites need to improve their communicational efforts. Practitioners need to demonstrate a responsive and responsible attitude during times of crisis, offering crisis responses that are strategic, clear, and consistent. Third, to embrace an uncertain future, the tourism industry needs to undertake a proactive approach in crisis management, paying more attention to emerging health issues and preparing themselves with comprehensive and exhaustive crisis management plans.

References Basurto-Cedeño EM, Pennington-Gray L (2016) Tourism disaster resilience scorecard for destinations (TDRSD): the case of manta. Ecuador Int J Tour Cities 2(2):149–163 Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (eds) (2002) Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Bert F, Scaioli G, Gualano MR, Passi S, Specchia M, Cadeddu C, Siliquini R (2014) Norovirus outbreaks on commercial cruise ships: a systematic review and new targets for the public health agenda. Food Environ Virol 6(2):67–74 Brouder P, Teoh S, Salazar NB, Mostafanezhad M, Pung JM, Lapointe D, Clausen HB (2020) Reflections and discussions: tourism matters in the new normal post COVID-19. Tour Geogr 22(3):735–746 CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2015) Vessel sanitation program. http://wwwnc. cdc.gov/. Accessed 15 Oct 2021 Coombs WT (2014) Ongoing crisis communication: planning, managing, and responding. Sage Publishing, Washington, DC du Cross H, McKercher B (2015) Cultural tourism, 2nd edn. Routledge, New York Hodor K, Przybylak Ł, Kuśmierski J, Wilkosz-Mamcarczyk M (2021) Identification and analysis of problems in selected European historic gardens during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability 13(3):1332 Kozak M, Crotts JC, Law R (2007) The impact of the perception of risk on international travelers. Int J Tour Res 9(4):233–242 Leask A, Fyall A (2006) Managing world heritage sites. Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington Oteng-Ababio M, Sarfo KO, Owusu-Sekyere E (2015) Exploring the realities of resilience: case study of Kantamanto market fire in Accra, Ghana. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 12:311–318 Pennington-Gray L, Pizam A (2011a) 19 destination crisis management. In: Tourism destination marketing and management: collaborative strategies. CABI, p 314 Pennington-Gray L, Pizam A (2011b) Destination crisis management. In: Wong R, Pizam A (eds) Destination marketing and management: theories and applications. CABI, pp 314–324 Pennington-Gray L, London B, Cahyanto I, Klages W (2011a) Expanding the tourism crisis management planning framework to include social media: lessons from the deepwater horizon oil spill 2010. Int J Tour Anthropol 1(3):239–253 Pennington-Gray L, Thapa B, Kaplanidou K, Cahyanto I, McLaughlin E (2011b) Crisis planning and preparedness in the United States tourism industry. Cornell Hosp Q 52(3):312–320 Pforr C, Hosie PJ (2008) Crisis management in tourism: preparing for recovery. J Travel Tour Mark 23(2–4):249–264 Ritchie B (2008) Tourism disaster planning and management: from response and recovery to reduction and readiness. Curr Issue Tour 11(4):315–348

72

L. Pennington-Gray and E. Basurto

Rittichainuwat BN, Chakraborty G (2009) Perceived travel risks regarding terrorism and disease: the case of Thailand. Tour Manag 30(3):410–418 Rutynskyi M, Kushniruk H (2020) The impact of quarantine due to COVID-19 pandemic on the tourism industry in Lviv (Ukraine). Probl Perspect Manag 18(2):194 Santana G (2004) Crisis management and tourism: beyond the rhetoric. J Travel Tour Mark 15(4):299–321 Shirvani Dastgerdi A, De Luca G, Francini C (2021) Reforming housing policies for the sustainability of historic cities in the post-COVID time: insights from the atlas world heritage. Sustainability 13(1):174 Spennemann DH (2021) COVID-19 on the ground: managing the heritage sites of a pandemic. Heritage 4(3):2140–2162 Timothy DJ (2011) Cultural heritage and tourism. Channel View Publications, Bristol Timothy DJ, Boyd SW (2006) Heritage tourism in the 21st century: valued traditions and new perspectives. J Herit Tour 1(1):1–16 UNESCO (2021a) World heritage in face of COVID 19. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/ pf0000377667?posInSet=1&queryId=bd741d77-d5ef-4c62-b83bbfaf040b7b32. Accessed 15 Oct 2021 UNESCO (2021b) World heritage sites. UNESCO World Heritage Centre – World Heritage List. Accessed 15 Oct 2021 Williams AM, Baláž V (2015) Tourism risk and uncertainty: theoretical reflections. J Travel Res 54(3):271–287 World Health Organization (2020) Public health considerations while resuming international travel. Retrieve from Public health considerations while resuming international travel­ (www.who.int)

Chapter 7

Heritage Tourism’s History: Past as Prologue for the Anthropocene Uzi Baram

Abstract  Merchants and pilgrims, travelers, tourists are the types and phases in the history of travel. With the Anthropocene, heritage tourism is changing due to the recursive relationship between tourism and heritage destinations. Heritage locales, subject to political and increasing environmental pressures, tell of significant moments for a community (whether local, regional, global) and tourists engage the presented past and the experience can inspire knowledge to be shared with their home communities. This chapter recognizes those going to Anthropocene heritage sights as visitors and explore their potential in documenting climate change, as part of an archaeology that looks to potential futures. Keywords  Heritage · Travel · Tourism · Anthropocene · Florida Epigram  “I have always felt that the truth is prophetic, that if you describe precisely what you see and give it life with your imagination, then what you write ought to have lasting value, no matter what the mood of your prose.” Paul Theroux 2001:51 Travel Writing: The Point of It. Fresh Air Fiend: Travel Writings. Mariner Books, Boston.

A Walk at an Outdoor Museum, September 2017 In Fall 2017, I taught a first-year college course that took undergraduates at New College of Florida to historic districts, archaeological sites, and museums around Sarasota and Manatee counties on Florida’s Gulf Coast. One of the tours focused on Historic Spanish Point, a 30-acre outdoor museum with trails, gardens a boatyard, a late 19th-early twentieth century pioneer homestead, a chapel and small cemetery, U. Baram (*) New College of Florida, Sarasota, FL, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 P.-L. Yu et al. (eds.), Heritage and Cultural Heritage Tourism, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44800-3_7

73

74

U. Baram

Fig. 7.1  Historic Spanish Point, September 2020. (Photograph by author)

and pre-Columbian mounds and middens – a plethora of history in one place. On that early September afternoon in subtropical Florida, a sudden, very brief rain shower flooded the trail. The good-natured students took off their shoes and walked through the inundated trail to continue the tour. The nuisance flooding was a surprise – it was not much rain, and the sun quickly escaped the rain cloud – is becoming a regular occurrence for the museum (Fig.  7.1) and across Florida’s coastal communities. More significantly, the class was cancelled the following week: Hurricane Irma threatened to demolish the region. Luckily the projected storm path verged from a direct hit on Sarasota and only disrupted the communities of the region for 2 weeks: the Anthropocene climate could have caused much more damage, and future storms will. The students joined in conversations on climate change as we continued the semester.

The Stormy Future of Heritage Tourism Study abroad is a standard offering for undergraduates across the United States, but the Discover SRQ course (SRQ is the airport code and sometimes used to describe the region) allowed on- campus students to visit places just a short driving distance from the college, a local version of the heritage tourist experience for students. The experience opened up observations to participate in addressing the great challenge for their generation: the Anthropocene climate crisis.

7  Heritage Tourism’s History: Past as Prologue for the Anthropocene

75

Tourism can be focused on leisure: going somewhere to unplug, to relax, and to vacation. Yet tourism is a vast phenomenon, and many tourists go beyond leisure for their experiences when traveling. Similar to archaeology, with the subject of research turning into the adjective (for instance, scholars of the Middle East becoming Middle Eastern archaeologists and researchers who focus on gender becoming feminist archaeologists), tourism takes on its subject. Focusing on heritage makes for heritage tourism, one of the many niche markets for tourism. Tourism’s turn to heritage is part of the swirl of the experience economy (Pine and Gilmore 2011) that, in interesting ways, returned the travels to the one of its hallmarks. The shifts from travel for edification, represented by the Grand Tour, to twentieth century leisure, as described by MacCannell (1976), now seems not only more varied but also contains a return to learning alterity, archaeology/history and anthropology/cultural differences. Organized as heritage tourism, such travel continues to expand as a feature of experiencing otherness, temporal or cultural, with the assumption of empathy for difference. Heritage tourism seems to mirror anthropology as being archeological, with a focus on the past and materiality, or ethnographic focusing on contemporary performances and discourse and best when integrating all those aspects. If heritage tourism is considered a form of anthropology, exploring the ontology of heritage tourism tells us much about the contemporary world. As tourism grows in size and scope, climate change, the shift to the new, unpredicted weather patterns of the Anthropocene, is threatening the infrastructure and resources of heritage tourism. This chapter does not lament the impact of airline travel on carbon levels, the potential loss of archaeological sites and historic places to rising sea levels, and disaster tourism that encourages people to visit glaciers before they melt. Rather the ontology for tourism highlights the positive possibilities for heritage tourism, a critical anthropology for tourists harnessing the enthusiasm for visiting and engaging heritage as a means to accept the emerging Anthropocene landscapes and document the ruins of the Holocene. For tourism, the trajectory that produced the current configuration of infrastructure, visitations, experiences, and remembrances came at a particular moment and Baram (2018) situates one individual at the divide between travelers and tourists; Mark Twain was a traveler, part of a tradition that is best known as through the Grand Tour where visiting places of antiquity provides social polish for future careers in politics and diplomacy. Innocents Abroad famously mocks the encounters between the North Americans traveling on the Quaker City as they visit sights across the Mediterranean, reaching its apex with Jerusalem, a place that does not impress Mark Twain at all. But the observations are part of a large corpus of travel accounts that scholar have used to recover dynamics of social life (see, for instance, Baram 2002 for the argument and references to the scholarship). Mark Twain sailed during a hinge moment in American history, right after the Civil War, as well as the expansion of industrial capitalism and European imperialism; today’s tourists are also at a hinge moment with the Anthropocene. This chapter does not have the name of a travel writer who will serve future scholars as a key figure for the transformation, but they are out there writing of their experience. So instead, this chapter examines what is changing, and expose optimistic opportunities in the Anthropocene, building on Zhu’s (2021) concept of co-production for heritage tourism.

76

U. Baram

 rom Pilgrimages and Trade to Grand Tours: A Brief History F of Travel and Tourism A standard definition for tourism comes from the anthropologist Erve Chambers (2010:6): “any kind of travel activity that includes the self-conscious experience of another place.” That self- conscious experience has multiple ontologies, as Chambers (2010) explains for Japanese tourism emanating from the Edo Period but a crucial strand for global tourism comes from western Europe and the traditions of the Grand Tour. The Grand Tour, the convention of travel for education and social polish for the 16th through nineteenth century elite of western Europe expanded from adventure to regular pathways to see famous sights. A key observer for the shift from travel to tourism happens to be Mark Twain (Baram 2018; others) who traveled on the Quaker City from June 1867 bringing the tourists to such places as Gibraltar, Paris, Venice, Athens, Constantinople, and Jerusalem and then returning to New York in November 1867. In the aftermath of the Civil War, the reports from that voyage, published as The Innocents Abroad, illuminate the re-established American identity and offers insights, though through a literary lens, of the places and peoples of the Mediterranean. Many others followed that pathway to see those cultures and places, with tour guides ready in place for them, hotels and restaurants catering to those on the tours, and other infrastructure we know as tourism. The nineteenth-century development of infrastructure in visited places was top-­ down, part of an imperialism that facilitated the movement of an expanding population of western Europe and North America to visit places in the colonized world. The moment between travel and tourism fits the larger trajectory for the movement of peoples but with greater inequalities. People move, one of the characteristics of our species. Over the last several millennia, mobility developed into different types of traveling such as pilgrimages to holy locations, or quests seeking exotic goods to bring home or for new markets. Travel, whether for faith or goods, expanded into adventure, and continued as education for enrichment and social polish. By the mid-­ nineteenth century, travel became facilitated by companies that made arrangements for the comfort of people. And by the late twentieth century, tourism became an expectation for vacations from work and as opportunities for encounters. As Díaz-­ Andreu (2019) as explores for archaeological tourism, tourism is a modernist endeavor; following MacCannell (1976) who situates research into tourism as a means to study modernity and its middle classes. Today, in our globalized, neoliberal world, tourism is about visiting places, for relaxation and, increasingly, for experiences and the types of experiences seemingly continually are growing, diversifying, and becoming central to socio- economic change. And, as many anthropologists have laid out (for a listing, see Baram 2018) much of that change has accelerated inequalities in locations hosting tourist infrastructure. A discussion of those aspects of tourism is meaningful. This chapter reaches into the history of tourism to find the positive possibilities for heritage tourism to meet the challenges of the climate crisis. Just as Mark Twain inadvertently recorded

7  Heritage Tourism’s History: Past as Prologue for the Anthropocene

77

insights into places and people that can be researched for insights into diversity, tourists can observe, record, document the changes across coastal zones in this age of rising sea levels and act as citizen scientists recording and detailing ecologies being transformed by anthropogenic CO2 emissions accelerating warming of the planet and our lives. Following Cohen’s (1972) contribution: there are many tourisms and the history of heritage tourism illustrates the strands can have different goals and implications. Tourism as self-conscious experience is the key concept and useful for both the critique of tourism and for its potential. Observing, participating, and learning are the keys for any tourism beyond leisure tourism; heritage tourism encourages a focus on experiencing culture and history and in the Anthropocene, our current geological age and one that will transform landscapes for the next centuries if not longer. Tourism offers a massive entry point for learning and experiences the transformations seen, if realized, on the coastal zones. Here is a call for climate intentional tourism, focused on Florida – a major tourist destination.

Heritage Tourism in Florida Since the late nineteenth century, Florida has been known as a tourist destination; the historian Tracy Revels (2011:1) starts Sunshine Paradise: A History of Florida Tourism with “Florida is tourism. Every modern image of the state evokes travel for pleasure.” From health to sports, beaches to theme parks, Florida tourism exemplifies the trajectory of tourism including the expansion of its niche markets. The starting point for Florida tourism ranges from the 1870s when tourists came to Silver Springs to ride its glass-bottomed boats to 1933 Florida exhibit at the Chicago Century of Progress World’s Fair but the significance of tourism for Florida over the twentieth century is clear. As tourism expanded, more avenues for attractions developed. One of those niches is heritage tourism with, most famously, St. Augustine with its landmark Castillo de San Marcos (Fig. 7.2) and more historic and archaeological locales being marketed and attracting visitors. Merging with the growth of tourism and archaeological research, since 2004 the state has been funding the Florida Public Archaeology Network (FPAN) through the University of West Florida. Its mission is in the state statutes (https:// www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2010/267.145): “to help stem the rapid deterioration of this state’s buried past and to expand public interest in archaeology.” One of FPAN’s initiatives is heritage monitoring scouts (HMS), a citizen science program. As Miller and Murray (2018) explain, FPAN created HMS in 2016 to encourage citizen science, getting volunteers to document coastal archaeological and historic sites in danger of erosion due to rising sea levels and hurricanes. A directed program toward getting documentation to a database, the success suggests more encouragement of documentation is possible. One under-tapped source is tourists.

78

U. Baram

Fig. 7.2  Tourists at Castillo de San Marcos, St. Augustine, Florida. July 2009. (Photograph by author)

Beyond Tourism to Encounters, and Its Implications In the scholarly literature on tourism, travel is adventuresome and spontaneous while tourism has planning and organization. The values of travel shifted along with the establishment of infrastructure. With the Sixteenth to nineteenth century Grand Tour, the ideals of the western European elite come into focus: access to Classical Antiquity via visits to Ancient Rome and Greece and, if possible, the Pyramids of Giza and Jerusalem, for the achievement of adventures. For tourism, as MacCannell (1976) explored, it was leisure, part of a response to middle-class life in western societies and the need for leisure. Following on MacCannell’s (1976) success of using tourism as the entry point understanding social dynamics and using tourism as a mirror for society, studying tourism in the twenty-first century exposes the search for experiences and there are lessons for contemporary social concerns. With the expansion of the experience economy, the adventurous spirit has returned and with it renewed possibilities for tourism. The organized search for an experience has led to more and more specialization for tourism, beyond different places there are different trails to take in a given location. The creation of niche marketing (Misiura 2005) led to eco-tourism, focused on visits to staged nature, and heritage tourism, visitations to places of cultural heritage. Cultural heritage is broken into new niches such as thanatourism, otherwise known as dark tourism, visits to sites associated with death and tragedy. The specialization, a feature of capitalist production, continues with new labels. Rather than

7  Heritage Tourism’s History: Past as Prologue for the Anthropocene

79

lament the increasing expansion and fragmentation, climate change tourism offers heritage tourism a scientifically engaged opportunity to document, to create new communities of – though deterritorized so globalized – engaged citizens. The development of such possibilities will require guidance. The history suggests the challenges for heritage tourism continue to be tourism’s colonial legacies of inequalities, the questions of identity for visitors, hosts, and other stakeholders, and cycles of underdevelopment and the misuse of the past for commodification. The recognition opens an avenue for new opportunities, for the tourists of heritage, to employ heritage tourism to confront the global challenges on local levels.

 itnessing the Past: Heritage Tourism as Opportunities W for Preservation in an Age of Rising Sea Levels In today’s world when people travel, they are tourists. That was not always the case: people would travel as pilgrims, merchants, adventurers, and explorers but as infrastructure for travel expanded and commercialization centered activities in a neoliberal globalized world, going to a place became tourism. And when tourists, whether the individuals want the term or not, go to visit heritage sites, they are engaging in heritage tourism. And as heritage tourism grows, encouraged by the heritage explosion, there are scholarly critiques (e.g., Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 1998; Rowan and Baram 2004; Bruner 2005) even as more and more people seek the past as comfort in an age when the present is tense, and the future seems more unpredictable than many wish to imagine. While travelers focused on the adventure and may have written travel accounts; merchants had commercial goals and pilgrims sought the supernatural; tourists seek to remember their travel experience, with photographs and souvenirs. Following Graburn’s (2018) approach to tourism as ritual, the remembrance of the rite of passage is a crucial aspect of tourism whether memory comes from souvenirs, photographs, or stories. It is that aspect of tourism that is most often commercialized and made into kitsch. Blanchard and Higgins-Desbiolles (2013) recognize that tourism is trivialized because of its focus on individual self-satisfaction and as a profit- motivated neoliberal capitalist industry but advocate the potential of tourism contributing to peaceful international relations and global citizenship. Furthermore, Jiménez and te Kloeze (2014) explain that every traveler is potentially an ‘Ambassador for Peace.’ According to this vision, the notion of peace through tourism encompasses poverty alleviation, international understanding, preservation of heritage, protection of the environment, and sustainability. All are possible under the right management, attitudes, and context; anthropologists have pointed out those positive components rarely exist. One of the key conundrums for the vision of tourism for peace is whether tourists go to places without war or if tourism encourages peace; the conundrum is meaningful for the potential of heritage tourism to address vanishing material heritage in this age of rising sea levels.

80

U. Baram

 Wicked Problem: The Paradoxes of Tourism Increasing A Inequalities and Commodifying of the Past for Neoliberal Profits A wicked problem is one that is difficult to solve because the variables are continually changing. Tourism has the paradox of requiring resources and infrastructure to bring people to a place, house and feed them and provide touristic experiences, and then return but necessitating a continuing supply of new tourists to ensure the sustainability of the local economy for residents. Since transportation, alone, contributes to climate change, tourism seems locked into increasing global warming as well as increasing inequalities as anthropologists have shown for touristic places. There are useful lessons from the intersection of archaeology and tourism for a climate change heritage tourism. As Walker and Carr (2013:13) articulate archaeology and tourism, that intersection is as “a complicated endeavor.” As they note (2013:15) “If a site entices the interests of tourists, what are the ramifications for bringing visitors into and out of the area? What are the presumed benefits of tourism and what can be done to ensure that negative impacts are mitigated?” Seemingly the growth of tourism is the problem. West and Carrier (2004:484) approach heritage tourism-related focus ecotourism “as the institutional expression of particular sets of late capitalist values in a particular political-economic climate.” The approach allows exploration of the relationship among its rhetoric, its values, and the ways these are manifest in ecotourism projects. These anthropologists are skeptical about the consequences of ecotourism, with good reason. The anthropological critiques continue. As Fletcher (2019:522) points out in describing a fictionalized tourist encounter with a European glacier: “the commercial tourism industry designed around it shifts from selling an encounter with the glacier per se to selling an experience of its imminent disappearance. In other words, the tour becomes less about getting in touch with a spectacular “nature,” than of experiencing the loss of this nature in the face of human-induced change.” Fletcher (2019) appropriately critiques the example as disaster tourism that continues to support capitalist accumulation while recognizing some are hopeful that the Anthropocene encounters might shift tourism. As critique, it is clear all the bundle of infrastructure that is tourism is part of capitalism’s ability to expand to new resources. Amelia Moore (2019) documents the intertwining of scientific observations of the seas and coastal communities of The Bahamas and Bahamian tourism as Anthropocene anthropology. As a multi-site ethnography, Destination Anthropocene offers the archipelago having different dynamics, diverse responses, and varied trajectories as tourism and science shape discourses of The Bahamas. For Moore (2019:141), the re-creation of The Bahamas into educational islands for global climate science is not unique: “There are many locations around the world undergoing processes of redesign and reimagination – some subtle, some extreme – as a response to perceptions of the Anthropocene. For anthropologists like me, arriving at destination Anthropocene means we must attempt to understand how our research sites are

7  Heritage Tourism’s History: Past as Prologue for the Anthropocene

81

tied to transformations of space, products, and markets, science and scientists, and to our own shifting scholarly politics. …best understood as a state of becoming. Recognizing this condition is a form of responsibility.” For Moore (2019:136), science and tourism are “working together to create new destinations.” As Zhu (2021:2) points out, the shift from heritage management to the politics of the past matters for heritage tourism. Recognizing the debates over the implications of tourism revolve around power and agency, co-production of heritage sites with local communities can significantly shape the definition of heritage for the location, the design of products for tourist consumption, and the rewards of the increased visitation (Zhu 2021:5–6, 23). Co-production is “a mechanism of community-­centered governance that integrates recognition and interpretation to advance dialogue, equity, and diversity” through “local institutional mechanism of collaborative and cooperative work associated with various stages of heritage tourism” (Zhu 2021:48).

Tourism as a Mode of Production New destinations for changing landscapes – with rising sea levels and other climate changes, places are changing. Whether noted by residents or not, those changes are building up and our descendants will not recognize the descriptions of the present. If the product of a tourist encounter is simply and solely the tourist experience along with the exploitation of the host, tourism is nothing but an object for critique as much of the anthropological literature suggests. But tourists take photographs and that product, beyond the personal use for virtue signaling, does have social value. Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett (1995) posits heritage as a mode of production because heritage gives new meanings to buildings, places, and ways of life. As a mode of production, heritage produces something new, adding value to an object, an intangible tradition, or a place. The value of pastness, exhibition, difference, and where possible indigeneity are examples. Heritage tourism offers another layer as a mode of production. Following on that use of the concept of mode of production opens up heritage tourism: rather than lamenting tourists degrading sites, tourism as adding value to heritage. With the extent of the climate crisis clear, citizen science has entered as an opportunity for data collection. As Rafiq et  al. (2019) suggest “Citizen scientists have been proposed as an important complement to the finite resources available for basic monitoring within protected areas; however, the full potential of this approach has yet to be realised. Wildlife tourists and guides are especially focused on encountering and photographing fauna and flora, yet the data collected in these efforts is rarely harnessed for conservation monitoring within protected areas.” (sic on the British spelling). Photographs are useful, with the more images the more potential insights. A similar approach is taken by Dawson et al. (2020) in the explanation of the Florida Public Archaeology Network’s Heritage Monitoring Scouts initiative. Replacing the terminology of citizen science with community-based science, the volunteering to document by visitors can be harnessed.

82

U. Baram

Nimura et al. (2017:2) use the term heritagisation as “The process by which specific groups give social value to objects, places, or practices that represent their history, tradition or way of life.” This active use of heritage to create social connections to places threatened with inundation comes from tourist models, the rituals (Graburn 2018) which inscribe memories with meanings of locales. Tourist images are increasingly part of the scholarly data for reconstructing what was. Austin (2020) employs postcards and tourist fascination with a now vanished large mound in St Petersburg, Florida, to reconstruct the probably past landscape. McClenachan (2009) documents the loss of large trophy fish in the Florida Keys through tourist photographs of their catches over the twentieth century. This call to action follows those steps by having tourists intentionally record coastal zones, for commemoration and remembrances. The documentation of the loss can be meaningful in a productive manner. It is a huge task to encourage positive, rather than reactionary responses to the Anthropocene, but one that follows the trajectory of heritage tourism since the Grand Tour. Travel and tourism made specific places famous, encouraging people to go to Athens for the Parthenon, Rome for the Coliseum, western New  York for Niagara Falls, Arizona for the Grand Canyon. Visitations to coastal zones can be the next steps for heritage tourism and contribute to massive documentation that will record landscapes which will be gone in a few generations. Visitors to Anthropocene landscapes, the transformations of coastal zones, the eroding glaciers, and the aftermath of weather disasters offer messy views of what is changing. We are in contradictory times with the Anthropocene and the new reasons and opportunities in traveling can help us understand the transformation of our world from participant-observation perspectives. Tourists of the Anthropocene are visiting places that will not be, hopefully documenting landscapes so the future has access to what becomes heritage.

Conclusion: Witnessing Heritage as the Storm Rages At a small living history museum on the Gulf coast of Florida, a large Archaic-­ period shell ring is threatened by rising sea levels. The shell ring, as understood by archaeologists today, represents a monument to the shift from an era of rising sea levels to one of stability (that lasted thousands of years). One interpretation of the 4-meter high and 140-meter diameter shell ring: as the stories from their ancestors became less relevant, a new generation created a festival at the water’s edge. That festival grew through the years; the ruins twentieth century archaeologists saw an archaeological site from the Archaic period are the massive remnants. While speculative, some recognize the Cottage Hill shell ring as a place to tell the old histories and the new stories. The small museum wants to do more interpretation of the ancient ruins; heritage tourism can encourage visitations both to the site and to the new coastal history being created as the waters from Little Sarasota Bay increasingly lap at the base of the mound. This is the paradox and the promise of heritage tourism, one embedded in its ontology but not trapped by its history.

7  Heritage Tourism’s History: Past as Prologue for the Anthropocene

83

The academic program that began with bringing students to that living museum expanded into a partnership where I joined biologists at New College in training students to study the scalar range of change at the historic site, from microbes to small sea animals to plants and trees all organized spatially with a keen concern for the contemporary social meanings of the place on the coastline. Zhu’s (2021) concept of co-production stresses the integration of visitors, heritage managers, scientists, and others working with community organizations and other stakeholders toward addressing the ongoing Anthropocene transformations of the region’s landscapes. The history of heritage tourism is its future. Members of the contemporary global elite, and with increasing inequalities tourism is the domain of the elite, seek edifying experiences similar to the rising elite of urban western Europe. Some of the places have continuities, for instance Venice, Rome, Athens, Istanbul, Jerusalem while others are organized for new encounters in places marked by the continually expanding UNESCO World Heritage map. Tourists make choices, and twentieth century legacies of leisure at the water’s edge can be replaced with twenty-first century innovations of studying, volunteering, and witnessing the changes of rising sea levels of the Anthropocene. Acknowledgments  The October 2016 Toronto Workshop opened new scholarly frontiers for my research in heritage tourism. The 2018 Tidally United Summit in Sarasota stressed community engagement for meeting the challenges of rising sea levels in coastal Florida; the 2021 Tidally United Summit on Zoom provided the venue for sharing the evolving New College coastline program. Thanks to Thanik, Pei-Lin, and George for the invitation to Bangkok even if COVID-19 meant we could not gather in person.

References Austin R (2020) Its origin is steeped in mystery: the sorry saga of St Petersburg Shell Mound Park. Florida Anthropol 73(2):113–139 Baram U (2002) Seeing differences: travelers to ottoman Palestine and accounts of diversity. Journeys Int J Travel Travel Writ 3(2):29–49 Baram U (2018) Value and values in heritage tourism from the grand tour to the experience economy. In: Yu PL, Shen C, Smith G (eds) Relevance and application of cultural heritage in contemporary society. Routledge, New York, pp 66–78 Blanchard L, Higgins-Desbiolles F (2013) Introduction: peace matters, tourism matters. In: Blanchard L, Higgins-Desbiolles F (eds) Peace through tourism: promoting human security through international citizenship. Routledge, London, pp 1–15 Bruner E (2005) Culture on tour: ethnographies of travel. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Chambers E (2010) Native tours: the anthropology of travel and tourism. Waveland Press, Long Grove, Illinois Cohen E (1972) Toward a sociology of international tourism. Soc Res 39(1):164–182 Dawson T, Hambly J, Kelley A, Lees W, Miller S (2020) Coastal heritage, global climate change, public engagement, and citizen science. PNAS 117(15):8280–8286 Díaz-Andreu M (2019) A history of archaeological tourism: pursuing leisure and knowledge from the eighteenth century to world war II. Springer, New York Fletcher R (2019) Ecotourism after nature: Anthropocene tourism as a new capitalist fix. J Sustain Tour 27(4):522–535

84

U. Baram

Graburn N (2018) Secular ritual: a general theory of tourism. In: Gmelch S, Kaul A (eds) Tourists and tourism: a reader. Waveland Press, Long Grove, pp 17–28 Jiménez C, te Kloeze J (2014) Analyzing the peace through tourism concept: the challenge for educators. Soc Anthropol 2(3):63–70 Kirshenblatt-Gimblett B (1995) Theorizing heritage. Ethnomusicology 39(3):367–380 Kirshenblatt-Gimblett B (1998) Destination culture: tourism, museums, and heritage. University of California Press, Berkeley MacCannell D (1976) Tourist: a new theory of the leisure class. Schocken Books, New York McClenachan L (2009) Documenting loss of large trophy fish from the Florida Keys with historical photographs. Conserv Biol 23(3):636–643 Miller S, Murray E (2018) Heritage monitoring scouts: engaging the public to monitor sites at risk across Florida. Conserv Manag Archaeol Sites 20(4):234–260 Misiura S (2005) Heritage marketing. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford Moore A (2019) Destination Anthropocene: science and tourism in The Bahamas. University of California Press, Berkeley Nimura C, Dawson T, Lopez-Romero E, Daire M (2017) Public archaeology and climate change: reflections and considerations. In: Dawson T, Nimura C, Lopez-Romero E, Daire E (eds) Public archaeology and climate change. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp 1–10 Pine IIB, Gilmore J (2011) The experience economy: work is theater and every business a stage. Harvard Business Review Press, Cambridge Rafiq K, Bryce C, Rich L, Coco C, Miller D, Meloro C, Wich S, McNutt D, Hayward M (2019) Tourist photographs as a scalable framework for wildlife monitoring in protected areas. Curr Biol 29:R663–R682 Revels T (2011) Sunshine paradise: a history of Florida tourism. University Press of Florida, Gainesville Rowan Y, Baram U (eds) (2004) Marketing heritage: archaeology and the consumption of the past. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek Theroux P (2001) Fresh air fiend: travel writings. Mariner Books, Boston Walker C, Carr N (eds) (2013) Tourism and archaeology: sustainable meeting grounds. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek West P, Carrier J (2004) Ecotourism and authenticity: getting away from it all? Curr Anthropol 45(4):483–498 Zhu Y (2021) Heritage tourism: from problems to possibilities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Chapter 8

Hot, Dry, Flooded and Burned: Measuring Climate Vulnerability for Cultural Heritage in US National Parks Pei-Lin Yu

Abstract  Cultural heritage parks make up more than 60% of the total number of America’s national parks, and cultural heritage exists in 100% of our parks. This heritage, which includes more than 10,000  years of Indigenous culture, is being irreparably changed or lost due to impacts of climate change, yet there is no standardized method to measure the vulnerability of cultural heritage resources. This severely hampers our ability to identify, measure, and implement adaptive measures to save cultural heritage in US national park units. In this paper I present new strategies for assessing exposure to climate impacts in US National Parks, the sensitivity of cultural resources to those impacts, and combining these values into a vulnerability measure. A mixed approach for qualitative and quantified data is featured, along with recommendations for measuring adaptive capacity. These methods can be transferred to assess other stressors such as impacts from over-tourism. Keywords  American national parks · Cultural heritage · Climate change · Vulnerability assessments

Introduction In the United States, the National Park Service was tasked by the Organic Act of 1916 to safeguard and steward natural and cultural heritage in national parks for the benefit of future generations. For local communities and park visitors from across the globe, US national parks build appreciation and understanding of the human story, including past climates and ecosystems, cultures, wars, pandemics and other societal upheavals, arts and humanities, and the arc of social justice. Cultural heritage can be a refuge and a bulwark to local communities and cultures threatened by climate change (Douglas 2018), and protected areas like national parks play a P.-L. Yu (*) Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 P.-L. Yu et al. (eds.), Heritage and Cultural Heritage Tourism, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44800-3_8

85

86

P.-L. Yu

special role (Rockman et al. 2016). Park units that were established specifically to safegard and celebrate cultural heritage make up more than 65% of the total number of America’s national parks, and cultural heritage resources and values exist in 100% of our 423 national park units. In recent years, due to demographic shifts and the Covid-19 pandemic, America’s national parks are receiving unprecedented use. Overtourism is a real risk. In spite of this growing popularity, few visitors comprehend the rate of impacts or loss of our precious cultural heritage due to climate change. Extreme weather events such as megafires and super-storms get the most media attention, but slow and relentless changes are drowning coastal heritage, melting and exposing alpine and arctic heritage, driving culturally significant species to extinction, gnawing away at irreplaceable museum collections and archives, and putting Indigenous and other intangible heritage values at severe risk. As the Park Service races to document climate related changes, accelerating and increasingly unpredictable events are combining to create unforeseen new crises. Concerned stakeholders and beleaguered Park managers with diminished resources are experiencing a “Sophie’s choice” (sensu Styron 1979): which cultural resources should be saved, if they can be saved at all? How should cultural heritage resources be prioritized for protection or treatment, and when should they be ‘let go’? In the National Park Service system, management of ‘natural’ and ‘cultural’ resources is largely divided. The Natural Resource Challenge (National Park Service 1999) was a clarion call to bring funding for natural ecosystems management in line with critical needs, and Congress answered. But at present, equivalent support for cultural resources has not been realized. This has resulted in a funding and staffing shortfall, especially for many park units designated by Congress because of their outstanding cultural significance. Up until recently, the response to climate impacts on cultural resources has typically been reactive and crisis-based (Meyer et al. 2010). In order to leverage limited resources, and work with the reality of integrated cultural and natural values, national park cultural heritage and climate program managers are now recommending that park resources be considered together to identify overlapping problems and mutual solutions. For example, preserving ancient architectural remains may also protect an associated archaeological site, rock imagery resources, and important habitat for insects, bats, and birds. The first step to taking protective action is evaluating the vulnerability of the resources under threat or stress. National parks are rapidly receiving natural resources vulnerability assessments (e.g., Gonzalez et al. 2018), but a successful integrated approach calls for cultural resources to be assessed in accordance with their unique characteristics and values.

Using the Vulnerability Concept Vulnerability is defined here as the openness (risk) of a resource to adverse influence or impact (hazard). In the climate change research community, vulnerability has been assessed as the combined value or sum of exposure, which is the

8  Hot, Dry, Flooded and Burned: Measuring Climate Vulnerability for Cultural…

87

probability an entity will come into contact with a threat or hazard); and sensitivity, which gauges susceptibility of adverse influence or impact once the exposure has occurred (Gross et al. 2014). For example, the vulnerability of an individual to the Covid-19 virus is the likelihood of coming into contact with the disease, plus her susceptibility to harm once exposure has occurred. A 62-year-old nurse who works in an intensive care unit and with a history of diabetes is highly vulnerable due to the intersection of high exposure (workplace) and high sensitivity (health status). This nurse might have some adaptive capacity: she or he could implement protective measures such as the use of special equipment, or obtaining appropriate vaccinations. It is important to keep in mind that vulnerability is defined as integral to, but separate from, adaptation. In natural systems, living organisms can adapt behaviorally and/or differentially transmit favored or disfavored traits across generations. By contrast, cultural resources – at least, physical/tangible ones – are in a continual state of departure from the conditions in which they were created. Cultural resources cannot “reproduce, migrate, or self-repair” (Amberg et  al. 2012: 250). The NPS Cultural Resources Climate Change Strategy (Rockman et al. 2016) states that “cultural resources are, or often include, components that are non-living and as such they have limited capacity to adapt to changing conditions” (p. 32); therefore “…a focus for climate change adaptation is our management of them” (Ibid p. 3, emphasis added). For this reason, we define cultural resources adaptive capacity as the ability of human managers and systems to adjust the use and management of a given resource. This is addressed separately, after vulnerability has been assessed (Yu et al. 2022).

Getting Started: What Shall We Assess? Measuring cultural resources vulnerability conceptualizes how to collect and analyze data, present them to stakeholders, and prioritize in the face of a large, complex, and dynamic set of hazards that threatens diverse entities. This may seem overwhelming, but the good news is that most managers of protected areas already have at least some of the tools they need: extant data, in-house subject matter expertise, and the connection, expertise, and passion of local and descendant communities (Yu et al. 2022). Since 2009, vulnerability assessments across US national parks have made significant progress. This chapter presents the emerging state of the art in cultural resources vulnerability assessments by describing three crucial steps: • predicting and quantifying exposure to climate impacts; • assessing the sensitivity or likelihood of harm to cultural resources to those impacts; and • combining these values into a measurable vulnerability score. We begin with some of the most common issues facing cultural heritage managers in early phases of assessment, then describe the vulnerability concept, its constituent components, and present case studies in vulnerability assessments for US national park units.

88

P.-L. Yu

Table 8.1  Examples of databases and tools that can be used for conducting cultural resources vulnerability assessments Emphasis Climate-­oriented Climate-­oriented Climate-­oriented

Cultural resource-­oriented Cultural resource-­oriented Cultural resource-­oriented

Data and tools Climate models and projections for the area, with sufficient resolution that they can be downscaled. (geospatial and database approaches) Management databases (e.g., site inventories, GIS and other geospatial, monitoring data, condition assessments, museum catalogs). Planning documents (e.g., management plans, memoranda of agreement and understanding, programmatic agreements, emergency plans, scope of collections statements.) Nomination forms (e.g., National Register, World Heritage Site, or regional and local listings) Archival and legacy documentation (e.g., academic articles, historic maps, forms, architectural designs, early survey/monitoring reports) Ethnographic and local expertise and knowledge (oral histories, traditional cultural sites, intangible cultural heritage).

Data, Data, Data Recent research into cultural heritage resource stakeholders identified the need for more and higher quality data, increased funding and staffing, and collaborative relationships to leverage limited resources (Fatorić et al. 2017). Although it is rare that data are complete and up to date, below are some common types of databases and tools that are useful for conducting vulnerability assessments (Table 8.1).

Unified Versus Phased Approaches The team should first ask: How many resources can reasonably be assessed given the time, resources, and people available? If a manager is lucky enough to have a small set of cultural resources with up to date condition information, it may be possible to conduct the vulnerability assessment in one unified process. This is rarely the case with cultural resources, however. This is an opportunity to scope alternatives, such as phased strategies, and build a schedule of tasks toward completing the first assessment. If available information is out of date or incomplete, a phased approach allows managers to fill in knowledge gaps, road-test the vulnerability concept and method, begin to plan for protection, and map a strategy for the next phase. Even though conditions may have changed by the time assessments have been completed, these efforts will still provide a baseline. Examples of phased approaches to vulnerability assessments can include (but are not limited to) the following: 1. Urgency. This approach assesses if a highly significant resource and/or one that is in poor condition needs immediate attention. Significance can stem from uniqueness, age, association with events or persons of importance, or other dis-

8  Hot, Dry, Flooded and Burned: Measuring Climate Vulnerability for Cultural…

89

tinctive qualities. Databases or cultural heritage registers may be helpful in evaluating significance and condition. Importantly, descendant groups may identify key cultural resources of great value that are not apparent from standard registries or databases. Another factor is the condition of the resource stemming from instability of physical and other values: is it disappearing or deteriorating? or fairly stable? Most government managers track the physical condition of cultural resources and maintain data and records. The intersection between significance and condition can help to clarify priorities. For example, a grouping of highly significant or unique cultural resources that are also in fragile or deteriorating condition may be suitable for the first tranche of vulnerability assessments. 2. “Low-hanging fruit”. This approach selects a subset of resources that have the highest likelihood of completion, then proceeds to successively more challenging assessments. For example, let’s consider a park with updated information for ten petroglyph sites that are easy to access by road, have been identified by local Indigenous experts as important, and have fund sources available. By comparison there are also 25 archaeological sites in remote wilderness with outdated condition assessments from the 1990s, and no funding. The park may choose to move forward with vulnerability assessments for the petroglyph sites while seeking funds for the wilderness sites. 3. Sampling. For a ‘snapshot’ across a variety of resources, sampling (e.g., random; systematic) can be helpful. For example, a team responsible for a large collection of museum objects could assess a sample of material types such as wooden ethnographic objects, fiber objects, oil paintings, etc. Sampling for archaeological or architectural resources could be based on geographic areas or areas of maximum projected climate impacts. In 2010, Glacier National Park and tribal partners sampled alpine ice patches in mountain passes by searching leeward toe slopes for delicate cultural objects that are likely to become exposed by melting. In another case, the NPS Vanishing Treasures program convened a workshop at Bandelier National Monument to serve as a pilot project to evaluate the ‘proof of concept’. In the workshop, one to two cultural resources of different types (e.g., artwork; archaeological sites; architecture) were assessed by teams who used the University of Arizona’s Cultural Resources Vulnerability Assessment Tool (CREVAT) (Southwest Climate Adaptation Science Center/ SWCASS 2021a, b), park site data, National Register nominations, and field data collected by workshop participants (Yu, in press).

Using the Vulnerability Principle Once the cultural resources have been identified, ensuring the team understands the vulnerability concept and breaking down vulnerability into actionable components is essential. The vulnerability equation has been expressed in various forms but the simplest is used here: Exposure + Sensitivity = Vulnerability (Fig. 8.1).

90

P.-L. Yu

Fig. 8.1  The cultural resources vulnerability equation, adapted from Ricci et  al. 2019a: 125. Adaptive capacity is separated from vulnerability in the case of cultural heritage resources. (Used by permission)

Component 1: Exposure The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines exposure as “the presence of … cultural assets in places and settings that could be adversely affected (IPCC 2014: 18). This paper considers exposure as a measure of the character, magnitude, and rate of changes experienced by a resource. This may include changes in primary drivers of climate (e.g., temperature, precipitation, solar radiation) as well as follow-on changes in related factors (e.g., sea-level, water temperatures, drought intensity, or forest fires) (Gross et al. 2014). Exposure has been evaluated for many biological cases, and adapted for cultural resources. It may be identified through mapping, scenario planning, and other modes of analysis. There are many climate models that make predictions for regions and across the world. Most are geospatial which facilitates visual understanding and comparison. However, in a recent case study in the Pacific Northwest, Melnick and Quiroz (2017) discovered that projections at large scales obscure variability at smaller scales, which coarsens local area projections. Thus, it’s important to learn if climate projections under consideration can be downscaled appropriately, and they may need to be augmented with localized climate data or even personal observations including indigenous cultural knowledge (Hatfield et  al. 2018).

8  Hot, Dry, Flooded and Burned: Measuring Climate Vulnerability for Cultural…

91

When selecting the exposure types or variables a researcher can be limited: most climate models include temperature, sea level rise, and relative humidity. However, wind intensity and direction are less available (Oskierko-Jeznacki 2019). It is important to remember that climate models are just that: models based on the best available science. They change and become superceded by more accurate data, thus should be re-­visited regularly. Exposure is usually projected or predicted as a measure of the amount of climatic and/or environmental change that a resource is likely to experience (Amberg et al. 2012), derived from models of future climate conditions informed by historic patterning (Melnick and Quiroz 2017). Obtaining specific values for future exposure is challenging due to the increasing difficulty of predicting future climate, but a good strategy for handling uncertainty is to identify a range of potential exposures. Elements of exposure can include basic climate parameters such as temperature, sea level, and relative humidity. For example, a climate prediction model could state that a coastal temple facility with an aging air conditioning system is 60% likely to experience a 1–3 degree rise in temperature in the next 10 years. More useful measures of exposure combine factors into phenomena: e.g., there is a 60% likelihood that a coastal temple location will see an increase in super typhoons from once every 10 years to once every 5 years. Measuring exposure often involves data in gradients: temperature, ice melting, and sea level rise are good examples. Batching those data into ranges facilitates organization and analysis of data and the ranges can be broadened or narrowed as needed. A successful example of climate model-based exposure prediction is the CREVAT platform developed at the University of Arizona (Southwest Climate Adaptation Science Center/SWCASS 2021a, b). This web-based geospatial application covers National Park Service lands in Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and Montana, and provides data on multiple exposure types. This tool can be accessed at https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/97 8c760f6786447397d8427500f94eb0. A contour or ‘heat’ map for different climate variables allows the viewer to see if a given cultural heritage resource is located in area that is predicted to see increases in extreme climate conditions such as heat, drought, fire danger, and more.

Component 2: Sensitivity Having a dataset of anticipated exposure types and intensity allows for the assessment of cultural resources sensitivity, or susceptibility. The IPCC defines sensitivity as the degree to which an entity is affected, either adversely or beneficially, by climate variability or change (although climate effects to cultural resources are rarely beneficial). The effect may be direct (e.g., a super-storm topples a lighthouse) or indirect (e.g., sea level rise undermines its foundations over several years) (IPCC 2014). Melnick and Quiroz (2017: 18) define sensitivity as “a measure of a cultural (resource’s) susceptibility to … impacts … resulting from exposure to climate variables”.

92

P.-L. Yu

Methods for measuring the sensitivity of cultural heritage resources are not standardized, which can be confusing but also offers an opportunity to customize methods and measurement units. A whole resource may be considered, or sensitivity indicators can include the most important characteristics of a resource, such as those that make it important to a local community or eligible to a national register. Additionally, sensitivity indicators can be extrinsic and intrinsic. For example, a historic building’s material types or state of repair are intrinsic to the structure, whereas the lack of funds for preventative maintenance is an extrinsic factor that increases its susceptibility. These can be combined or summed into a sensitivity measure. An innovative example of understanding sensitivity is the rapid assessments conducted by the University of Pennsylvania Center for Architectural Conservation for adobe (mud and straw) structures. UPENN researchers have used RFID (radio frequency identification) technology which uses moisture sensors that can be read with commercially available equipment (similar to antitheft systems in grocery stores) to monitor leaks and moisture intrusion for structures at Fort Union National Historic Site, a large nineteenth century adobe ruin (Oskierko-Jeznacki 2019). Understanding sensitivity to leaks and moisture intrusion offers a measurable indicator when considering exposure to changing snowmelt or severe storm patterns. Figure 8.2 shows an idealized map-based approach to exposure and sensitivity.

The Sum: Vulnerability The ways that exposure and sensitivity are expressed are key to combining them into a vulnerability assessment. Using ordinal or nominal scales can simplify the combination of exposure and sensitivity. Returning to the hypothetical lighthouse, it is evaluated as having a 60% likelihood for an increase in super storms from once every 10 years to once every 5 years. This is rated as a 4 (moderate to high exposure) out of 5 on the storm ‘exposure scale’. If the lighthouse has recently had reinforcement at its foundation it may be structurally able to withstand high winds, but nearby trees that are integral to the lighthouse landscape are highly likely to be damaged or killed. Therefore, the sensitivity indicators are combined for a rating of 5 out of 5, or highly sensitive. Simply put, the vulnerability score would be 4 (exposure) + 5 (sensitivity) for 9 out of a possible 10. If two other lighthouses have vulnerability scores of 5 and 8, this one could be selected as first in line for documentation and protective treatment. An example of an effective case study is found in Ricci et al. (2019a, b) where the NPS Northeast Region partnered with the University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography’s Coastal Resources Center to develop a method for an integrated climate change vulnerability assessment of coastal NPS park units. In the initial pilot project for seaside structures at the Colonial National Historical Park in coastal Virginia, methods included the designation of ‘bins’ for qualitative or narrative data for sensitivity indicators to be grouped into categories. These could then be

8  Hot, Dry, Flooded and Burned: Measuring Climate Vulnerability for Cultural…

93

Fig. 8.2  Hypothetical exposure map: Cultural heritage resource types 1, 2, and 3 are represented by three each (A, B, and C). Their geographic location is overlain with a probability map for a given exposure type over the next 5 years. Resources 1A and 3A are projected as the most exposed, 2C is next, and so on. (Credit: P. Yu)

measured against each other and combined with exposure for a vulnerability score. Ricci et al. (2019a, b) warn that these initial approaches to vulnerability assessment need to be repeated as climate data are refined, the condition of key resources changes, and instruments for measurement are adjusted. Trends in the vulnerability score would ideally emerge over time.

94

P.-L. Yu

Conclusion Methods for climate vulnerability assessments for cultural resources are not yet standardized nor straightforward, which can be daunting to a busy cultural heritage resources manager. The efforts of the US National Park Service and research partners offer cause for optimism: they demonstrate successful strategies to estimate the type, intensity, and frequency of exposure to various climate stressors; evaluate the sensitivity or susceptibility of cultural heritage resources or their components once the exposure has occurred; convert those into measurable categories; and combine them into a vulnerability score. If data are incomplete, this process can be accomplished in a phased manner to scope effectiveness of the methods, then combined with significance and/or condition information to make a clear and compelling case for funding and other support to expand the effort. These principles and strategies are transferable to other stressors and impacts to cultural resources including rampant development, over-tourism, armed conflict, and more. For example, the specific impacts from over-tourism can be enumerated as exposure types, and the sensitivity indicators adjusted accordingly. With these methods, vulnerability scores can be combined for a high-level overview of risk to cultural heritage resources from multiple factors. There has seldom been a more timely need for understanding the vulnerability of cultural heritage in a way that helps stewards and stakeholders to pro-active about protective strategies in a time of multiple interacting stressors. Acknowledgments  Special thanks are extended to the National Park Service for continued leadership on climate change and cultural heritage stewardship. My appreciation to park staff, partners and stakeholders, and members of the academic community for extraordinary efforts and expertise, with a special shout-out to Bandelier National Monument. I particularly recognize the contributions and knowledge of Native and Indigenous holders. This work is funded by the NPS Climate Change Response Program, Vanishing Treasures Program, and individual parks. Funds were implemented through the Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units (CESUs) which facilitate support for climate related research, technical assistance, and education in parks.

References Amberg S, Kilkus K, Gardner S, Gross JE, Wood M, Drazkowski B (2012) Badlands National Park: climate change vulnerability assessment, natural resource report NPS/BADL/NRR—2012/505. National Park Service, Fort Collins Douglas DL (2018) Heritage, climate change, and adaptation planning. In: Yu P, Shen C, Smith GS (eds) Relevance and application of heritage in contemporary society. Routledge, New York, pp 146–159 Fatorić S, McCreary A, Seekamp E (2017) Informing plans for managing resources of Cape Lookout National Seashore under projected climate change, sea level rise, and associated impacts: cultural resource management and historic preservation experts survey results. Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, College of Natural Resources, NC State University, Raleigh, NC

8  Hot, Dry, Flooded and Burned: Measuring Climate Vulnerability for Cultural…

95

Gonzalez P, Wang F, Notaro M, Vimont DJ, Williams JW (2018) Disproportionate magnitude of climate change in United States national parks. Environ Res Lett 13(10):104001. https://doi. org/10.1088/1748-­9326/aade09 Gross JE, Johnson K, Glick P, Hall K (2014) Understanding climate change impacts and vulnerability. In: Stein BA, Glick P, Edelson N, Staudt A (eds) Climate-smart conservation: putting adaptation principles into action. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC, pp 87–107 Hatfield SC, Marino E, Whyte KP, Dello KD, Mote PW (2018) Indian time: time, seasonality, and culture in traditional ecological knowledge of climate change. Ecol Process 7(1):1–11 IPCC (2014) Annex II: glossary. In: Agard J, Schipper ELF, Birkmann J, Campos M, Dubeux C, Nojiri Y et al (eds) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part B: regional aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK/New York, NY Melnick RZ, Quiroz N (2017) Study of climate change impacts on cultural landscapes in the Pacific west region, National Park Service, phase II: preliminary vulnerability assessments. Cultural landscape guidance documents. Cultural landscape research group, University of Oregon. Eugene, Oregon. Report on file at National Park Service National Center for preservation technology and training Meyer L, Yu PL, Skeirik R, Salazar-Halfmoon V (2010) Grappling with climate change: impacts to heritage resources. In: National Park Service, vanishing treasures year-end report: a climate of change, climate change issue. National Park Service Vanishing Treasures Program, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington D.C., pp 22–25 National Park Service (1999) Natural resource challenge: The National Park Service’s action plan for preserving natural resources. U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Washington, D.C., http://www.nature.nps.gov/challengedoc. Accessed 17 Dec 2022 Oskierko-Jeznacki E (2019) Simple RFID technology helps save fort union National Monument from collapse. Paper presented at the Association for Preservation Technology International (APT) conference, November 2019. https://www.design.upenn.edu/historic-­preservation/ post/simple-­rfid-­technology-­helps-­save-­fort-­union-­national-­monument-­collapse. Accessed 9 Oct 2021 Ricci G, Robadue DD, Rubinoff P, Casey A, Babson AL (2019a) Method for integrated coastal climate change vulnerability assessment. Natural resource report. NPS/NER/NRR—2019/1933. National Park Service, Fort Collins. https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2263494 (nps.gov). Accessed 9 Oct 2021 Ricci G, Robadue P, Rubinoff DD, Casey A, Babson AL (2019b) Integrated coastal climate change vulnerability assessment: Colonial National Historical Park. Natural resource report. PS/ COLO/NRR—2019/1945. National Park Service, Fort Collins. https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/ Reference/Profile/2264709 (nps.gov). Accessed 9 Oct 2021 Rockman M, Morgan M, Ziaja S, Hambrecht G, Meadow A (2016) Cultural resources climate change strategy. Cultural resources, partnerships, and science and climate change response program, National Park Service, Washington DC Southwest Climate Adaptation Science Center, University of Arizona (2021a) Cultural resources environmental vulnerability assessment tool (CREVAT) vulnerability systems site, developed under National Park Service agreement for “framework for addressing culture resource vulnerabilities, Phase I: Impact analysis” (2017) P17AC01532; P18AC01091; P19AC01130. https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/bf35fe50fcb2468b9809970eba750139. Accessed 5 Oct 2021 Southwest Climate Adaptation Science Center, University of Arizona (2021b) Cultural resources environmental assessment tool (CREVAT) Story Map https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/ bfd15a38058746c79588f33597291aea. Accessed 5 Oct 2021

96

P.-L. Yu

Styron W (1979) Sophie’s choice. Random House, New York Yu P, Rockman M, Neal C (2022) Chapter 4: A review of vulnerability assessments for cultural resources of the NPS for National Park Services cultural resources. In: Peek KM, Tormey BR, Thompson HL, AC Ellsworth, Hoffman CH (eds) Climate change vulnerability assessments in the National Park Service: an integrated review for infrastructure, natural resources, and cultural resources. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/CCRP/NRR—2022/2404. National Park Service Climate Change Response Program, Fort Collins, pp 94–132 https://doi.org/10.36967/ nrr-­2293650 Accessed 17 Dec 2022

Part III

De-colonialization, Community, and Place Making

Chapter 9

Tourism, Museums, and Ethics: Preserving Cultural Heritage for the Future Chen Shen

Abstract  Museums are highly favored tourism destinations. Tourists eager to explore the culture and history of foreign lands also may encounter objects from their own heritages during museum visits. Visitors may ask, where do objects come from and how did they arrive from afar? On the other side, contemporary museums have amended their missions and mandates to be relevant and engaging in global communities. This paper examines the roles of museum objects that connect the past and the future through the lens of contemporary heritage values and ethics, and argues that preserving culture heritage is not in the conventional display of objects; rather, museums must become responsible for making heritage values relevant and understandable to all visitors today. Through museums, global tourists can encounter different perspectives of heritage value and preserve their own heritage. Keywords  Museums · Collection · Repatriation · De-colonization · Community engagement

Introduction Tourism is not only associated with casual family and seasonal vacations, but also embedded in serious academic, educational, and professional endeavors. In 2009, I joined over 400 archaeologists, anthropologists, and historians in Hanoi, Vietnam, where the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association conference was held. As is common in academic conferences in East Asian countries, the hosts arranged mid-conference and post-conference excursions, visiting to cultural heritage sites and museums among local beautiful sceneries and sightseeing opportunities (Fig.  9.1). During that tour, my experiences at the National Museum of Vietnam were a bit of a cultural shock. I “read” a different version of Vietnam history from that which has been C. Shen (*) Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 P.-L. Yu et al. (eds.), Heritage and Cultural Heritage Tourism, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44800-3_9

99

100

C. Shen

Fig. 9.1  A Vietnamese heritage temple on the outskirts of Hanoi, worshipping an ancient hero who in second century BC defeated a Chinese army led by Zhao Tou, a famous heroic general of the First Emperor of Qin who was appraised for unified lands of south China. But in Vietnamese history, Zhao Tou was an invader. (Photo: C. Shen)

illustrated in the school textbooks in China. From that moment on, I gradually discovered three or four versions of Vietnam history, in American, European, Chinese, and Vietnamese classrooms. The other take-away from that tour was that my peer archaeologists from the conference were furious to learn so many national treasures were looted from the country during the colonial periods. They looked at me, who seemed to represent one of largest western museums where a large quantity of Asian antiquities has been housed and displayed, seeking answers for how western museums would move forward with repatriation and share the colonial history of collecting foreign treasures to the world. Ten years ago, my answer was incomplete and defensive. With new waves of globalization and efforts of inclusion and diversity in the field of museology in the past decade, I am finding myself in the midst of seeking answers to this question: why museums matter to tourism and culture heritage, especially when museums that display diversified objects from different cultural heritages open their doors to people who come from countries and regions where these objects originated. To answer this question in this short chapter, I would address reconciliation of cultural perceptions from perspectives of the power of objects connecting the past to the present and community-centered commitments of contemporary museums in the twenty-first century (Shen 2018; Yu et al. 2018).

9  Tourism, Museums, and Ethics: Preserving Cultural Heritage for the Future

101

Objects of the Past: Connecting to Contemporary Society Other words for objects of the past could be antiquities, cultural relics, treasures, collections, and historic artworks. These have been, and in many cases still are, the focus of museum acquisitions. Studies of the collecting history of major museums in the West have suggested inevitably that many Asian objects of the past were deliberately removed from their countries of origin (Irwin and Shen 2016; Shen 2014; Steuber and Lai 2014; Glazer and Meyer 2017; van Horne et al. 2018). It is beyond the scope of this chapter to verify fact and fiction behind the collecting of national treasures for historic purposes of museum acquisition in the early twentieth century, but today the museum interpretations of those objects acquired by colonial endeavors continues to damage the connection to the diverse diaspora societies of the US and Canada. When Asian tourists or Asian immigrant families and their descendants visit Asian galleries of western museums, the reactions from these visitors have been not the same from European descendants who feel they “own” museums. I can assume most Chinese tourists coming to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, would visit the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall, but they also will not miss the opportunity to check out the two life-sized stone carving horses that once belonged to the first emperor of the great Tang Dynasty (AD 618–907) of China, and are displayed at the Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology (MPenn) University of Pennsylvania (Fig. 9.2). The sentiment that draws Chinese visitors to MPenn is the connection between these two horses and the other four surviving horses that remain in Xian, China, the homeland of the emperor: the complete set of Tang Six-Horses that have been portrayed in paintings, essays, and poems over more than one thousand years. In many visitors’ minds, objects like the two horses were “stolen” and symbols of “national disgrace” that resulted from colonization. However, on the other hand the museum could easily produce proof that the horses were legally purchased through conventional acquisition methods in the early twentieth century (Steuber and Lai 2014). The museum could also say that relocation of the horses to western museums has been a good way of preserving the cultural relics and disseminating knowledge of different cultural heritages, as argued by many museum curators and directors (Cuno 2008, 2009, 2011). In such a case, Chinese government has understood there is no clear legal ground to pursue repatriation requests. But with increased tourism, disputes over the return of the two horses are erupting continuously between Chinese visitors and the museum administration, leading to questions about moral and ethical practice of museums, rather than legal boundaries. Defining “looting” during the wartime and/or through deliberate criminal actions is relatively straight-forward (Brodie et al. 2001; Renfrew 2000; Shen 2014). But admitting that western museums hold foreign objects that are connected to looting has been always a dilemma of cultural sensitivity and political correctness (Hicks 2020). Museum administrations are afraid of opening the flood gates and may visualize that half their galleries would be emptied (Cuno 2009). Being on the defensive,

102

C. Shen

Fig. 9.2  One of six stone-carving horses, made in the seventh century to commemorate six horses who died for the first Tang Dynasty Emperor, Li Shiming (r. 626–649). Highly praised in historic romantic literature, four survived as national treasures in Xian, China, while two (including the one in the photo) were purchased in 1930s by the MPenn. (Photo: C. Shen)

museum professionals and academics unconsciously take the stand opposite of archaeologists and anthropologists (see above), addressing the issues about how to share learning cultural heritages in a global context. The notions, argued thoroughly in the name of cultural preservation, are not well taken by the people who feel their heritage history is stained by the “lost objects” taken by the forces of imperialism and colonialism. To these people, the messages from western museums might sound like this: “Ok, we understand it was tragic in your history when the objects were not protected from loss, so we did it for you. Now they are here, let’s work together so that your cultural heritage can shine here as much as they would have been back home”. In translation, this is like telling concerned visitors from the homeland of heritage objects, “get lost!” The sad emotion in this dispute is always centered on ownership and repatriation of these objects. It has been focused on the historic momentum of how the objects were lost and why. Both sides seem to be forgetting the power of the actual objects, not only as relics of cultural patrimony and historic significance, but also their ability to bring together – or divide – people living in contemporary society. Museum professionals must realize the importance of objects is not addressed in academic forums and curator’s gallery tables; instead, this importance must be understood

9  Tourism, Museums, and Ethics: Preserving Cultural Heritage for the Future

103

from the hearts of the objects’ creators and the people descended from them. In the many cases where I have dealt with Indigenous belonging repatriations, I learned that objects that are seemingly less important in our collection are in fact significantly, emotionally, and spiritually connected to Indigenous communities. Objects connecting to one’s past are ultimately important, that is what cultural heritage is all about (Messenger and Smith 2010; Smith et  al. 2010; Yu et  al. 2018). However, heritage is not read and viewed just from objects of the past. Heritage value lies within the connection of people in contemporary societies, their past, and their future. But how? First of all, western museums that own and display foreign objects of cultural heritage must step forward to acknowledge wrongful ownership due to colonization regardless of the rightfulness of purchases or gift acquisitions. That is the first step towards reconciliation and the de-colonization process in museums, even though the process might take longer than we expect. For example, it took 27 years for the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) and after seven generations of directorship to issue an official apology to African-Canadian community for the racist exhibition Into the Heart of Africa held in 1989 (Royal Ontario Museum apologizes for 1989 ‘Into the Heart of Africa’ exhibit | Globalnews.ca). With such an apology, followed by the establishment of the ‘of Africa’ programme and internship, the ROM and the African-Canadian community are now connected (Fig. 9.3). Community engagement has been the focus of mission and vision statements of contemporary museums, but they cannot be just “lip-service”! The center of community engagement is to reconcile the meaning of objects, which can go into the heart of the creators of objects and their cultural descendants. To build the connection is to build trust. The trust in stewardship of objects that have meaning in the cultural heritage of their own people can be only built when western museums listen to the visitors’ voices and understand their feelings, rather than being defensive. The power of objects to connect people in contemporary society lies on the fact that the ownership of objects always belongs to people who created them in name of history, regardless where they were then or where they are now. After all, we are all part of the heritage upon which the future of cultural harmony is being built every day.

 ho Owns the Objects? Challenges of Interpreting W Cultural Heritage The above-mentioned Tang horses example illustrates two folded perspectives that surround objects of the past that are on display in western museums. On the one hand, visitors from the countries of origin (often Asia, Africa, and Latin America) where the objects were acquired either through purchase or looting, have viewed the loss of cultural heritage and disgrace of their own nation. They see the inequality of cultural manifestations between the imperial powers and authentic ethnic

104

C. Shen

Fig. 9.3  One of the ‘of Africa’ community engagement programs at the Royal Ontario Museum after an official apology issued to the public concerning the problematic exhibition Into the Heart of Africa. (Photo: Royal Ontario Museum, used by permission)

communities. Similar feelings can be applied to Indigenous communities. On the other hand, western visitors have long appreciated and enjoyed ‘exotic’ art and objects that were acquired from lands afar. While creators of objects in their own countries lost their cultural patrimony during times of turmoil, western museums and collectors stepped in to acquire objects in the name of preservation and cultural appreciation. Of course, the objects survived in the western museums, as opposed to being lost in perpetuity during the wars or political upheaval in the countries of origin. And certainly, visitors of western museums (mostly Euro-American patrons in the twentieth century) have appreciated and understood cultural heritages rooted in foreign lands in ways that are different from descriptions of first-hand tourist journeys (Carpino et al. 2018). Now, the descendants are back! Descendants of these objects’ creators are among museum tourists and visitors. Some are led to museums by their tour guides where the tourists would appreciate the local heritages that are foreign to them. While they enjoy learning heritage of other cultures, one inevitable discovery is another version of storytelling about their own cultures by having their ancestral objects on display. That is another aspect of object ownership – who can or should interpret objects of the past – and whose past? Museum curators validate their own interpretations of foreign objects because their life-long academic endeavors grant the ability and

9  Tourism, Museums, and Ethics: Preserving Cultural Heritage for the Future

105

credentials to do so. But the issue of interpreting cultural heritages that are foreign to the interpreter is not merely academic; cultural heritage is also about morals and ethics, because objects are humanized by connecting to the emotions of the creators’ descendants (Cuno 2009; Messenger 1986). Explaining how objects on display can tell a story of the past is of interest not only for academics, but also for the community who once created and owned the objects. Thus, in this sense, we are not judging the right or wrong of interpretations. Rather, museums need to understand there are multiple ways of interpreting objects on display. What is missing right now in many museums is the voice of the creators’ descendants. In my practice of organizing and exporting important exhibitions, we have collaborated with professionals and curators from many countries of origin. While Asian guests are always modest and kind, and sometimes less willing to criticize, they have expressed dismay at our interpretations in our galleries. What they come forward with was not academically argumentative; rather, our guests feel the interpretation of foreign cultural objects with attitudes of western museums which have always been embedded within imperialism and colonialism. I would agree on that while museums always insist that they have interpreted gallery objects from a global perspective, it remains the case that, compared to highlights of Renaissance art and seventeenth century Dutch painting, objects of Africa, Asia, and Latin America have been treated always like second class focusing on exoticism, attractiveness, and foreignness. Treating and interpreting foreign objects in galleries in such a way as museums “brought” them back “home” as victorious trophies from the past, has been fuel to the flame of abhorrence to Asian and people of color. Western museums have been raised from a focus of Euro-centric history of art and culture. This is inevitably to allow their patrons of the twentieth century to comfortably feel they “own” the objects because their grandparents’ generation bought them home and gave to museums as their own “gift”. So, museums “own” the right to interpret Asian cultural heritages in whatever manner they feel is best; furthermore, museums could interpret the objects in cultural context at the pleasure of their Euro-American patrons by treating the objects in the gallery as second class. This circular argument, admitted or not, is at the root of anti-Asian and Pacific Islander (AAPI) perspectives in North America, and museums’ ethics have long played negative roles. This must stop now!

 reserving Objects of the Past and Voices of Diversified P Cultural Heritages There are many ways of preserving objects of the past, one of which is repatriation or some times also called restitution. The provenance studies of museum collection have long been discussed and are beyond the scope of this paper. But every case of repatriating looted objects and cultural patrimony could be circumstantial: the

106

C. Shen

current practice of museums has always been defensive while gradually realizing that returning objects to their original lands is inevitable. This will take a long time, but it is coming. In the meantime, the best way of preserving objects of the past is to welcome the voices and storytelling from the creators of those objects. Museums’ gallery and exhibition programs must have strategic planning that includes community advisory groups. In my view, each exhibition project must consider five aspects of inclusive strategic planning, detailed below. The first aspect is the official voices and perspectives from different countries and government agencies. Museums cannot simply require knowledge of their own cultural heritage policies and regulations; they must also have a good understanding of the policies and regulations of the countries and governments involved in the artwork and other cultural objects. The museum must also be well-informed about the policies and regulations of the countries and governments of origin. This can be challenging when bilateral relations of diplomacy have fluctuated, say like US-China relations today, to this regard. However, it gives the museum opportunities to provide cultural wisdom toward build forward-looking relations from perspective of heritage values. The second aspect of inclusive strategic planning is the voices and perspectives of scholars and experts from different cultural backgrounds. Museums tend to assert that our research into collections are based on the most recent and authoritative scholarly information. The question, however, is “whose research” contributes to these studies? For example, when European and American museums study Chinese or East Asian art, European and American scholars’ perspectives are often heard, whereas Chinese scholars’ perspectives may be ignored and unheard. Similarly, one might ask of Chinese museums, when organizing exhibitions on cultural exchanges between China and foreign countries such as the Silk Road exhibition or the exhibition on the spread of Buddhism, have they incorporated or adopted the views of relevant scholars from other countries? The third aspect is the voices and perspectives from different ethnic communities around the world. Museums are often considered representatives of a mainstream culture, and representatives of the Chinese community in Toronto often see working with the ROM as a symbol of entry into mainstream Canadian culture. This is true, but the ROM, as a representative of mainstream Canadian culture, must still listen to and respect the views of the communities involved when planning multicultural exhibitions. In the case of the ROM’s renovation of the Indigenous art gallery, it was necessary to have Aboriginal representatives work with the museum curators. Likewise, in a city of diverse ethnic groups, might a museum displaying and interpreting Vietnamese art and culture need to listen to and respect their own perceptions and opinions when studying, interpreting, and presenting minority cultures? In this case, Vietnamese history might not be so different between Canadian museums and Vietnamese museums. The fourth aspect of inclusive strategic planning is the voices and perspectives of museum academics and curators from different cultural backgrounds. In one example, museum curators with different cultural biases or preferences may have different interpretations of Chinese culture. We often think that native-Chinese

9  Tourism, Museums, and Ethics: Preserving Cultural Heritage for the Future

107

curators who work in Western museums should be the most knowledgeable about Chinese culture and can plan exhibitions that best interpret Chinese culture. This is not necessarily true. In fact, when rooted within one’s heritage, we may plan a Chinese cultural exhibition with a “bias” mentality and tend to ignore the perspective of the larger Western audience. Of course, I have also witnessed traditional Western curators still interpret Chinese culture with the same bias toward China they were trained for 40 years ago. Therefore, only through a process of mutual respect and learning among peers can we truly understand Chinese culture and interpret Chinese art. The fifth or the last aspect includes the voices and perspectives of culturally and politically diverse audiences, or tourists of different cultural heritage. As mentioned many times before, if museums want to engage in dialogue with their audiences on an equal footing, they must first learn to listen to their “grievances,” especially when the exhibition is about their own cultural backgrounds. While their opinions may be radical or biased, it is only by talking to them as equals that a museum can be truly inspired to re-examine the objects of interest in the collections. I have worked with visitors from Japan and Korea who have protested against the maps of the area in the galleries, and with a superstar celebrity from Korea who used the galleries to express his discontent with Japanese colonial culture. One Western visitor wrote me an angry email asking me to remove a Chinese pottery object of 4000 years old because it had an ancient swastika on it that this individual, who is of Jewish descendant, mistook for a German Nazi symbol. Museums should not just argue about what is right and what is wrong, but should take the opportunity to engage in a sincere dialogue as equals in order to understand the real reasons why visitors come to museums and the real messages that they receive there.

Conclusion The past decade has witnessed transformation in contemporary museums. A number of visionary museum academics and leaderships have continuously re-evaluated the practices of museum engagement with communities of Asian, African, Latin American, and Islamic worlds. The Covid-19 pandemic has now bought museums’ ethical roles to the center of anti-AAPI sentiments, allowing us to realize the fact that how we treat foreign objects and their cultural heritage in museums is not a small matter. It could spark hate-crimes when Euro-American- dominance of western museums appropriate the treatment of Asian objects in their galleries as their own subjects, implying that their creators and descendants are inferiors. Museums have been, and always will be, an important tourist destination. A museum opens its doors to welcome the descendants of objects’ creators, who may view items that were looted, purchased, or otherwise removed and transported to museums for display. The interaction between museums and foreign tourist should engage conversations on ownership of the objects in a broad sense. This dialogue is the basis of understanding one’s cultural heritage, not the object itself.

108

C. Shen

Western museums that hold a large quantity of objects coming from Africa, Asia and Latin America as well as from colonized Indigenous communities must step forward not just through repatriation efforts, but also by learning the meanings of objects for reconciliation actions. Federal and state governments in US have provided a huge amount of tax-payer funds to support museum provenance studies to support congressionally mandated repatriation under laws such as the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. However, the provenance studies of museum collections should not be used to allow museum to be more defensive. Instead, museums must move beyond provenance studies, and take action on the de-colonization process. The act of de-colonizing museums is not to empty galleries or destroy museums. Rather, this act will situate museums within their communities; places where cultural heritage can live in perpetuity. Again, the power of objects is not where they belonged or will belong; rather, objects can bring people together with different voices and perspectives to learn and interpret cultural heritage. When tourism accompanies the boom of museum development in Asia (Shen 2010), I hope international tourists will no longer discover different versions of Vietnam history than those they were taught at home. When people come to discuss and to learn, the future of museum is built. Just like Kevin Costner says in movie Field of Dreams: If You Build it, They (the visitors) Will Come.

References Brodie N, Doole J, Renfrew C (eds) (2001) Trade in illicit antiquities: the destruction of the world’s archaeological heritage. McDonald Institute, Cambridge Carpino A, D’Angelo T, Muratov M, Saunders D (eds) (2018) Collecting and collectors from antiquity to modernity. Selected papers on ancient art and architecture, vol 4. Archaeological Institute of America, Boston Cuno J (2008) Who owns antiquity? Princeton University Press, Princeton/Oxford Cuno J (ed) (2009) Whose culture? The promise of museums and the debate over antiquities. Princeton University Press, Princeton/Oxford Cuno J (2011) Museums matter: in praise of the encyclopedic museum. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago/London Glazer L, Meyer A (2017) Charles Lang Freer: a cosmopolitan life. Freer gallery of art. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC Hicks D (2020) Brutish museums: the Benin bronzes, colonial violence and cultural restitution. Pluto Press, London Irwin S, Shen C (2016) A question of provenance: the Bishop William white ‘Jincun’ collection in the royal Ontario museum. Orientations 47(3):34–41 Messenger PM (ed) (1986) The ethics of collecting cultural property: whose culture? whose property? University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque Messenger PM, Smith GS (eds) (2010) Cultural heritage management: a global perspective. University Press of Florida, Gainesville Renfrew C (2000) Loot, legitimacy and ownership: the ethical crisis of archaeology. Duckworth, London

9  Tourism, Museums, and Ethics: Preserving Cultural Heritage for the Future

109

Shen C (2010) Evaluating values of world heritage sites and cultural tourism in China. In: Smith GS, Messenger PM, Soderland HA (eds) Heritage values in contemporary society. Left Coast Press, Inc, Walnet Creek, pp 255–266 Shen C (2014) Objectives and challenges: past, present, and future of collecting Chinese antiquities in the Royal Ontario Museum. In: Steuber J, Lai G (eds) Collectors, collections and collecting the arts of China: histories and challenges. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp 245–264 Shen C (2018) Objects of the past: relevance of cultural heritage in 21st century museums. In: Yu PL, Shen C, Smith GS (eds) Relevance and application of heritage in contemporary society. Routledge Press, London, pp 35–43 Smith GS, Messenger PM, Soderland HA (eds) (2010) Heritage values in contemporary society. Left Coast Press, Inc, Walnut Creek Steuber J, Lai G (eds) (2014) Collectors, collections & collecting the arts of China: histories and challenges. University Press of Florida, Gainesville van Horne WC, Graham R, Takesue A (eds) (2018) Obsession: Sir William Van Horne’s Japanese ceramics. Published for the Gardiner museum, Toronto by McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal and Toronto Yu PL, Shen C, Smith GS (eds) (2018) Relevance and application of heritage in contemporary society. Routledge Press, London

Chapter 10

Indigenous Exhibits at the Museum: A Device of Tourism to Bring Awareness to the General Public Atsushi Nobayashi

Abstract  A museum’s exhibits are culled from the limited context of subjects in situ. Therefore, it is not possible to see the original totality of the object to be exhibited. On the other hand, the advantage of an exhibition is that by devising a design, the creator of the exhibition brings the subject matter into focus. This chapter shows how Indigenous peoples are depicted in museum exhibits to consider the potential role of museums in understanding Indigenous issues. A museum exhibit is not a panacea, but it does give the public an opening to think about social issues. Keywords  Indigenous exhibits · Tourism · Museums · Social issues

Introduction Who has the longest history in each country or area? Many people would probably agree that it is Indigenous peoples. Of course, in some countries and regions, Indigenous groups may have disappeared, or they may have mixed with later migrants, so that the ethnicity is blended. On the other hand, the existence of Indigenous peoples on the planet, estimated at around 370 million people, is known, and their history is much longer than that of the majority in each colonized country or region. In areas where Indigenous peoples still exist, archaeological research may be one of the most effective means of uncovering their history. On the other hand, in areas where there are no Indigenous peoples, the question of who owns the archaeological remains found is rarely discussed in the context of Indigenous cultures. One of the reasons for this is that the existence of Indigenous peoples has not always been known to the public. If I may be allowed to be a little bold, A. Nobayashi (*) National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka, Japan The Graduate University of Advanced Studies, Hayama, Japan e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 P.-L. Yu et al. (eds.), Heritage and Cultural Heritage Tourism, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44800-3_10

111

112

A. Nobayashi

archaeological sites are the traces of the past lives of Indigenous peoples, and in order to understand them, a basic knowledge of Indigenous peoples is probably a positive thing. Museums have been deeply involved in the task of helping non-Indigenous citizens to understand Indigenous cultures. The exhibit of Indigenous or minority peoples has long been an especially central issue for ethnographic museums. One of the critiques in this case may be how the museum will describe the objects on the exhibit. It was the “Primitivism in 20th Century Art: Affinities of the Tribal and Modern” held at the Museum of Modern Art in New York in 1984 that made us realize the importance of this subject. The criticism of this exhibition led to a debate about the relationship between anthropological representation and Western-centeredness and evolutionary thinking that lurked in the gaze towards what had been produced by a small number of people, which had previously been called “primitive art” (Clifford 1988: Foster 1985; Price 2001; Errington 1994). It is well known that one of the major problems pointed out in the “Primitivism” exhibition was that the non-Western works were not labelled with the name of the artist or the year of production, and were treated as “art” in the same way as Western works of art, without regard to cultural context such as purpose or function. At the same time, the museum’s attitude towards minorities was also subject to critical debate. Anna Jones (1993, p. 209) referred to “the neglect of contemporary Indian artists, the failure to consult local native communities, the display of objects collected under suspicious circumstances, the distorted historical treatment, the use of the ‘culture area’ concept, and in particular, the curator’s ignorance of contemporary political issues.” So, are Indigenous peoples and minorities disappointed by ethnographic museums? In fact, the author has an honest question as to whether the role of ethnographers and cultural anthropologists is too much underestimated in past discussions. Perhaps this is because I have been working in an ethnographic museum during and after these discussions. The author’s experience of working with Indigenous source communities in Taiwan may also have influenced ways of thinking. As well as conducting anthropological research on Taiwan’s Indigenous peoples, the author has worked with source communities to plan and design museum exhibitions (Nobayashi 2009), and be involved in the process of re-creating their culture, coordinating the research of museum materials practiced by the Indigenous people themselves (Nobayashi and Simon 2020). From these experiences, the author thinks that anthropologists who are expected to play a certain role by Indigenous source communities need to respond to them. On the other hand, we need to know that the expectations that Indigenous source communities have of museums and museum anthropologists vary depending on the location of the museum, the type of museum, the context of the museum’s collection and the source communities themselves. By understanding that Indigenous peoples are diverse, and that museums are diverse, we may be able to rethink our criticism of one-sided representations of peoples.

10  Indigenous Exhibits at the Museum: A Device of Tourism to Bring Awareness…

113

In keeping with these concerns, this chapter presents an exhibition that aims to show visitors the diversity of the world’s Indigenous peoples. Specifically, the special exhibition “Treasures of Indigenous Peoples” held in 2020 at the National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka (hereafter referred to as Minpaku) will be introduced, and the contribution that ethnography and anthropology can make using museums as social, educational and research facilities will be discussed. What was unique about this particular exhibition was that it simultaneously included many of the different perspectives that ethnographic exhibitions have considered. That is to say, it included the exhibit of different cultures, the exhibit of minorities, the exhibit of Indigenous peoples at home, the display of Indigenous peoples in former colonies, the exhibit of foreign Indigenous peoples at a relatively short distance, and the exhibit of Indigenous peoples at a long distance. This exhibition was made possible by the division of contributions between the researchers of the Minpaku, who conduct research on Indigenous peoples around the world, using the results of their field research and the materials stored in the museum. As a result, each of the Indigenous peoples was presented from a different perspective, according to the historical and social context in which they were situated. A further important point to mention in this exhibition is that the museum where it was held is not in an area currently inhabited by Indigenous people.

National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka Minpaku was established in 1974 and opened its exhibition spaces to the public in 1977. Its predecessor was the museum attached to the Japan Society for Ethnology, which was established in the first half of the 20th century and closed after World War II. The 1970 World Exposition in Osaka was one of the triggers for the construction of a new museum in Osaka, based on the previous collection, in the same place where the Expo was held (Nobayashi 2020). Minpaku is a museum by name, but it is also a national research institution, an ‘Inter-University Research Institute.’ Its fundamental mission is to carry out research in the humanities, particularly ethnology and cultural anthropology, archaeology and history, and to create a research environment for the collection and use of materials relevant to these fields. The core of the collection is ethnographic material, including food, clothing, shelter and other everyday objects, ritual and religious objects and artifacts from around the world. The museum currently houses around 350,000 specimens and 70,000 video and audio materials, which have been used for research and exhibitions. At Minpaku, we have permanent exhibitions of local culture covering various regions of the world, as well as language and music exhibitions. In addition to this, special exhibitions on specific themes are organized several times a year. These themes are determined according to the research interests of the museum staff. Many special exhibitions are planned by a team of museum staff and external researchers.

114

A. Nobayashi

“The Treasures of Indigenous Peoples” exhibition presented here is a special exhibition held in 2020. It was organized by an executive team of 10 museum staff and 5 external researchers. One of the external researchers was a person of Ainu heritage. The preparations took almost two years and the event was to be held from 1 October to 15 December 2020. The exhibition proceeded as planned, with modified protocols due to the ongoing pandemic.

The Special Exhibition “The Treasures of Indigenous Peoples” The author was one of the organizing committee members of this special exhibition and was in charge of the section on the Indigenous people of Taiwan. The overall organizing committee was headed by Dr. Toshihiro Nobuta, who has been engaged in cultural anthropological research on Orang Asli in Malaysia for many years. At the beginning of the preparations for the exhibition, the chairperson of the organizing committee stated that the aim was to show the diversity of the world’s Indigenous peoples and to share their existence in the consciousness of the visitors to the exhibition. This was not only to show that there are many different Indigenous peoples around the world, each with their own unique culture, but also to show that Indigenous peoples have had different historical experiences, and that there are common factors and elements in these historical experiences that should be considered as issues concerning Indigenous peoples in the past, present and future. To think about this, the chairman of the organizing committee made a suggestion which was central to the concept of the exhibition: “Treasure”. The question of what “treasure” means to Indigenous peoples was argued for some time among the members of the committee during the preparation. Whether or not Indigenous peoples have a concept of ‘treasure’, and even if they do, the content may be different from what other groups consider treasure. I have asked my Indigenous friends in Taiwan through e-mail and social networking system whether there is anything in their languages and concepts that is equivalent to a “treasure”, and almost all of their reply was “no.” On the other hand, when one considers that Indigenous peoples have sustained their societies and cultures to this day, despite all the difficulties they have faced, there must be something that drives them, something that they rely on. The challenge of discovering this was, for the Museum, the significance of the “treasures” on which this exhibition was based. With this common understanding, the exhibition consisted of ethnographic displays from Aboriginal Australians (Australia), Orang Asli (Malaysia), Tao (Taiwan), Adibasi (Nepal), Maya (Guatemala), San, Somali (Africa), Northwest Coast People (Canada), Sami (Northern Europe) and Ainu (Japan). Those with a basic knowledge of the world’s Indigenous peoples may wonder why Maori and Native American content was not included in the exhibition. The reason for the former is that there are no staff members specializing in this field at Minpaku, and the reason for the latter is that although there was a candidate in charge of the exhibition, one did not participate in it of one’s own volition. Thus these two large Indigenous groups were excluded from the exhibition because Museum staff could not be responsible for the content of the exhibition unless it was backed up by field research and studies.

10  Indigenous Exhibits at the Museum: A Device of Tourism to Bring Awareness…

115

Aboriginal Australian (Australia) The subject of the Aboriginal Australian section of the exhibition was the Dreaming, a mythological system at the core of Aboriginal life and culture in the central desert and northern regions. Their performing and figurative arts are based on the mythical world of the Dreaming, performed and expressed during the rituals of dialogue with the spirits, and are now a major source of cultural identity expression. The exhibition included bark paintings, acrylic pointillism and silkscreen prints. The person in charge of the exhibition section was a researcher who originally specialized in informative technology. After joining the Minpaku staff, he began researching Australian Aboriginal people and is now an Emeritus Professor. He has also published articles on the history of Aboriginal human rights and land movements, and has insights into the historical experience of Aboriginal communities.

Orang Asli (Malaysian) The subject of the Orang Asli section was the belief in the spirits of the forest. Orang Asli’s reverence for all of nature’s activities and their belief that all things are inhabited by spirits introduced the audience to the spiritual world of the people who live with nature. This is essential information for understanding the contemporary problem of the living conditions of Orang Asli being threatened by rapid development. The exhibition featured wood carvings with representations of spirits. The person in charge of this section was the chairman of the exhibition’s organizing committee. He is a cultural anthropologist who has lived in the Orang Asli community for a long time and is familiar with their social relations and Indigenous issues related to development.

Tao (Taiwan) Tao (Taiwan) was the only group positioned as the Indigenous people of the sea in the exhibition. The author was in charge of this section of the exhibition. In addition to writing my Master’s thesis on ethnoarchaeology in their root crops, I conducted a door-to-door survey of one of the six villages on the island, and have a good knowledge of basic social relations, subsistence systems, beliefs, and more, so I decided that I could take responsibility for the content of this section. The exhibit introduced the subsistence of the Indigenous people living on the island, the widespread use of the ecological and social environment through beadwork, and the surveys and research conducted by Japanese ethnographers. Taiwan’s Indigenous peoples, like the Ainu (see below), were subjected to Japanese colonial rule. I also attempted to introduce the material culture collections collected during the Japanese occupation, together with their research history.

116

A. Nobayashi

Adibasi (Nepal) The Adibasi (Nepal) section presented the key issue of how to view Indigenous peoples in the context of Nepal’s complex ethnic composition. Nepal’s first inhabitants ‘Adibasi’ make up 36 per cent of Nepal’s total population, including 59 ethnic groups recognized by the government and several unrecognized groups. The definitions and ideas of Indigenous peoples differ in some ways from those in other countries and regions. This particular situation has not been well known to Japanese visitors. The exhibit on the situation of Indigenous people in Nepal was expected to revise the social positioning of Indigenous people, which tends to be stereotyped. The person in charge of this corner specializes in ecological anthropology and has recently become interested in Nepal’s ethnic movements and the challenges faced by Nepalese and other migrants in Japan.The exhibition featured materials from the Minpaku’s collection relating to several ethnic groups. These included religious objects, household items and handicrafts.

Maya (Guatemala) The subject of this section is weaving, which has been maintained through the decline of the Maya civilization during the Classic period, the Spanish conquest and the spread of Christianity. This has the advantage that the Minpaku has a rich collection of Maya folk costumes, and the changes in design in the 20th century were explained in the exhibit, as well as the problem of plagiarism of traditional designs and the intellectual property protection activities against it. The person in charge of this section is a specialist in cultural anthropology, and has made fair trade in particular a theme of his research. In addition, a researcher specializing in the study of weaving from an external institute has been involved in the planning of this section.

San, Somali (Africa) In this section, the images and realities of the lives of Indigenous peoples who are divided by national boundaries, were presented, with a focus on the tools used in the subsistence activities of hunting, gathering and herding. This section was organized by an ecological anthropologist. He has travelled extensively, not only in Africa but also in other parts of the world, to study the nature of livelihoods. In this section, he used a lot of footage from San and Somali, which he supervised, to give a realistic picture of people living in a land far away from Japan. This section of the exhibition was also designed to show the scale of nature that people face. It displayed life-size photographs of giraffes and stuffed camels, which made the visitors feel the scale of animals bigger than human beings.

10  Indigenous Exhibits at the Museum: A Device of Tourism to Bring Awareness…

117

Northwest Coast People (Canada) In the Northwest Coast People (Canada) section, the cultural vitality of the Haida, Kwakwaka’wakw and Tsimshian peoples of Canada’s western coast region was presented through masks, ceremonial objects and printworks. The person in charge is a cultural expert assigned to build up an excellent database of museum material on the region (https://ifm.minpaku.ac.jp/canada/, accessed October 10, 2021).

Sami (Northern Europe) This section of the exhibition featured knives, an essential part of the Sami way of life and a symbol of their people, as well as household items made from them. The person in charge of the exhibition is a professor emeritus of the museum, specializing in linguistic anthropology.

Ainu (Japan) The Ainu section of the exhibition took up more space than the other Indigenous groups. On display were subsistence toolkits used in the traditional Ainu way of life, lacquerware and beaded goods called tamasai, which illustrate the development of Ainu rituals and trade, and clothing made from fish skin, cotton, and halibut bark fiber called atusi, which is unique to the Ainu. At the same time, through the newly created works, it was illustrated that these objects continue to be made as Ainu crafts within the source community, as well as being created in a contemporary context. In the Ainu section of the exhibition, original drawings from the manga ‘Golden Kamui,’ which was set in Hokkaido and Sakhalin 100 years ago, were also on display. In fact, the artist of this cartoon occasionally visited the museum and used the exhibits in the permanent collection of the Minpaku as a reference when drawing Ainu tools and clothes in his works. The staff member in charge of the Ainu section of this special exhibition and the cartoonist were acquainted with each other, and Minpaku has asked the publishers of the cartoons for permission to display the original cartoons in a special exhibition. Throughout the exhibition it was possible to see the actual tools and clothes depicted in the original drawings, and at the same time, by seeing the characters in the cartoons using the tools and wearing the clothes, it was possible to understand the exhibited material in a more concrete way. Another aspect of the Ainu exhibition that should be mentioned is that it included not only the Ainu of Hokkaido, but also the Kuril Ainu, the Sakhalin Ainu, and the Wirta and Nivkh people living on Sakhalin. This also highlights the existence of Indigenous peoples who are divided by national borders.

118

A. Nobayashi

The staff member in charge of the Ainu exhibition is also a researcher with many years of experience in the study of Ainu natural resource use and material culture. She is responsible for coordinating the annual Kamuinomi ritual, which invites the Ainu people to the Minpaku, as well as researching the Minpaku collection of Ainu crafts artists and organizing exchanges with Minpaku researchers.

‘Information Wall’ Whereas each section was designed according to the situation of the Indigenous people and the museum’s collections, the information wall provided a consistent perspective throughout (Fig. 10.1). This part included basic information about Indigenous peoples, their historical experiences and contemporary challenges. For example, the wall of the Tao (Taiwan) section included an introduction to all Indigenous groups in Taiwan, including the Tao, a social movement for the rights and dignity of Indigenous peoples that began in the mid-1980s, known as the “Aboriginal Movement,” an introduction to the Tao people and their current struggle over the construction of a low-radioactive waste site on the island that is their traditional home.

Fig. 10.1  ‘Information Wall’ of Taiwan section, National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka. (Photo credit: A. Nobayashi)

10  Indigenous Exhibits at the Museum: A Device of Tourism to Bring Awareness…

119

Discussion Figure 10.2 shows the locations of traditional settlements of the Indigenous communities represented in the special exhibition. The exhibition showed the existence of Indigenous peoples who have lived in a very diverse range of natural environments, from high to low latitudes, from coastal areas to arid inland regions and alpine areas. Table 10.1 shows a very preliminary comparison of the contents of the different sections of the special exhibition including specialties of the different staff. It is understood that the size and level of the target group varies. Individual ethnic groups were targeted in the Tao (Taiwan) and the Ainu, which are relatively close to Japan. They also have in common that they are both Indigenous peoples who were colonized by Japan. They share a common background in the collection of materials, including those from the colonial period. In addition to having a collection sufficient to constitute an exhibition of a single ethnic group, the Minpaku had experience in discussing the position of the collection, including the return of materials. The expertise of the curators appears to have had some influence on the content of the exhibition, but rather the selection of objects seemed to have been made with an awareness of the local context. In particular, the Aboriginal Australian, Orang Asli, Maya and Sami sections concentrated on crafts and artworks. This was probably due to the fact that the people in charge of each section were familiar with the local issues surrounding crafts and artworks, and understood that they were closely linked to the expression of Indigenous identity.

Fig. 10.2  Indigenous settlements featured in the exhibition. (After Nobuta 2020: 10–11, used by permission and modified by the author)

120

A. Nobayashi

Table 10.1  Contents of each section Indigenous people, area or countries Aboriginal Australian (Australia) Orang Asli (Malaysia) Tao (Taiwan)

Exhibition Unit Ethnic groups

Ethnic groups Individual Population Adibasi (Nepal) Ethnic groups

Maya (Guatemala)

Ethnic groups

San, Somali (Africa)

Ethnic groups

Northwest Coast Ethnic People (Canada) groups

Sami (Northern Europe)

Ethnic groups

Ainu (Japan)

Individual Population

Main Exhibits Drawing Art

Physical distance from Japan Large

Colonialized by Japan No

Curator Expertise Informative technology

Carving Art

Middle

Partly

Subsistence, Ornaments Religious objects, Household items, Handicrafts Clothing

Neighboring Yes

Social anthropology Anthropology

Middle

No

Ecological anthropology

Large

No

Subsistence, Household items Masks, Ceremonial objects, Printworks Handicraft (knives)

Large

No

Anthropological perspectives on development assistance evaluations Environmental anthropology

Large

No

Cultural anthropology

Large

No

Linguistic anthropology

Subsistence, Clothing, Ornaments, Handicrafts

Japan

Yes

Ainu and Northern indigenous peoples studies

The extent to which the Indigenous peoples themselves were involved in the process of designing the exhibition needs to be explored in more detail, but one thing that can be said is that each section’s circumstances may have varied. For example, the planning of the Ainu section formally included Ainu native researchers and source community peoples as members of the Executive Committee of the exhibition. During the planning stage, the author had consulted members of different Indigenous ethnic groups in Taiwan for advice on the content of the exhibition and what to look out for. However, these may be excuses on the part of the museum (or the author). This is because we have not been able to include all the views of Indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples are also diverse and have different ways of thinking among them.

10  Indigenous Exhibits at the Museum: A Device of Tourism to Bring Awareness…

121

The ideal ethnographic museum is one in which the Indigenous peoples of the exhibition participate in the process of production and criticism of the exhibition, and in which the Indigenous peoples themselves have autonomy over the museum. Such the museum environment is easier to achieve in regions and countries inhabited by Indigenous peoples themselves. They will probably make a significant contribution to the establishment of proper tourism and to giving visitors a fair understanding of the visiting sites. Not many Japanese, however, get the chance to visit the places where the Sami people live and the museums that are run autonomously by the Sami people there. The important question is whether, even if we are in Japan, we have the opportunity to think about the Sami people, who live far away from Japan in Scandinavia. Japan has a long history of conservative politicians, including a former Prime Minister, who has repeatedly stated that Japan is a mono-ethnic country. Hate speech and internet vilification of the Ainu people and Korean residents of Japan, who have lived there for several generations, have been shaped not only by the right-wing and strong conservatives, but also by those with little knowledge of Indigenous peoples and Korean residents of Japan. In response to the narrow-­ mindedness of these people, museums need to persist in asking them to be aware of their role as citizens of the world, and to respect the cultures and societies of others. When we think about the monoculturalization brought about by globalization and the destruction of the environment on a global scale, we need to use our imagination more broadly to understand others. We need to be mindful again about how museums can help us to think of Indigenous peoples who live on the other side of the world, whom we have never seen or barely heard of. It is no exaggeration to say that the challenge of this special exhibition was an opportunity to consider the existence of Indigenous peoples, whose existence has not been strongly acknowledged in Japan. What can be understood from this is that Indigenous peoples are not simply people who literally lived there first, but rather as distinctive identities with very diverse and complex cultural, social and historical experiences.

Conclusion This chapter briefly introduces the special exhibition on Indigenous peoples held at the Minpaku and offers some reflections on the significance of exhibiting the diversity of Indigenous cultures, societies and historical experiences. As mentioned before, the mission of the Minpaku is to promote various kinds of research in the humanities, and to provide a fundamental environment for this purpose. At the same time, we need to think about how we can activate our museums, which are open to society, to contribute to the community and society as a whole, not just to museum visitors and the academic community. And, one of the challenges facing the Minpaku as an ethnographic museum is how to inclusively contribute to the development of Indigenous cultures and the resolution of Indigenous issues.

122

A. Nobayashi

As well as the participation of the Indigenous peoples in the museum activities, highlighted in the ethnographic museum’s contribution to society, and in particular to the source community, is the repatriation of objects of importance to the source community (Simpson 2009: 128). The author agrees with this view in principle. However, it is also important to acknowledge the value of the museum’s retention of its collection. The presence of things in the museum, whatever they are, has a power that cannot be ignored. Importantly, as Jones’ critique (1993) suggests, anthropologists in museums need to have enough knowledge of local societies and contexts of ethnographic materials. With these conditions in place, museums will be challenged to exhibit not only an understanding of the culture and society of individual ethnicity, but also a broader understanding of Indigenous peoples that transcends ethnic boundaries. This increased public understanding of Indigenous peoples will contribute to making Indigenous and heritage tourism more meaningful. The lessons to be learned from tourism to individual cultural and archaeological sites and Indigenous peoples’ settlements are probably directly linked to each other. However, it is also true that the history of the disappearance of Indigenous peoples and the problems they face are common to the whole planet. I would like to believe in the power of museums to offer tourism as a place of learning that transcends time and space. Acknowledgements  This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI 22H00040 and 19H01397.

References Clifford J (1988) The predicament of culture: the twentieth century ethnography, literature, and art. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Errington S (1994) What became authentic primitive art? Cult Anthropol 9(2):201–226 Foster H (1985) The “primitive” unconscious of modern art. October 34(autumn):45–70 Jones A (1993) Exploding canons: the anthropology of museums. Annu Rev Anthropol 22:201–220 Nobayashi A (2009) Bainian lai de ningshi (a gaze that spans a hundred years). Shung ye Musume of Foromosan Aborigines, Taipei Nobayashi A (2020) A milestone in the construction of the exhibits in National Museum of ethnology, Japan: Japan world exposition Osaka 70 expo and its ethnographic collection. Archivio per I’Antropologia e la Etnologia 150:129–146 Nobayashi A, Simon S (eds) (2020) Environmental teachings for the anthropocene: indigenous peoples and museums in the Western Pacific (Senri ethnological studies 103). National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka Nobuta T (ed) (2020) Senjyumin no takara (treasures of indigenous peoples). National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka Price S (2001) Primitive art in civilized places, 2nd edn. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago Simpson M (2009) Museums and restorative justice: heritage, repatriation and cultural education. Mus Int 61(1–2):121–129

Chapter 11

Heritage Tourism Management Plan for Luxor, Egypt Fekri Hassan

Abstract  Luxor, a world heritage site, is fabulously rich in archaeological monuments, temples, and tombs of Ancient Egypt. This has led to an almost exclusive emphasis on tourist visits to such sites at the expense of experiencing the fascinating living intangible heritage of Luxor city and nearby rural communities. This chapter identifies prominent intangible heritage resources and provides a plan to deploy these hitherto marginalized assets for enhancing the experience of Egyptian and international tourists and for the benefit of the local communities and Egyptian society. The plan emphasizes (1) the importance of appropriate governance structure engaging representatives of the community, heritage professionals, tour operators and governmental authorities, (2) capacity building and technical support to all sectors of heritage tourism including product design skills, entrepreneurial know-­ how and marketing and (3) education and employment of members of the local community, (4) the establishment of a center for heritage and development as an institution to maintain sustainability through the provision of technical support and capacity building activities, workshops, research, support for local educational institutions and local heritage professionals. Keywords  Luxor · Egypt · Heritage Tourism · Cultural Tourism · Heritage Site Management · Community Tourism

Introduction On a global scale, heritage tourism has been on the rise during the recent decades as a means for more rewarding and enriching tourism experience (Timothy 1997, 2011; Timothy and Boyd 2003; Timothy and Nyaupane 2009). The advent of F. Hassan (*) Université Française d’Égypte (UFE), Al Shorouk City, Egypt © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 P.-L. Yu et al. (eds.), Heritage and Cultural Heritage Tourism, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44800-3_11

123

124

F. Hassan

heritage tourism is the result of numerous intersecting developments including the environmental movements with an emphasis on the conservation of natural resources, globalization, ethnic movements, growing acceptance of cultural diversity (Gravari-­Barbas 2020). Most importantly in recent decades is the linkage between heritage tourism, “development”, “sustainability” and the relationships between these domains with local communities and “intangible heritage” (Cernea 2001; Hassan 2008; Rodzi et  al. 2013; Gravari-Barbas and Jacquot 2014; Adell et al. 2015; Kim et al. 2019). The confluence of development in the relationship between heritage cum development and tourism may be regarded as a paradigmatic transformation in tourism reversing the role of tourism from endangering heritage resources to a means for conserving nature and benefiting local communities (Garrod and Fyall 2000; Kausar 2012; Landorf 2009). Tourism as such may be deployed as a key component in sustainable development strategies, especially for local communities in developing countries, and in particular those in a rural setting, as a means of providing employment, thus contributing to the alleviation of poverty and improving the quality of life (Madden and Shipley 2012). For this reason, many countries have already embarked on programs that engage local communities in heritage tourism endeavors (Mestanza Ramon et  al. 2020; Zhou et al. 2021; Stone and Stone 2020; Mendonça and Nacarapa 2021; Dolezal and Novelli 2020). Moreover, professional societies, such the Society for American Archaeology, have created an Archaeology and Tourism taskforce (SAA Archaeological Record, vol.5, No.5, May 2005) with an emphasis on the preservation, protection and conservation, interpretation, education and sustainability (Pinter 2005; Little and McManamon 2005). This growing awareness of the benefits of heritage tourism leads to a serious consideration of how to manage archaeological sites (Koren-Lawrence et  al. 2020) beyond expedient economic issues (Hassan 2012, 2017; Chapman et al. 2020). Linked to heritage tourism is what comes under the rubric of “Community Tourism” which is currently one of the most significant genres of tourism linked to sustainable development goals and environmental conservation (Hampton 2005), well indicated by the efforts of World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) and UNESCO in this regard (https://www.unwto.org/sustainable-­development, https:// whc.unesco.org/en/tourism/). Recently, the UNWTO framework for inclusive community development through tourism (2020) states that “Placing inclusive community development at the heart of tourism policies through education, investment, innovation and technology can transform the livelihoods of many millions, while also preserving our environment and our culture and drive a more inclusive and sustainable recovery of tourism” (p. 210). In this regard, heritage tourism for development projects have to be viewed as opportunities for enabling communities to fulfill their own aspirations in the context of harmonious and collaborative relationships with others. Implementation of development must thus strengthen the enabling norms and structures that make communities resilient, secure, and effective, by providing education, access to resources,

11  Heritage Tourism Management Plan for Luxor, Egypt

125

and the provision of adequate health, shelter, transport and other domestic amenities, as well as strengthening community notions of societal ethics (Hassan 2008). Evidently, heritage development projects, including heritage tourism, can potentially enhance the social standing and promote the empowerment of local communities, enhance intercultural understanding and re-interpret heritage within a narrative that highlights the social processes and values of past societies. Accordingly, and recognizing the potential of cultural heritage as a major force in shaping societies and enabling local communities that are often marginalized, I proposed that heritage-­ based development projects should not be limited to just producing jobs and reviving crafts but should aim instead to enhance the transformational capacity for local communities so that they can have the means to change their social conditions for the better (Hassan 2020a). This, I suggested, requires a redefinition of the concept of heritage (1) to re-envision intangible heritage, currently influenced by artistic “folklorism,” from a socio-anthropological perspective; (2) to integrate so-called tangible and intangible heritage through a new model of heritage representation and manifestation as the result of intergenerational cultural dynamics (Hassan 2020b); and (3) to reconsider the role of translocality in defining local communities. The emerging complexity and transcultural significance of intangible heritage requires further exploration especially with regard to the entanglement of intangible heritage with notions of “identity” and “authenticity” (Gonzalez 2008). Nowadays, places are increasingly affected by global connections. The flow of goods, information, and people from one place to another transcend a place beyond its fixed locality. In this light, we cannot deal with places, including heritage destinations, solely as a territorial entity. Accordingly, “translocality” captures the interconnectedness and processes that happen in and between different localities (Peth 2018). It is from this perspective that the current contribution was conceived as a concrete example of how to manage the heritage resources of a tourist destination, Luxor, Egypt, in this case, in the framework of an integrated management plan, guided by humanistic values, with special attention to local communities from a translocaliy point of view.

 eritage Tourism Management Plan for Luxor, Egypt H as a Case Study Luxor, Arabic Al-Uqṣur ‫( اﻷﻗﺮﺼ‬Fig. 11.1), located 635 km south of Cairo is a governorate established in 2009 including the city of Luxor in recognition of its outstanding archaeological assets, having been the southern capital of Egypt since the Middle Kingdom. It extends approximately 5 km from north to south, and 1.5 km from east to west with a population of c. 1,250,209 as of 2017. The city (c. 128,000 persons), on the east bank, overlooks the Nile with a view of the Theban hills of the West Bank. Luxor, which is internationally known for its monuments, dates back to Prehistoric times with spectacular temples, tombs and settlements from the Middle

126

F. Hassan

Fig. 11.1  Area Map of Luxor and Karnak. In the public domain (https://www.google.com/maps /@25.7016424,32.648337,12.84z)

and New Kingdoms as well as archaeological sites belonging to later Graeco-­ Roman, Coptic and Islamic periods. These archaeological attractions dominate the urban and rural landscape and serve as the basis of the economy of the governorate. The ancient Egyptian monuments and sites in Luxor are listed all together on UNESCO’s world heritage list under the designation “Thebes and its Necropolis” (https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/87/, https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/87/video). In its latest report (2019), the UNESCO World Heritage Committee (https://whc.unesco. org/en/soc/3932) underscores “the ongoing threats to the authenticity and integrity of the property include natural decay and structural problems, absence of effective and comprehensive management arrangements at national and local levels, lack of a Conservation Plan for the property, and limits to available technical and human resources”. The committee also voices its concern on the continued absence of a Management Plan (since its listing in 1979), and remarks on “the slow progress in developing the Management Plan, incorporating a Conservation Plan and related comprehensive Tourism Management Plan in accordance with the World Heritage Sustainable Development Policy, which remains a major concern” (Ibid). Other than the UNESCO’s report, Rashed and Hanafi (2003) refer to a project by the Ministry of Housing, Utilities and Urban Communities Higher Council of Luxor City with the collaboration of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) which was not apparently coordinated with the Ministry of Antiquities. At present (August 2021), the plan has been implemented only in part. One item of the plan – the exhumation of the avenue of the Sphinxes (Boraik 2018; El-Aref 2011) – is to be inaugurated soon (Official website of the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, 29 August 2021).

11  Heritage Tourism Management Plan for Luxor, Egypt

127

At present, these cultural centers and other cultural resources are not included in any comprehensive heritage management plan, and are not regarded as tourism resources. In fact, Luxor’s promotional materials and marketing briefs are almost exclusively focused on the archaeological monuments of the east and west banks of the Nile and on the Luxor Museum and the Mummification museum. Other attractions highlighted in promotional materials include the air balloon, a felucca trip to the “Banana” Island, and the house of Howard Carter.

Strategic Perspective The proposed plan focuses on Luxor as a potential hub of heritage tourism. The program consists of creating employment in local communities through an emphasis on marketing of local products, broadening the spectrum of tourist attractions, and vocational training and workshops in entrepreneurial style to support crisis-­ affected artisans; building professional capacity in site management, on-site conservation, documentation and interpretation in order to involve competent professionals in the design and implementation of inclusive site management plans (maintenance, access, signage, visitor management, protection, and conservation of sites meeting international standards); and providing local communities with sufficient information and technical support so that they can value heritage, protect it, and benefit from it.The plan adheres to the principles of the international charters and declarations of UNWTO, UNESCO and ICOMOS (https://www.icomos.org/charters/ tourism_e.pdf). The plan is aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (https://sdgs.un.org/goals) which aims to integrate culture within development, and promote inclusive social and economic development. The plan takes into consideration the factors that facilitate as well as those that obstruct heritage tourism (Zielinski et al. 2020).

Heritage Tourist Management Plan The ultimate goals of the proposed plan concern the development of a model of community-based, sustainable cultural heritage tourism in Egypt. Selecting Luxor as the location of this pioneer program is justifiable by the outstanding combination of archaeological monuments and a rich, vibrant living cultural heritage. Luxor will be a showcase of how to integrate the whole spectrum of heritage resources in a way that ensures their preservation and, at the same time, use these resources as assets to provide employment and improve the livelihood of local communities. The proposed plan consists of a sequence of activities designed in a manner that will lead to positive, tangible results sustained by institutional arrangements and public support. None of the proposed activities alone will lead to any significant change in the current situation. Capacity building without providing support for small heritage

128

F. Hassan

enterprises and vigorous marketing efforts will not be sufficient. Conserving a site to the highest international standards without a hospitable, vigilant community and proper site management will make the site vulnerable to neglect, lack of maintenance, vandalism, and misuse. Public outreach programs without tangible benefits to the community will only lead to frustration and disenchantment. Therefore the proposed program is planned as a series of complementary activities that lead from one phase to another, beginning with setting up and making all the necessary collecting and processing of information leading to a SWOT analysis (analyzing the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) and the finalization of an action-specific master plan by the end of the first year. The main focus in the second year will be on parallel activities encompassing professional education, vocational training, and Public Outreach programs. In the same year, the problems of existing enterprises that suffer from poor marketing and are at the brink of collapse, e.g., the artisanal shops in Gourna as well as the Karnak Women Heritage Center, employing girls who have been trained, will be tackled. At the same time, the team in charge of job creation will begin to assist those who are trained or will be trained (e.g., local tour guides) in finding employment. The same activities will be continued during the third year with greater emphasis on implementing site management plans, creating jobs, and marketing. The final 6 months will be devoted to completing loose ends, writing the final report, producing a CD, and making arrangements for a final cultural event and an international conference on cultural heritage tourism.

Planned Activities The proposed plan will support and participate in implementing the following activities in order to expand the range of tourist attractions that can provide short and long-term employment in local communities: 1. Inclusion of contemporary art expressions, such as the local folk music and dances, traditional architecture, folk children toys, mural art by Luxor-based artists, students and staff of the faculty of fine arts, and the artists of the Luxor International Paining Symposium 2. Provision of regular weekly cultural or monthly events (Food fair (Souq), Antique fair, Movies (e.g., the mummy, eloquent peasant, raiders, etc.), Al-­ Seera Al-Helalyia ‫الهاللية السرية‬, Horse Dancing, Rababa, and Musicians of the Nile. 3. Planning, upgrading and marketing the celebrations of annual festivals such as” Sidi Abul Hajaj ‫“ �سيدي �أبو احلجاج‬Sufi festival, Folk Music, Tahtieb festival,‫ التحطيب‬the Opet festival, and Wafaa el Nil. 4. Integration of different cultural heritage resources in diversified itineraries.

11  Heritage Tourism Management Plan for Luxor, Egypt

129

5. Promotion, together with civic NGOs, Volunteer Participatory tourist visits (a few weeks to a few months) to live and participate with local communities in projects aimed to improve their lives. This will include promotion of ­educational tourism-hosting students from abroad to come for visits, study tours and workshops. 6. Provision of employment for local communities from activities, crafts and creative industries, E.g., pottery, textiles, kelims, jewellery, palm furniture, costumes, special exhibits (Haj murals, graffiti, traditional doors, and windows, local village museums (e.g., pottery production at Ballas and Garagos), local cuisine, rural tourism. Designers and successful enterprises will be engaged in local exhibition and artisanal workshops. 7. Incorporation of traditional knowledge for the development of heritage products and services and for environmental protection: e.g., herbal medicine, honey, Hammams, traditional mud-brick buildings, Health food (cf. CBT, Community Based Tourism Handbook). 8. Training and supporting guides for guiding tours, safaris, felucca trips to explore and interpret the history and dynamics of the cultural and natural landscape. 9. Rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of selected houses in Hassan Fathy’s New Gourna as a basis for architectural tourism using the “diffuse hotel”1 and homestay model. 10. Fund-raising, recruitment of volunteers, holding investment conferences, and promoting contacts with embassies and archaeological missions in Luxor.

Marketing Taking into consideration the project management objectives and its expected deliverables, it is essential to align them with marketing strategies as a milestone of the project’s management orientation to ensure the efficiency and sustainability of the long-term strategic goals and short-term actions (Middleton et al. 2009). Marketing will respond to today’s rapidly evolving marketplace, and the ability to exploit ICT (information and communication technologies) tools to fulfill such demand through e-marketing.

 The “albergo diffuso” is defined as a hotel located in a single town, consisting of many buildings close to one another, with a unified management. The objective is to offer a more friendly, authentic and sustainable form of tourism hospitality. These types of hotels are located in old houses and apartments of ancient villages, closer to local communities and their “back region”, which is ideally suited to the Hassan Fathy’s New Gourna abandoned and delapidated houses. The “albergo diffuso” allows tourists to explore the village and its surroundings while experiencing local traditions with the local community (Gilli and Ferrari 2016). 1

130

F. Hassan

Luxor will be re-imaged as a cultural heritage destination through a destination management team, creating a brand identity image for Luxor along with promoting its status as a world heritage sites, and through tailoring special cultural itineraries in collaboration and participation of local communities, and enhancing partnership among SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises) to facilitate marketing as a corporate unit (through the Community Heritage Enterprise). Special emphasis will be given to e-Marketing, which will utilize the most advanced digital ICT media and programs to promote Luxor as a World Heritage Capital.

 uxor International Cultural Heritage Center – Making L a Difference The proposed development plan and activities will be hosted by the Luxor International Heritage Center guided by a new paradigm that integrates archaeological excavations and conservation with heritage tourism with its social and economic benefits, and at the same time bridges the gap between Archaeologists, Egyptologists, tourists and local communities.

Management Management will be coordinated by a management team working closely with the Governance Board and the Community Heritage Enterprise. The team will include work-package supervisors (responsible for the targeted results), and a project management team in charge of institutional issues, coordination, monitoring and evaluation, development, and risk. The Monitoring and Evaluation Team will be dedicated to observe and assess performance (quality, timing, efficiency, adherence to plan) of all project activities through direct observation, questionnaires and interviews and will report to the Program Director for corrective action. In addition, given the uncertainties that may affect the program, the project management team will include a risk officer who will communicate with supervisors to detect potential project problems, prioritize and assess risks, and prepare mitigation plans. The Governance board will be briefed periodically to review progress, recommend corrective actions, and keep track of the accomplishments and quality of proposed results. The Community Heritage enterprise, consisting of representatives of different domains of heritage tourism in the community, will be assisted by the management team.

11  Heritage Tourism Management Plan for Luxor, Egypt

131

Discussion Heritage tourism holds the promise of promoting new values beneficial to visitors, local communities, and the environment. It provides a viable paradigm in tune with the changing world affairs and contemporary outlook to intercultural interactions. Many countries have already opted to develop national plans for heritage tourism with its contribution to alleviating poverty in local communities and environmental conservation. However, Egypt, with its spectacular archaeological resources, has yet to integrate visits to temple, tombs and museums with the social capital of intangible living heritage in a comprehensive plan of managing Egypt’s outstanding the broad spectrum of heritage resources not only to provide greater job opportunities to local communities, but also to foster a new intercultural relationship between visitors and locals characterized by deeper appreciation of Egyptian culture – from food to music to monuments. In addition, heritage tourism will open up means for social mobility, empower local communities, and at the same time contribute to the conservation of natural habitats and cultural landscapes. The road ahead is beyond the reach of academics and poses a serious challenge to archaeologists and heritage professionals who have to venture beyond the familiar scope of their research, even when they engage with local community and attempt to serve as an intermediary between them and other stakeholders and governmental authorities. Governmental authorities have their own priorities and tour operators and the tourist industry are still in general set in their ways.The below steps are ways out of this impasse: 1. engage actively as social entrepreneurs in implementing cultural heritage management programs to create the professional capacity and enthusiasm in a new generation of archaeologists and heritage professionals, as I have attempted to do since 2011 through a cultural heritage management program at the French University in Egypt (Hassan 2018) and through offering short courses, especially to local community youth, to become “heritage guardians” (Hassan 2014). I also guide MA students to undertake research projects so that they can become heritage professionals, and in the meantime, undertake the necessary research background for heritage tourism plans, as, for example, in the contributions to heritage tourism in Luxor by Atef (2015), Motawea (2015), Abdel-Alim (2014), Abdou (2015) and Gabr (2012); 2. propose projects to international organizations as successfully attempted by Al-­ Ibrashy (2015, 2021a, b) and as in the case of the Dahshour community project (Hassan and Ehab 2022); and 3. engage with concerned NGOs and responsible industry leaders among others from the local community to launch initiatives, such as the current initiative to promote Hassan Fathy’s New Gourna, on the west bank of Luxor, as a cultural destination and a center for sustainable earth architecture, a key component in implementing Luxor’s heritage tourism plan. This initiative was launched in conjunction with the “Our World Heritage

132

F. Hassan

Initiative” in February 2021(https://www.ourworldheritage.org/tourism_sgds_art_ egypt/, https://www.ourworldheritage.org/new_gourna_luxor/).

References Abdel-Alim A (2014) Development of cultural tourism: interpretations and presentations for archaeological cultural heritage sites and museums. Unpublished Thesis, French University in Egypt Abdou A (2015) Heritage tourism and festival in Luxor. Unpublished Thesis, French University in Egypt Adell N, Bendix RF, Bortolotto C, Tauschek M (2015) Between imagined communities and communities of practice-participation, territory and the making of heritage. Universitätsverlag Göttingen Al-Ibrashy M (2015) Shajar al-Durr mausoleum conservation project-interim report on phase 1 May-Dec 2014 Cairo: Athar Lina-ARCE-Barakat Trust, 2015 Al-Ibrashy M (2021a) The cultural heritage of Egypt’s cities: burden or resource? In: Routledge handbook on contemporary Egypt. Routledge, pp  373–387. https://fount.aucegypt.edu/ faculty_journal_articles/2421 Al-Ibrashy M (2021b) Closing keynote speech-heritage as a driver for development: Athar lina initiative in historic Cairo (2021). Research and creativity convention.1. https://fount.aucegypt. edu/research_convention/2021/closing/1 Atef A (2015) Sustainable tourism in Luxor – heritage and community issues. Unpublished Thesis, French University in Egypt Boraik M (2018) The Sphinxes Avenue excavations to the East Bank of Luxor. In: Sustainable conservation and urban regeneration. Springer, Cham, pp 7–31 Cernea MM (2001) Cultural heritage and development: a framework for action in the Middle East and North Africa. The World Bank, Washington DC Chapman A, Light D, Richards S (2020) Heritage attractions, competitive pressures and adaptation: the case of the British seaside pier. J Herit Tour 16:1–13 Dolezal C, Novelli M (2020) Power in community-based tourism: empowerment and partnership in Bali. J Sustain Tour 30:1–19 El-Aref N (2011) The avenue of the sphinxes is to be open in October, Al-Ahram, 17 August 2011 Gabr M (2012) Cultural interpretation of historic urban landscape, Luxor City as a case study. Unpublished Thesis, French University in , UFE Garrod B, Fyall A (2000) Managing heritage tourism. Ann Tour Res 27(3):682–708 Gilli M, Ferrari S (2016) The “diffuse hotel”: an Italian new model of sustainable hospitality. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781845415709-­007 Gonzalez MV (2008) Intangible heritage tourism and identity. Tour Manag 29(4):807–810 Gravari-Barbas M (2020) Heritage and tourism: from opposition to coproduction. In: A research agenda for heritage tourism. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton Gravari-Barbas M, Jacquot S (2014) Patrimoine mondial et développement: au défi du tourisme durable. PUQ Hampton MP (2005) Heritage, local communities and economic development. Ann Tour Res 32(3):735–759 Hassan F (2008) Heritage for development: concepts and strategic approaches. In: Hassan F, de Trafford A, Youssef M (eds) Cultural heritage and development. In the Arab World. Bibliotheca Alexandrina. 316 p Bibliography, ISBN 978-977-452-133-1 Hassan F (2012) Selling Egypt: encounters at Khan el-Khalili. In: Consuming ancient. UCL Press, London, pp 111–122

11  Heritage Tourism Management Plan for Luxor, Egypt

133

Hassan F (2014) Training of local community youth in Dahshur, Egypt, as local tour guides and heritage guardians. Almatourism-J Tour Cult Territ Dev 5(2):39–49 Hassan F (2017) The future of cultural heritage management: ethics and development. In: Collision or collaboration. Springer, New York, pp 15–27 Hassan F (2018) Heritage in a changing world and higher education for heritage managers: a pilot program from Egypt. In: Yu P, Shen C, Smith GS (eds) Relevance and application of heritage in contemporary society. Routledge, New York, pp 79–90 Hassan F (2020a) Cultural heritage, empowerment and the social transformation of local communities. In: Higgins V, Douglas D (eds) Communities and cultural heritage. Routledge, New York, pp 23–35 Hassan F (2020b) Tangible heritage in archaeology. In: Smith C (ed) Encyclopedia of global archaeology. Springer, New York, pp 10489–10492 Hassan F, Ehab E (2022) Mobilizing heritage resources for local community development – dahshour as a case study. In: Badran A, Abu-Khafajah S, Elliott S (eds) Community heritage in the Arab region. Springer, New York Kausar DR (2012) Sustainability in the management of world cultural heritage. In: Kasimoglu M (ed) Visions for global tourism industry–creating and sustaining competitive strategies. Intechopen, Ripeka, Croatia, pp 431–440 Kim S, Whitford M, Arcodia C (2019) Development of intangible cultural heritage as a sustainable tourism resource: the intangible cultural heritage practitioners’ perspectives. J Herit Tour 14(5–6):422–435 Koren-Lawrence N, Collins-Kreiner N, Israeli YH (2020) The future of the past: sustainable management of archaeological tourist sites–the case study of Israel. Tour Manag Perspect 35:100700 Landorf C (2009) Managing for sustainable tourism: a review of six cultural world heritage sites. J Sustain Tour 17(1):53–70 Little B, McManamon F (2005) Archaeology and tourism in and around America’s national parks. SAA Archaeol Rec 5(3):12–14 Madden M, Shipley R (2012) An analysis of the literature at the nexus of heritage, tourism, and local economic development. J Herit Tour 7(2):103–112 Mendonça HDRU, Nacarapa ADDIJ (2021) Contribution of community tourism in the neighborhood of Esteu in the Ilha de Moçambique. Int J Adv Eng Res Sci 8:6 Mestanza Ramon C, Sanchez Capa M, Cunalata Garcia A, Jimenez Gutierrez M, Toledo Villacís M, Ariza Velasco A (2020) Community tourism in Ecuador: a special case in:the Rio Indillama community, Yasuní National Park. Int J Eng Res Technol (IJERT) 8(6):653–657 Middleton VTC, Fyall A, Morgan M (2009) Marketing in travel and tourism. Elsevier, New York Motawea A (2015) The lack of adequate management plan of Deir El Medina – the craftsmen and artists village in Luxor. Unpublished Thesis, French University in Egypt Peth S (2018) What is translocality? A refined understanding of place and space in a globalized world. Trans-Re. http://www.transre.org/index.php/blog/what-­translocality-­refined­understanding-­place-­and-­space-­globalized-­world Pinter TL (2005) Heritage tourism and archaeology: critical issues. SAA Archaeol Rec 5(3):9–11 Rashed AY, Hanafi, MA (2003) Cultural heritage and tourism: Luxor of Egypt? Las Vegas? http:// www.luxoralmasrya.net/0luxorcordoba. pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2007 Rodzi NIM, Zaki SA, Subli SMHS (2013) Between tourism and intangible cultural heritage. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 85:411–420 Stone MT, Stone S (2020) Challenges of community-based tourism in Botswana: a review of literature. Trans R Soc S Afr 75(2):181–193 Timothy DJ (1997) Tourism and the personal heritage experience. Ann Tour Res 34(3):751–754 Timothy D (2011) Cultural heritage and tourism: an introduction. Channel View Publications, Bristol Timothy DJ, Boyd SW (2003) Heritage tourism. Prentice Hall, Hoboken Timothy DJ, Nyaupane GP (2009) Cultural heritage and tourism in the developing world: a regional perspective. Routledge, London

134

F. Hassan

World Tourism Organization (2020) AlUla framework for inclusive community development through tourism. UNWTO, Madrid. https://doi.org/10.18111/9789284422159 Zhou X, Wang J, Zhang S (2021) Evaluation of community tourism empowerment of ancient town based on analytic hierarchy process: a case study of Zhujiajiao, Shanghai. Sustainability 13(5):2882 Zielinski S, Jeong Y, Milanés CB (2020) Factors that influence community-based tourism (CBT) in developing and developed countries. Tour Geogr 23:1–33

Chapter 12

Environmental Shift and Multiple Memories of Ritual Landscape: Boat Ritual as Making Culture Heritage for the Nangshi Amis Yi-tze Lee Abstract  The living environment of the Nangshi Amis group of eastern Taiwan has been modernized but marginalized by colonial pressure and nationalization. Rituals have changed due to the transition of landscape, species, and needed materials; tourism is one such impact. The “Boat Ritual (Palunan)” is an age-group initiation ritual of the Lidaw Tribe, and an intricate relationships between “Ritual Landscape” and “Cultural Heritage.” I ask three questions: How does Boat Ritual connect and reproduce the memories and landscape recognition of environmental resources? How do the ritual practices applying “multiple memories” and “historical events,” refer to legendary tales and creative myth and produce contemporary meaning? How do ritual rules and family politics affect the making of cultural heritage, and become the sub-text of collective memories? Infrastructure impacts the making and understanding of contemporary ritual, and meaning-making of cultural heritage. Through historical records and collective memories, documentation of ritual routes and social facts reveal the making of traditional culture in a modernized township. Although changes in the environment and land takings affect subsistence strategies, Palunan reveals its meaning through ritual networking of materials and the process of “renewing kinship.” “Environmental shift” views ritual transition through the dynamics of infrastructure connectivity and ritual networking. I conclude with the importance of knowing cultural heritage through collective but outsourced help from academic works. Keywords  Taiwan indigenous people · Ritual landscape · Environment · Cultural heritage

Y. Lee (*) Department of Ethnic Relations and Cultures, National Dong Hwa University, Hualien, Taiwan e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 P.-L. Yu et al. (eds.), Heritage and Cultural Heritage Tourism, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44800-3_12

135

136

Y. Lee

Introduction The Amis constitute the largest group of indigenous peoples in Taiwan, with about 250,000 individuals living mostly in the eastern part of the island (Fig.12.1). The Amis are well-known for their seasonal rituals, which revolve around agricultural practices like sowing millet, weeding, cleaning the field, controlling pests, harvesting, storing, and finally (at the end of the agricultural cycle) fishing (Table 12.1). While ritual activities characterize the meaning of Amis people’s daily lives, these rituals have had to be adapted over time because of (1) the relocation of animals related to ritual activities; (2) changing subsistence strategies; and (3) urbanization, which limits ritual and agricultural access to traditional territories. The interconnection of these three factors results in the ‘deterritorialization’ (Buchanan 2008) of Nangshi Amis in their own land, and it reshapes the Amis’ ritual landscape.1 The most prominent rituals of the Amis agricultural cycle include Midiwai (ritual for the millet-sowing announcement) at the end of December, Misatuligun (field-cleaning ritual) in March, Mivahvah (pest-control ritual) in April, Misalilio (bird-catching-­ and-eating ritual) in May – though, owing to the transition to rice cultivation, the

Fig. 12.1  Map of Taiwan and Hualien City, with Nangshi Amis area in the South. (Credit: Y. Lee)

 Nangshi Amis people are one of the five groupings of Amis people in Eastern Taiwan. Due to the fact that their traditional territory is based on the Nangshi plain area, Japanese scholar used the term Nangshi for these people. 1

12  Environmental Shift and Multiple Memories of Ritual Landscape: Boat Ritual…

137

Table 12.1  Yearly ritual cycle of Nangshi Amis Dec

Jan Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Season Kasi’nawan (Cold season)

Kafalawfawan Kacidalan (Windy time) (Dry and Sunny)

Kabaliusan (Typhoon)

Kafalian (Windy)

Event

Midiwai

Misatulig un

Mivahvah

Misalilio Milad is Miadop

Malalikid

Mirecuk

Work

Millet seeding

Weeding, growing yams

Dispel pests and ghosts

Harvest millet and restore

Harvest festival

Bird eating Event Malahok tu Liliw

Fish ritual

Hunting

ritual is now held in November – and Miladis (fishing ritual, which marks the end of the planting cycle) in June (Table 12.1). These rituals reveal the significant relationships between people and animals within a particular landscape. However, contemporary ritual activities have formed a new arena for cultural revitalization. The form of ritual still follows traditional cycles, but its contents have been amalgamated with government-sponsored cultural festivals, political mobilization, and new ways of promoting community solidarity. In this paper, I argue that, through repeated ritual practice, the cultural landscape is constantly reshaped and reconstructed according to the meaning of its material components. While the traditional Amis lifestyle is irretrievable, changes in Amis human-animal relationships can shed light on how landscapes are constructed not only by indigenous memories (as conjured through ritual), but also by the animals and plants found in the area. Lastly, contemporary transitions in the ritual landscape are the consequence of capitalist infrastructural expansion, which operates within the colonial legacy of human-animal relationships that characterise the Anthropocene. The Nangshi Amis people live in the Eastern part of Taiwan (Fig. 12.1), with a population of about 12,200. They cohabit with Minnan and Hakka (both non-­ indigenous Han) people. Even though the area has been urbanized, there are three tribal communities located in the Nangshi area: Nataolan, Pokpok, and Lidaw. Lidaw is the one closest to the seashore and considered the last one to be settled in the Nangshi area about 700 years ago. Due to its geographical and historical different status, the Lidaw community is constantly excluded by Nangshi Amis people, and has more distinct ritual activities (Table  12.1) that are different from other Nangshi groups. Among them, Palunan (boat ritual) is most unique one in Lidaw, and serves as rite of passage for male teens every 7 years. The whole ritual conveys several cultural meanings in its processes, including the coming of age of Amis youngsters, cultivating age-group spirit by physical training, learning the traditional ways of survival on wild resources and boating in the coastal territory, and last but not least, becoming familiar with mythical tales and teachings of the elders. Even though the ritual is famous for its cultural meaning, it is not yet announced as national intangible cultural heritage for the Amis people in Taiwan, and attracts concern and discussion about the continuity of its practice in contemporary urbanized settings. In the following, I will begin with discussion of the Amis migration tale before going into details of heritagization for Palunan, the boat ritual.

138

Y. Lee

Amis Migration Routes and Livelihood Transition According to oral tradition, Amis ancestors sailed from the ocean and settled in different regions of Taiwan about one thousand year ago. Various Amis tribal myths claim several different landing locations, some claim they landed near the place in Aripanay (where near Taimali, Taitung area nowadays); some claim that the Amis sailed by Orchid Island and Mafohkad Green Island (based on the legend of the Sanasay Circle of oceanic migration) and landed near the outlet of Shiukuluan river of Hualien. Yet other Amis claim that their ancestors migrated from the southwestern part of Taiwan. Regardless of which migration routes they actually took, the first group of Amis pioneers must have explored this island several times before their settlement in a final location. The Amis had learned about abundant natural resources of the land and decided to settle with their plant seeds and domesticated animals. The new environment and interactions/intermarriage with other tribes or clans were bound to affect their culture and bring in diversities to the group. For a long time, Amis people sustained themselves by hunting, fishing, foraging wild vegetables, and cultivating millet in horticulture as their major food sources. The traditional life style changed greatly during Japanese colonial period (1895–1945) when the Amis were forced to learn rice cultivation in paddy fields. A major change of Amis people in the colonial period is introduction of the planned economy with cultivating Japonica rice along with other cash crops such as tobacco and sugarcane. The colonial government stressed that two harvest cycles each year provide would better support indigenous people’s dietary needs. However, Amis people were mobilized for inclusion in the wartime supply system which demanded plantation efficiency, forced labor to build infrastructure such as railways and harbors, and heavy taxation (Ka 1995; Tsurumi 1977). Other than impacts on subsistence strategy and labor, the Amis were also facing the conflicts of conversion from traditional rituals to Shinto, and later Christianity, as well as modern education systems. Amis traditional life built up from natural resources had been dissolving, and the new generations of Amis were gradually becoming alienated from their forefathers’ and foremothers’ knowledge about nature, which continues to diminish with modernized settings. Fortunately, there are still rituals and elders to impart the wisdom handed on to them. This enables us to explore the changing culture as well as their adaptations to the environment.

Cultural Heritage in the Contemporary Ritual Landscape Most contemporary cases of cultural heritage in Taiwan are from Han society and address folk religious practice and tangible heritages from temples or traditional architecture. However, the cases of indigenous cultural heritage are just burgeoning.

12  Environmental Shift and Multiple Memories of Ritual Landscape: Boat Ritual…

139

Intangible cultural heritage, in most cases of indigenous culture, focuses on representation and embodiment, which brings the culture into physical being as tangible culture artifacts. UNESCO, in order to protect and promote the global protection mechanism on cultural heritage, has initiated several works in sequence, including the “Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage” (1972), “Memory of the World Programme” (1992), and “The Convention of Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage” (2003). In order to promote indigenous cultural heritage, UNESCO also published “Living Heritage and Indigenous Peoples” (2019) for artifact conservation. These efforts are seeing indigenous cultures as living history which is holistic, coexisting in between the past and the present. In a special issue about “Indigenous Notion of Cultural Heritage” in AlterNative, scholars have been aware of the problem of static and museum-based conservation and curation of indigenous artifacts (Porsanger and Kristiina Virtanen 2019: 290. The museum-centered way of heritage thinking can sometimes extract materials out of the cultural context and detach meaning from its living background. Cultural heritage of indigenous cultures cannot be isolated and sliced into framed exhibitions, but should be considered and experienced within the communities. The “curation mentality” shows mostly cultural materials without taking into accounts of its formation and surviving conditions. For example, the cultural heritage of the formation of “ancestral forest” should be accompanied with indigenous food culture, including relevant non-human actors (Virtanen Kristina 2019). If we don’t consider the spirit of “becoming” within indigenous culture, its living heritage will be reduced to visualizing knowledge, but its narrative structure and sensory ontology will be neglected, leading to misunderstanding of its process of “sustainable heritagization” (Moisala 2019). With these reflections in mind, we can delve into the Amis ritual as living heritage in the following section. Three major aspects that modern indigeneity sustains and reveals its subjectivity through translocal circuit are articulation, performativity, and translation (Clifford 2013). Based on the traveling nature and lived experiences of the indigenous culture, the ongoing changes of environment have been recognized and incorporated through historical contact and socio-political impact. What we consider as “traditional” ritual should be reinterpreted within its transitional framework. Therefore, indigenous cultural heritage in ritual activities faces three kinds of change that reflect the previously mentioned conditions: first, “environmental shift and landscape transition” that reveals the development and urbanization process. Second, “governmentality of the state as festival” that standardizes all the symbolic assets for commercialization. Third, “hybridization of ethnic identity and interaction” that links the diasporic indigenous groups from urban area back to the rural focus. These three “efforts” have thus resulted in multi-textual and multi-layer memories in ritual practice. In the following, I will turn to the meaning of boat ritual before expanding its interpretation for heritagization.

140

Y. Lee

 he Male Age-Group and Its Challenge: Palunan T Ritual Process The oral legend holds that the ancestors of Lidaw tribe came to this land by five sacred boats from far away. There is also another tale describing a legendary ancestor named Maciuciu, who lost his way while picking up drift firewood near the seashore and landed on a female-only island, where he was taken as pig due to the unidentified gender. He managed to escape from incarceration but was blocked by the massive water body. While he worried by the coast, a whale-like (some say turtle) female creature named Sainin approached and promised to take him back to Lidaw underwater. After Maciuciu was safely returned to his village, Sainin asked him to promise a ritual with pig sacrifice and boating activities in order to commemorate this mythical encounter. Thereafter Lidaw started its Palunan in order to fulfill the agreement in between their ancestor and maritime protector (Lee 2020). The age-group initiation rite with a sacred boat is intended to reenact the landing myth by “following the ancestor” on their route. Amis males form into age-grades as social groups that serve several functions including defending the Nyaro (tribe) and exchanging labor for various public services. Amis concepts of private to public space can be divided into tamtaw (individual), loma (house), and niyaro (tribe). Niyaro is the representative unit to the neighboring tribes to negotiate on arrangement of hunting territories, water resource, and issues of external relationships through the form of gerontocracy by elder assembly and hierarchical age-grade groups. Between household and tribe, there are several different kinship groups acknowledged by Amis people, including naloma’an (from the same household), malinaay (kin), and ngangasawan (clan) (Furuno 2003[1934]). Clan members are distant relatives who might still trace their connection after generations of migration due to plantation or post-disaster relocation. Members can still trace the common origin of ancestral legends. In larger tribes, there are mostly few clans in composition to the whole kinship group. Nevertheless, they are all connected by blood. Different Amis tribes used to have various tensions with other indigenous “Others.” Even different Amis tribes were constantly in war with each other due to hunting territory conflicts. Males joined the age-group and are trained to fulfill duties. Their duties to the gathering place end when they got married. Amis males who live close to the reefs along the coast are able to access the tidal flats, and expected to have good swimming skills in order to retrieve food from the sea. Traditional fishing skills, such as patnod (fishing with a pole), mipacing (shooting fish), mitafokod (fishing by net), nisalil (netting by night), and nitaroh (dragging a net by the coast), require repetitive practice and cooperation between partners. Females are mostly responsible for gathering seaweed and algae from rock surfaces and conches or creatures from tidal pools – tasks that are relatively safer and can be performed independently. Not only subsistence strategies related to river and ocean have been changed due to modernized lifeways, but other changes have affected the practice of Palunan.

12  Environmental Shift and Multiple Memories of Ritual Landscape: Boat Ritual…

141

Palunan ritual preparation starts on the third year after the last Palunan. Boys who are above 10 years old can join the training for consecutive 5 years until the next Palunan. Training takes place about a month before the harvest ritual every August. Youngsters who join the upcoming age-group need to learn many skills such as fishing as mentioned above, bird catching, finding underwater resources in the wild, gathering wild vegetables, running, weaving fish nets, and remembering boat ritual songs (in total five melodies representing five sacred boats with ancestors) as well as the names of the chiefs, ancestors, and deities of Lidaw history. All the skills will be taught by the elder brothers in the age-groups three cycles ahead of them. There are nine naming terms for the age-groups and each represents a certain meaning for the tribal activities (Fig. 12.2). The age-group system of the Nangshi Amis is called “Circular naming system” (comparing to the Creative naming system in Southern Amis groups), which has nine naming tags circulating every 7 years as shown in Fig.12.2. After 4 years of training, the newly-formed group of young boys will participate in the final running race a week before Palunan ritual called Marengreng, which means “running in a team.” All the training targeting this event that could be considered the “final exam” of the rite of passage. All members from the five-year training team gather at the exit gate of the village in the dawn. After the chief worships the ancestors and Maciuciu

Fig. 12.2  Age-group naming cycle of the Nangshi Amis people (Names represent age-groups, and numbers are calendar year). (Credit: Y. Lee)

142

Y. Lee

with rice wine and a white rooster, the youngsters set out to race from the village to the seashore where Maciuciu was said to embark. Everyone should run like a flying pheasant according to the rule. An elder of the tribe will take the white rooster in worship to escort the whole running team; whoever was caught by the elder with rooster’s claw, can not upgrade with teammates and has to wait for another 7 years.

 olonial Regime, Environmental Shift and Infrastructure C on the Route Due to changes in land use caused by various reasons, such as urbanization, militarization, gentrification and industrialization surrounding the village, the racing route of the Palunan ritual for male age-group has changed constantly since Japanese colonization in 1895. This shows how urbanization, the construction of infrastructure, and seashore erosion change the way Amis people practice their sacred boat ritual. Figure 12.3 shows how routes changed between 1931 and 1973; traditionally, male novices carrying boats would run the shorter routes, though these gradually shifted to lengthier routes due to seashore military construction at the end of WWII and post-war restrictions to sea resources. This is a concrete example of environmental shift and the making/remaking of ritual landscape. There are various changes that has been adapted by the ritual since WWII, and the ritual route has been changed four times. Three major challenges have caused detours to the ritual passage. First, the colonial impact to the ritual process and landscape transition. According to some elders, Marengreng was said to be the route for headhunting before the Japanese came into power. Therefore, the oldest route of Marengreng starting with Malatawan, which means the worship site for Malataw, the protection god of males (Table 12.2). And then the group needs to go by the Fitunay, which was the place to set a bamboo rack for beheaded skulls. However, the Japanese officer banned all these ritual parts for Marengreng, and confiscated the skull rack, followed by setting up a barracks on the skull rack site near the village. The first change was due to colonial and militarization. The second change arose from the impact from urbanization and transition of subsistence strategy. After the Japanese colonial regime was stabilized, Amis people were asked to settle near their village and learn to cultivate paddy rice fields in order to produce enough food resources for wartime background. The ritual route was changed again (to the green line in Fig. 12.3) in order to create more rice field and irrigation channels. Third, after the WWII, the Nationalist government built up a commercial harbor north to the village, which changed the nature of coastal erosion. Fish resources and wave direction were therefore drastically altered. On the other hand, the urbanization process also invited several factories to be established near the “open field” near the coast, such as a small cement plant and a demolition site for recycling materials. Marengreng was once again detoured due to such transition into route that went even further away from the village. As shown in Table 12.2 and Fig. 12.3, we see how colonial and modernization processes literally change the trajectory of the ritual, and left different memories for the villagers, especially male age-groups.

12  Environmental Shift and Multiple Memories of Ritual Landscape: Boat Ritual…

143

Fig. 12.3  Historical transition of male racing routes for ‘Palunan’ ritual activity. (Credit: Y. Lee)

144

Y. Lee

Table 12.2 ‘Marengreng’ ritual running points in four routes Running points 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Amis term Malatawan/ Pataraan Fitunay bamboo/skull rack Ayawai Tuligun Kenis (Maurad route) Cipiciwan/Cikaruan Cihefuan Cihefuan/Cikumawan Rongkuan Bridge Kafetuhan/Cipakaan Matafuk Route/Paatay Aladiwas Route Alemet route/ Final destination

Meaning Meeting place for male age-groups Traditional location for disposed headhunting skulls Where land deity was located Where the Maurad group resided in 1931(Orange line) Lowland where underground water is collected Limit of village Limit of village – lots of kumaw fruit Bridge built in 1940 Meeting place with ‘giant fish’ (which saved the Amis ancestors) Where the Matafuk group resided in 1938 (Green line) Where the Aladiwas group resided in 1952 (Red line) Where the Alemet group resided from 1973 to the present (Blue line)

Social Responsibility, Gender Roles, and Ritual Memories For the age-group initiation process, running the race is only the first half of the ritual. One week after the Marengreng race, the actual boating/canoeing activity is carried out. This time the participants cover the whole village. The event of Palunan includes carrying the boat to the embarkation site by initiation age-group members, taking turns to take the boat offshore in groups and return to land like the ancestors did (Fig. 12.4). After all the male members have done so, there is a teenage “party” for young couples called Bawsa, which literally means “sending lunch box,” to the male members by female youngsters as arranged by their families. Male members are mobilized to build coastal hut for this event about 2 weeks before the boating event. By doing so, male youngsters are tested to learn skills of building taluan, the regular hut for outdoor events, hunting/fishing preparation, or male ceremonial gathering (Fig. 12.5). In the past, those who did Bawsa to send the lunch for boating males were usually the actual girlfriends or even wives of uninitiated youngsters; nowadays, due to the change of lifestyle and delayed marriage age, the counterparts to do Bawsa are usually female classmates or even cousins in order to ensure continuation of this practice. The importance and memories of the Bawsa are no less vivid than the offshore boating or even Marengreng process. To the villagers, only after all these sections of Palunan are accomplished can the ritural be considered complete. When consulted, villagers state that going through the overall Palunan activities is critically important for recognized identity of being a Lidaw Amis, either male or female.

12  Environmental Shift and Multiple Memories of Ritual Landscape: Boat Ritual…

145

Fig. 12.4 Preparing lunan (sacred boat) to go offshore in Palunan ritual. (Photo credit: Y. Lee)

Fig. 12.5  Male and Female Youngsters gather for lunch during Bawsa. (Photo credit: Y. Lee)

146

Y. Lee

In the past Amis males were “married into” the female’s household following cultural norms of matrilocal marriage. One of the tribal chiefs was married into Lidaw following such custom; even though his ability is well acclaimed. However, regarding cultural knowledge and authority of tribal affairs he is not recognized in the same way as those who joined the age-group and experienced Palunan with Lidaw cohort. Therefore, participation in Palunan ritual is not only a process of male agegroup initiation, but also a social responsibility and origin of collective recognition of identity. Paul Connerton (1989) reminds us that imprinted memories of social events may precede the somatic connection of personal memories. In the case of Palunan ritual activities, this very much resonates with Connerton’s premise. In many cases, social memories reside with commemorative ceremonies and bodily practice. For the male members in Lidaw, such bodily practice may only happen once in their life time. But they continue to participate in boating rituals later as senior trainers of different age-group members, as friends, as fathers, and as recognized cultural citizens of Nangshi Amis tradition. Furthermore, being in the ritual is also a form of reciprocity among different families who look for Bawsa partners in their Palunan occasions. Ritual memories, as mentioned in the previous section, have shaped the reflection of collective social events in historical trajectory. Villagers who have participated in Palunan retain memories, social responsibility, and gender roles in such aggregated and festive events. Boat ritual, along with all the historical and social events that cause changes in environment and ritual landscape shift, represents the foremost conservation of tradition and heritagization of culture; to commemorate and “re-­ member” the cultural meaning is to participate in the event as it is.

Local Museum and the Bird Spirits as Visitors The Amis resemble their lives in the sworn siblings as a contract with migrant birds while they eat the birds in an exchange labor feast. Such practice reveals the transitional livelihood of the indigenous people in urbanized conditions. In the exhibition featuring the “bird catching feast” in the local museum of the Nangshi Amis, the curators deliberately call for the theme of “Following the Visit of Bird Spirit.” The exhibition was organized by Nataoran Amis Cultural Association (an organization transformed from traditional age-group in order to interact with modern bureaucracy). The Bird Spirit was not only considered a friend to males in age-group hunting activities, but also the messenger of Maladaw (Male protector and heavenly god) and therefore the companion of shaman. The Nataoran Local Museum has also been transformed from the old male gathering house and turned into a public activity and exhibition place since the 1980s. In either case, the transition from traditional organization into modern one seems inevitable. Bird spirits are originally the guardians of male age-groups in the Palunan ritual. However, the exhibition on the “Visit of Bird Spirit” reveals the birds as their last image caught by an Amis hunter, making performance in the action of portrayal

12  Environmental Shift and Multiple Memories of Ritual Landscape: Boat Ritual…

147

through binocular or devouring via collective feast. On the one hand, trophy birds are shown with the village setting as crowned on the male or in the feast; on the other, the exhibition shows photos of Amis bird hunters with their traps at hand, but all birds are shown in photos similar to bird-watcher style: with clear full body and feather display and not a single bird in the net or the trap. Elders who visited the museum have expressed their doubts about the images: “those birds don’t look like the way we catch them, they are too quiet.” This exhibition perplexed me in that the whole display feels like a “tamed version” of indigenous hunting knowledge. Even though the photos are shown in a nostalgic tone with subtitle lines such as: “Conundrum between traditional heritage and contemporary regulation.” “A feather crown is the display of male power and capacity, also the sign of maturity” (Fig.  12.6). However, the exhibition is the symbol of entanglement between the Amis and the government as well. The images of birds in the museum resembles the bird knowledge and conservation perspective of a bird-watching society, but the exhibition curator organized a feast outside of the museum in order to show the authenticity of bird relationship with the Amis. Amis bird catchers are subtle hunters who didn’t hold a hunting gun nor did they place huge traps for big game. Rather, bird catchers observe the possible farmland that can still attract migrant birds, and place bamboo/steer wire traps or lower nets to gather birds who are still looking for “habitat” in the urbanized territory.

Fig. 12.6  Male head crown with pheasant feathers displayed in Nataoran Local Museum. (Photo credit: Y. Lee)

148

Y. Lee

The sentences labeling in the bird-catching activities reveal the forgotten wisdom and the weakened authority of the traditional bird catching obligation. While sworn siblings are still gathering at the time of “Malahok tu Liliw” (lunch with labor exchange group), a modernized way of presenting bird-catching festival in the photos of “birds views” didn’t reveal much about the limitations of Amis hunters. They no longer do bird catching on their traditional territories where the lands have already been privatized or grabbed by the government. Nowadays, farming activity is not for everyday life, but labor exchange becomes the basis for sworn brothers and sisters in other aspects of social solidarity. Eating birds (Fig. 12.7) is just one of the events together. For everyday activities, liliw members are friends for credit loans and house construction; at the time of male age-group initiation, the liliw group is the manpower pool to provide ritual helpers for gift giving and ultimately their sons and daughters can very likely to be couples. Even though bird catching is no longer a subsistence practice due to environmental shift, people in the liliw group still uphold their contract with their group members as well as their contract with birds (Fig. 12.7). By remaining with the exchange labor organization, Amis try to catch up with the tempo of changing world. Bird spirits commemorated here are transforming into tourism ideas.

Fig. 12.7 “Malahok to Liliw” Bird feast activity at village gathering building outside the Nataoran Local Museum. (Photo credit: Y. Lee)

12  Environmental Shift and Multiple Memories of Ritual Landscape: Boat Ritual…

149

Renewing Memories and Relatives for Cultural Heritage We find the elements and historical trajectory of ANT (Actor-Networking Theory) in the ritual activities of Nangshi Amis from these three examples. In the viewpoint of ANT, action is the nexus of “heterogeneous constructivism.” Ritual actions not only construct interests of various stakeholders, but also provide interactive views from both human and non-human “actants;” according to ANT, non-human parties also join the process of meaning-making and therefore equally share the forming of network. In an archeological study of Nangshi Amis’ pottery and ritual vessels, Chung (2014) found that the making of pottery vessels Diwas (male ritual vessel) and Sivanohai (female ritual counterpart) bring a serial ritual meaning attached to them, whereas the making and using of the pottery is an embodied compound of gender roles and quality of different kinds of clay. While Latour (2005) considers Pasteur’s bacteria experiment a public performance for scientific domain, ritual scenes and materials are also performance for meaning-laden network in the human-­ species relationship. Pasteur built a laboratory to reveal the bacteria in the network that can attract different people’s interests. Ritual is also a performative occasion: on the one hand a shaman’s body and ritual materials are objectified to transform non-material functions, on the other, ritual space has blurred the boundary of human and non-human, and provides symbolic space for interpretation. Due to the shift of subsistence strategies and living environment, the animals applied in Amis rituals have greatly changed. The symbol for collective work of male age-grade is sea-fishing. When public access to the sea was restricted by the government, Amis males turned to fishing at the river estuary or even in the pond of a tourist park where their traditional territory is privatized. Birds traditionally caught as treats for exchange laborers during the harvest season are now commercially taken from area from the South. Pigs for ancestors were originally hunted in the lower hill forest but now are purchased from a nearby pigpen run by Amis people themselves. As we can see, these changes are “environmental shifts” that mark different settings and means of acquiring animals for ritual activities. Marlene Castellano (2004) has explained indigenous ethics and traditional knowledge by “arboreal structure”: the whole canopy is individual behaviors, branches are traditional customs, leaves and sticks are ethical conducts, and the trunk is value and behavioral norms. In the very bottom it is the root that support the whole tree which represent multispecies and spiritual world for the cycle of sustainable livelihood. Thinking from the basis of spiritual world and sustainable livelihood, we can come back to the connection between memories and ritual practice as a form of realizing the perception of cultural heritage. Theories related to collective memory include Maurice Halbwachs (1992), Paul Connerton (1989), and traditional beliefs, regardless of origin, have a dual nature. They are collective traditions or memories, but they are also concepts or customs derived from the understanding of the present (Halbwachs 1992:311). Internal cultural and social responses can be found that demonstrate the tribe chose meaningful space and historical memory as the starting

150

Y. Lee

point for identity, and the culture is adapted and reorganized in the contemporary era. At that time, in every practice, the memory “appears” to the present. This research examines how the indigenous social culture has dialogue with cultural heritage, and how to reorganize the traditions of the tribe. This research perspective provides thinking about the internal factors of memory for other sub-projects. In this chapter, my main argument is that Palunan reveals its meaning through ritual networking of materials and the process of “renewing kinship.” “Environmental shift” provides a lens of viewing ritual transition through the dynamics of infrastructure connectivity and ritual networking. James Clifford (2004) reminds us that indigenous view of history is spiral and contextualized with contemporary situation; therefore, revitalization and cultural awareness recognize its “traditional futures.” The Anthropocene has become the issue of being the critical background of human survival, from historical to philosophical examination. Indigenous philosopher Kyle Whyte has been turning the challenge of climate change and its impact of environmental change into the notion of “renewing relatives,” considering different species and nonhuman actants in the indigenous surrounding are all meaningful “relatives” to provide survival needs and networking support (Whyte 2017: 210). Here, he considers that contemporary indigenous people require constant review of their relationship with the materials or environmental built-up such as landscapes or non-human beings. Non-human beings, unlike the passive meaning in ANT, are constituents of relative relationships that should be renewed with new infrastructure or institutions. In this chapter, the main argument is to show the sustainable adaptation of ritual activities and therefore create local memories and appreciation of landscape related to animals that applied in rituals. The ritual activities are efforts to retain “collective memories” and possible “invented tradition.” As a result, ritual is simultaneously where memories can be created as well as the means for cultural heritage and indigenous communities to re-assemble each other. The tourism activities that echo the returning of the urban Amis people also extends from the collective remembering activity that makes the whole cultural event as a new form of cultural heritage to re-enliven not only the Amis people themselves but also the visitors in the Palunan (Boat Ritual) and the Harvest Festival following after. The Nangshi Amis are showing us how to live with their ancestors in the format of ever-­ returning ritual as well as in newly engaged museum exhibition and tourist initiatives. In the Palunan ritual, cultural heritage is at the same time a collectively vivid memory and also reenacting the Amis future to come.

References Buchanan B (2008) Onto-Ethologies: the animal environments of Uexkull, Heidegger, Merleau-­ ponty, and Deleuze. State University of New York, Albany Castellano M (2004) Ethics of aboriginal research. J Aborig Health 1(1):98–114 Chung KF (2014) The social life of ritual pottery: an ethnological survey in an Amis community of Dongchang and archaeological research of Jingpu culture. Dissertation, National Chengchi University (in Chinese)

12  Environmental Shift and Multiple Memories of Ritual Landscape: Boat Ritual…

151

Clifford J (2004) Traditional futures. In: Phillips M, Schochet GJ (eds) Questions of tradition. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp 152–168 Clifford J (2013) Returns: becoming indigenous in the twenty-first century. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Connerton P (1989) How societies remember. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Furuno I (2003) [1934] Ritual life of the Amis in Formosa. Translated by Huang Mei-yin. Academia Sinca, Taiwan, Taipie Halbwachs M (1992) On collective memories. Translated by Lewis Coser. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Ka CM (1995) Japanese colonialism in Taiwan: land tenure, development, and dependency, 1895–1945. Westview Press, Boulder, CO Latour B (2005) Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford Lee Y (2020) Ritual landscape: making culture through the transformation of the Lidaw Tribe’s boat ritual. J Chin Ritual Theatre Folk 210:9–63. (in Chinese) Moisala P (2019) Heritagization of Tamu music: from lived culture to heritage to be safe-guarded. In: Indigenous notion of cultural heritage. Porsanger J, Kristiina Virtanen P (eds) Special Issue. Altern Int J Indig People 15(4):321–329 Porsanger J, Kristiina Virtanen P (2019) Introduction: a holistic approach to indigenous peoples’ rights to cultural heritage. In: Indigenous notion of cultural heritage. Porsanger J, Kristiina Virtanen P (eds). Special Issue. Altern Int J Indig People 15(4):289–298 Tsurumi EP (1977) Japanese colonial education in Taiwan, 1895–1945. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Virtanen Kristina P (2019) Ancestor’s time and protection of Amazonian indigenous biocultural heritage. In: Indigenous notion of cultural heritage. Porsanger J, Pirjo Kristiina Virtanen P (eds). Special Issue. Altern Int J Indig People 15(4):330–339 Whyte K (2017) Indigenous climate change studies: indigenizing futures, decolonizing the Anthropocene. Engl Lang Notes 55(1):153–162

Chapter 13

Intangible Cultural Heritage Tourism in Thailand Thanik Lertcharnrit and Kriengkrai Watanasawad

Abstract  Thailand is rich in cultural heritage, both tangible and intangible. The past several decades, particularly after the recent enacting of the Promotion and Safeguarding of Cultural Wisdom Heritage Act of 2016, have seen an increase in intangible cultural heritage tourism in the country. However, there has been no extensive and critical review of this kind of tourism in the kingdom. In this chapter, we review academic documents and news on social media concerning the events, festivals, as well as other activities using intangible cultural heritage (ICH) as tourist resources. We also discuss impacts of tourism on ICH, and propose appropriate and best management practices in light of historical and contemporary contexts in Thailand. Keywords  Intangible Heritage · Heritage Tourism · Thailand · Tourism Impacts; Best Practices

Introduction Thailand is situated in the region of the world that is blessed with rich diverse, exotic, unique, and touristic cultural heritage, both tangible and intangible. This heritage has been created, developed and practiced since prehistoric times, and archaeological and historic evidence has affirmed this notion (see e.g., Higham 2002). While Thailand’s tangible heritage (objects, monuments, sites, cultural landscapes) has long been prioritized and subject of management since at least 1921

T. Lertcharnrit (*) Department of Archaeology, Silpakorn University, Bangkok, Thailand e-mail: [email protected] K. Watanasawad College of Innovation, Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 P.-L. Yu et al. (eds.), Heritage and Cultural Heritage Tourism, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44800-3_13

153

154

T. Lertcharnrit and K. Watanasawad

when the Krom Silpakorn (Fine Arts Department) was established (see Lertcharnrit 2014, for a brief history of tangible cultural heritage in Thailand), intangible heritage has intensively received national attention as an important element for national pride worth preserving and promoting only in more recent times (e.g., when the Office of National Culture Commission, now called the Department of Cultural Promotion, was founded in 1979). Intangible cultural heritage in Thailand is remarkable in that it has been maintained and served as collective identity of people in Thailand, and has drawn much attention from visitors and tourists around the world. In this chapter, we introduce and discuss the history and development of intangible cultural heritage in the country.

 evelopment of Intangible Cultural Heritage Management D in Thailand It can be said that the path of cultural heritage management in Thailand resembles that of UNESCO, initiating with tangible cultural heritage and then followed by intangible heritage. As early as the reign of King Rama IV in the middle of nineteenth century, Thailand (known at the time as the Kingdom of Siam), chiefly oriented the management of what is called cultural heritage toward the protection and preservation of tangible heritage, mainly ancient monuments, archaeological objects, art objects, historic buildings, historic towns, and archaeological sites. The government agency named the Fine Arts Department (FAD) was established in 1912 during the reign of King Rama VI, and today it is “responsible for the protection, conservation, maintenance, improvement, promotion, creation, dissemination of information, organization of study, research, development, and passing on art and cultural heritage of the country and to preserve national values and identity leading to sustainable development of Thai society and national security” (www.m-­culture. go.th, accessed October 10, 2021). The primary focus on tangible cultural heritage led to the enactment of the Act on Ancient Monuments, Antiques, Objects of Arts and National Museums B.E. 2504 (1961) and the development of other methods and measures to achieve goals of the Act, such as the establishment of national museums, historical parks, national archives, and colleges of performing arts. Although the kingdom is also rich in intangible or indigenous heritage, which includes but is not limited to performing arts, craftsmanship, oral traditions, and knowledge, it was not until June 2013 that Thailand’s Ministry of Culture participated in the UNESCO’s Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage and has served as a state member of the UNESCO’s convention since then. Later in the 2015, the Act of Promotion and Preservation of Intangible Cultural Heritage was drafted and rectified through the National Legislative Assembly of Thailand. In 2016, the act was officially announced and published in the Royal Gazette on March 1, 2016. The act has since then served as the only formal and key

13  Intangible Cultural Heritage Tourism in Thailand

155

intangible cultural heritage law in the country. The principal national organization that is authorized to use and promote the act is the Department of Cultural Promotion (DCP), formerly called the Office of National Culture Commission, which is “charged with the task to promote and preserve Thai culture through means such as studies, research, rehabilitation, development, dissemination of information and support to government agencies, non-government organizations and the public engaged in cultural works” (www.m-­culture.go.th, accessed October 10, 2021). Following the two cultural resource laws mentioned above and collaborations with other related agencies, Thailand has accomplished several major cultural heritage preservation and development projects, including for example the restoration of historic stone monuments in northeastern Thailand, the establishment of 46 national museums across the country, establishment of 11 historic parks, inventories of hundreds of intangible folk cultural heritage elements. As a result, the promotion of cultural heritage and the management of cultural heritage sites (e.g., both prehistoric and historic archaeological sites and districts) have significantly stimulated domestic heritage tourism. With regard to intangible heritage more specifically, not only the DCP but local and national non-government, non-profit organizations and private sectors have helped to promote heritage tourism through a variety of forms or activities, such as festive events (Figs. 13.1 and 13.2), annual ceremonies, shows and museum exhibitions.

Fig. 13.1  Loy Krathong festival as intangible cultural heritage. (Photo Credit: https://www.tatnews.org. Used by permission)

156

T. Lertcharnrit and K. Watanasawad

Fig. 13.2  Boat racing in Nan River, Phitsanuloke Province. (Photo Credit: Suthat Chaibanyai)

 efinition and Types of Intangible Cultural Heritage D in Thailand The use of the English term “intangible cultural heritage” is relatively recent in Thailand. However, there is no consensus about the formal or official transliteration of the term into Thai terminologies. A number of terms have been interchangeably used, namely spiritual or mental cultural heritage, non-physical cultural heritage, abstract cultural heritage, and more widely used term at present “wisdom cultural heritage” (Department of Cultural Promotion 2013: 5–6). The term “wisdom cultural heritage” was coined by the DCP in 2009, and has the similar connotation to the term “intangible cultural heritage” mentioned in the UNESCO’s 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. The term was derived from the two compound words; that is, “phumpanya (วัฒนธรรม)” and “wattanatham (วฒนธรรม)” literally mean “wisdom” and “culture” respectively. Since Thailand was adopted the definition of ICH from the article 2 of 2003 UNESCO’s Convention, “wisdom cultural heritage” was defined as follows: The knowledge, expressions, practices or skills which are expressed through the persons, instruments, or objects – which with individuals, groups, or communities recognize and feel shared as the part of their cultural heritage, as well as they are transmitted from generation to generation and may be modified in response to their environment” (Article 3, Act of Promoting and Safeguarding of Wisdom Cultural Heritage, 2016, no page number).

13  Intangible Cultural Heritage Tourism in Thailand

157

According to Article 4, the Bill of Promoting and Safeguarding of Wisdom Cultural Heritage (2016), there are six domains of wisdom cultural heritage, as below. 1. Folk literatures and languages, such as tales, myths, legends, puzzles, proverbs, chants, manuscripts, dialects, sign languages, national language; 2. Performing arts, such as music, songs, dances, dramas; 3. Social practices, rituals, and festivals, such as social etiquettes, community ceremonies, 4. Knowledge and practices concerning nature and universe, such as knowledge on traditional foods, traditional massage and folk medicines, astrology, astronomy, natural resource management, settlement practices. 5. Traditional craftsmanship, such as basketry, textile making, lacquerware, pottery making, hide-working, woodworking, metalworking, ornament production 6. Folk plays, folk sports, and martial arts, such as Thai traditional plays, sports, and martial arts However, the above domains of wisdom cultural heritage in Thai are not identical to the classification of intangible cultural heritage domains as stated in the article 2 of the 2003 UNESCO’s Convention, as the convention opens up “each State Party shall draw up, in a manner geared to its own situation, one or more inventories of the intangible cultural heritage present in its territory” (Article 12, UNESCO 2003). As a result, the “folk plays, folk sports, and martial arts” was added up as the new domain. The classification of wisdom cultural heritage domains in Thailand can be represented as Fig. 13.3. All of the ICH domains above have been subject of preservation, protection, promotion, and dissemination through various divisions under the DCP. However, there is still a lack of intensive research on various issues on the heritage and development of best practices concerning the preservation and transmission of ICH. Most of the work that has been done thus far involves the inventorying of the ICH. That is, the DCP has been developing the inventorying system at the national level since 2009. Each year the DCP has also nominated the ICH elements under each domain and all nominated ICH elements were announced and published in the annual ICH nominated books at the national level (Fig. 13.4). Currently, the DCP has been also developing the database system for identification and inventory of ICH.  It is

Fig. 13.3  Classification of wisdom cultural heritage domains

158

T. Lertcharnrit and K. Watanasawad

Fig. 13.4  E-books of the Inventory of ICH Classified by Each Domain. (Photo Credit: http://ich. culture.go.th/index.php/th/ich/ebook, public domain image. Used by permission)

expected that this system will be open up “individual, groups of persons, or communities” to access the inventory system easily as already recommended by the Article 12 of the UNESCO’s 2003 convention.

I ntangible Cultural Heritage and Tourism in Thailand and Beyond All cultural heritages, both tangible and intangible, have been used as tourist resources for a long time and have an impact on heritage tourism. The significance of cultural heritage as tourist resources is emphasized by Krasojević and Djordjević (2017): All tangible and intangible, natural and cultural heritage, as environmental factors, represent tourist resources and can be used for tourism purposes to produce an economic impact and contribute to the economic development of specific destinations. Cultural resources can become tourism resources only by planned creation, just like cultural products do after the process of presentation and interpretation (p. 443).

According to the above statement, it is accepted and widely recognized that cultural heritage and cultural heritage sites have served as final destinations for tourists, and heritage tourism has been a major source of income in many countries around the

13  Intangible Cultural Heritage Tourism in Thailand

159

world. Thailand is a notable case: for example, travel and tourism has contributed to the GDP of Thailand over 106.5 USD billions in 2019, ranking no. 14 in the world (https://wttc.org/Portals/0/Documents/Repprts/2021/Global, accessed October 12, 2021). Thailand also ranks in the world’s top 10 destinations receiving 40% of global arrivals in 2019 (http://www.e-­unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284422456, accessed October 12, 2021). Another phenomenon witnessing Thailand’s cultural richness with unique and varied heritage resources, and Thai cultural heritage is the final destinations for tourism. Based upon the CEOWORLD magazine 2021 report, Thailand ranked fifth of the countries impacting global cultural heritage with the score of 93.67 as depicted in Table 13.1. The measures and comparisons across 165 countries were conducted by the key attributes: architecture, artistic legacy, fashion, food, music, literature, history, cultural attractions, and cultural accessibility (See more details https://ceoworld.biz). It is not surprising that Thailand was voted into the top-ten influencing countries of global cultural heritage since all attributes are richly represented in every Thai region. Given the rich cultural resources in the country, there is no doubt that cultural heritage, both tangible and intangible cultural heritage, has been a major and prime tourism resource for the country, promoted particularly by the Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT), an agency under the Ministry of Tourism and Sports. TAT has launched several national and international tourism campaigns. One of the campaigns known as “Amazing Thailand” was very well-received and was a success when it was launched for the first time in 1998–1999. It therefore has been continued until the present year, with a variety of sub-themes. The campaign basically promotes notable and “unseen” natural beauties and cultural heritage sites in all regions of Thailand. With regard to intangible cultural heritage, the elements promoted through the campaign include Thai food (e.g., Tom Yum or spicy hot & sour soup), performing arts (e.g., Khon or mask drama), traditional sports (e.g., Muay Thai or Thai kick boxing) (see Figs. 13.1 and 13.2). The campaign, as well as tourism activities organized by the TAT, have significantly catalyzed domestic and international travels to tourist destinations. At present, there are offices of tourism and sports in all provinces of Thailand. Table 13.1 Top-ten impacting countries of global cultural heritage

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Countries Italy Greece Spain India Thailand Portugal Japan United Kingdom China Germany

(Source: https://ceoworld.biz)

Score 95.99 95.61 95.23 95.23 93.67 93.67 92.84 92.79 92.79 92.73

160

T. Lertcharnrit and K. Watanasawad

Highlighting the benefits of ICH to tourism and local communities, ICH assets can be developed as tourist resources such as complementary products and/or activities, leading to higher revenues to the local community, higher employment in the local community, increases of tourist spending, prolongation of tourist stay, off-­ season tourist visitation, and increased tourist satisfaction (UNWTO 2012). Adopted during the 2003 UNESCO’s Convention, the World Tourism Organization (also known as UNWTO) (2012) classifies the six pivotal areas of ICH developed as tourist resources as displayed below (Fig. 13.5). Recently, Thai policy under Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha is still working toward promotion of the 15 creative industries1 and 5F Model2 as Thailand’s soft power. (https://www.bangkokbiznews.com/news/959765, accessed October 17, 2021). Many projects related to ICH were launched in line with this Thai government policy, including “Thai Kitchen to the World (คร◌ัวไทยส◌ู◌่คร◌ัวโลก)” and “Thai Fight (ไทยไฟท◌์)”. The aim of these projects is to promote ICH and develop them for Thai tourism campaigns. Moreover, Thailand also adopted the UNESCO’s ‘creative city’ concept and has been trying to develop many provinces as initiative hubs. Such creative cities as Phuket as a hub of gastronomy and Chiangmai as a hub of crafts and folk art are currently promoted as heritage tourist attractions. Based upon this policy, Thailand has also embedded into the developing master plan the promotion of all creative cities as heritage tourist attractions (See more details at https://en.unesco.org/creative-­cities). Besides the above policy, there are also many ICH products promoted for cultural tourism. The government campaign of “One Tambon One Product” or “one district one product” was launched to draw the attraction of both internal and external tourists. Some stories related to the products were created to enhance their value. The commodification of ICH can be seen in many various products. For example,

Fig. 13.5  Classification of six pivotal areas of ICH as tourist resources

 The 15 creative industries are composed of (1) crafts and handicrafts (2) music (3) performing arts (4) visual arts (5) films (6) broadcasting (7) printing (8) software (9) advertising (10) design (11) architectural services (12) fashion (13) Thai food (14) Thai traditional medicine and (15) cultural tourism. 2  5F Model is the abbreviation of food, film, fashion, festival, and fighting. 1

13  Intangible Cultural Heritage Tourism in Thailand

161

the image and story of “Yak (ยกษ์)” or the guardian giant were used as a product logo since it is believable that the guardian giant will protect them from the bad luck and evil. Consequently, this creative idea has been bringing to develop the ICH products as shown in Fig. 13.6. At the international level, the promotion of cultural heritage tourism is accomplished prominently in Expo type events. For example, as recently as the Expo 2020 held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, the Thai government remarkably presented

Fig. 13.6  Some Examples of Commodification of ICH for Tourism. (Photo credit: K. Watanasawad)

162

T. Lertcharnrit and K. Watanasawad

various aspects of Thai cultural heritage, such as traditional Thai architecture (Thai pavilion), Thai hospitality, and an ancient Buddhist temple, with the mascots wearing traditional Thai dress (see https://www.expo2020dubaithailand.com/en/home/ for more details). The Thailand Expo was jointly executed by a large cohort of agencies, institutions, and organizations, with financial support from many public enterprises, non-profit organizations, and private companies. However, this is not to say that there are not problems concerning the use and consumption of cultural heritage in the country. Problems or issues such as “dumbing down”, de-contextualization, appropriation of ownership, disconnection of tangible and intangible cultural heritage, and overtourism at cultural heritage sites, have been identified and discussed to some degree (see for example, UNESCO and EIIHCAP 2008).

 ase Studies of Intangible Cultural Heritage as Tourism C in Thailand As mentioned earlier, ICH has been used as a tourist resource in Thailand for a long time. In this section we will exemplify two such cases, derived from two of the ICH elements inscribed as UNESCO’s Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. Details are summarized as follows. I. A Case Study of Khon Masked Dance “Khon Masked Dance Drama in Thailand” is the first Thai element of ICH inscribed as UNESCO’s Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity in 2016. It originated from Hindu culture and developed as a unique and authentically Thai performance. The Khon Masked dance became more popular because it was under the royal patronage of Her Majesty Queen Sirikit, the Queen Mother for many years. Many selected episodes from the Ramakien storylines were played in the annual grand performance at the Thailand Cultural Centre in Bangkok. Currently, there are now nine episodes since its debut back in 2007, and it were suitably adjusted to the tourism. For example, the performances are accompanied with English subtitles and simplified for tourists. The LED screen above the stage also contained the English translating version of stories during the performance. The Sala Chalermkrung Royal Theatre is the show case of how Khon masked dance is promoted for one of the famous tourist attractions (Fig. 13.7). In order to celebrate the nomination of “Khon Masked Dance Drama in Thailand” as UNESCO’s Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, many activities were held by the involved organizations. The aims of the activities were to raise Thai people’s awareness of the value and significance of this dance form, and promote it for tourism. For example, the exhibition of “Classical Khon Masks” was on view on the fourth floor of the Queen’s Gallery unit December 22, 2020 (Fig.  13.8). This exhibition was a collaboration between the Thai Khadi

13  Intangible Cultural Heritage Tourism in Thailand

163

Fig. 13.7  Khon Masked dance drama performed at Sala Chalermkrung Royal theatre for tourism. (Photo credit: https://www.renown-­travel.com/daytripsbangkok/khonmaskeddance.html. Used by permission)

Fig. 13.8  The Exhibition of “Khon Masks”. (Photo Credit: https://www.bangkokpost.com. Used by permission)

Research Institute, Thammasat University and the Department of Cultural Promotion that featured 93 masterpieces of classic Khon masks from the reign of King Rama V to present-day. Moreover, the exhibition also attracted both Thai and foreign visitors attending to learn about the development of Khon. II. A Case Study of Nuat Thai Nuat Thai, or a traditional medical science for relieving and curing pain symptoms, is the second to be honored by inclusion in the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity following the addition of Khon

164

T. Lertcharnrit and K. Watanasawad

Masks in 2019. This Thai traditional and alternative health has a reputation as one of the top five businesses of the world. In 1985, the Project for the revitalization of Thai Massage was launched and developed to revitalize and maximize knowledge of Nuat Thai, since then there are many initiative projects related to this practice. One example is the development of curricula that involve Nuat Thai as a profession for Thais at Wat Phra Chetuphon Wimon Mangkhalaram, widely known as Wat Pho. The name of the school is Wat Pho Thai Traditional Massage School. Thailand is one of major destinations for international health tourism (Laing and Weiler 2008). Consequently, TAT introduced a five-year plan from 2004–2008 to turn Thailand into a medical services hub for Asia. The plan stressed the development of medical services and health promotion services – with an emphasis on spa and traditional massage service as health tourism (Kogiso 2012). Today, Nuat Thai has become one of the many cultural experiences that tourists from around the world can come to enjoy in Thailand (Fig. 13.9), and brings a lot of revenue for all tourism sectors. Currently, in order to promote and celebrate “Nuat Thai” inscribed on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity in 2021, Wat Pho has already opened the traditional Thai Massage (Nuat Thai) Museum and rebuilt the 80 Ruesidatton’s postures and their 82 statues within the temple area. Its opening ceremony and exhibition were privately attended by HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhron on November 12, 2021. This place is now promoted as a tourist attraction and source providing knowledge and information on Thai massage (Fig. 13.10).

Fig. 13.9  Tourist Experiencing Nuat Thai at Wat Pho. (Source: https://www.tatnews.org. Used by permission)

13  Intangible Cultural Heritage Tourism in Thailand

165

Fig. 13.10  Exhibition of Ruesidatton’s Postures and Opening Ceremony of Thai Massage (Nuat Thai) Museum. (Photo credit: K. Watanasawad)

Conclusion Thailand has a long history of human colonization dating to Paleolithic times, and has witnessed a rich variety of cultural legacies, both tangible and intangible. As the country has developed into a modern kingdom since the nineteenth century, cultural heritage and cultural heritage sites became a source of national pride and relatively recently a major source of income and employment through the promotion of heritage tourism. With the establishment of government agencies like the Fine Arts Department and the Department of Cultural Promotion, the Tourism Authority of Thailand, as well as regional and provincial offices related to the preservation, protection, promotion, and transmission of cultural heritage, Thailand has seen changes in public engagement and heritage tourism. Clear evidence of such changes includes an increase in number of national, local, non-private, private museums and exhibitions across the country, and tourism agencies as well as online websites dealing with cultural heritage tourism. Cultural heritage in Thailand is and will continue to be an intrinsic yet innovative part of tourism and national development.

References Department of Cultural Promotion (2013) A manual for the inventorying of national cultural wisdom heritage. Department of Cultural Promotion, Bangkok. (in Thai) Higham C (2002) Early cultures of Mainland Southeast Asia. River Books, Bangkok Kogiso K (2012) Thai massage and health tourism in Thailand: Tourism acculturation process of Thai Massage. Int J Sport Health Sci 10:65–70. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ ijshs/10/0/10_201209/_pdf. Accessed 24 Sept 2019

166

T. Lertcharnrit and K. Watanasawad

Krasojević B, Djordjević B (2017) Intangible cultural heritage as tourism resource of Serbia. Soc Anthropol 5(6):442–449 Laing J, Weiler B (2008) Mind, body and spirit: health and wellness tourism in Asia. In: Cochrane J (ed) Asian tourism: growth and change. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 379–389 Lertcharnrit T (2014) Thailand: cultural heritage management. In: Smith C (ed) Encyclopedia of global archaeology. Springer, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­1-­4419-­0465-­2_1165. Accessed 15 Oct 2021 Royal Thai Government Gazette (2016) Act of promoting and safeguarding of wisdom cultural heritage. Available at http://www.ratchakitcha.soc.go.th/DATA/PDF/2559/A/019/1. PDF. Accessed 19 Sept 2021 (in Thai) UNESCO (2003) The Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. Available at https://ich.unesco.org/en/convention. Accessed 20 Oct 2021 UNESCO and EIIHCAP (2008) Safeguarding intangible heritage and sustainable cultural tourism: opportunities and challenges. Meeting report for UNESCO-EIIHCAP Regional Meeting, Hue, Vietnam, 11–13 December 2007. UNESCO Principal Regional Office for Asia and Pacific, Bangkok UNWTO (2012) Study on tourism and intangible cultural heritage. Available at https://webunwto.s3-­eu-­west-­1.amazonaws.com/2019-­08/summaryview_UNWTO-­Study-­on-­Tourism-­and-­ Intangible-­Cultural-­Heritage.pdf. Accessed 24 Sept 2019

Chapter 14

Engaging Communities Through the Knowledge Transmission of Archaeological Heritage in Highland Pang Mapha, Northwest Thailand Rasmi Shoocongdej Abstract  This chapter presents the importance of knowledge transmission as one of the most powerful tools for heritage management. This is done through the examination of Long Long Rak Coffin Cave in Pang Mapha, Mae Hong Son province, Northwest of Thailand. This research studies the complexity and time-continuity required of archaeological knowledge transmission processes. The study performs this through local schools and community outreach in order to create a sense of ownership for preserving the archaeological site representing the prehistoric log coffin culture that links the highland regional network between South China and Southeast Asia. Finally, I discuss tribal communities’ embrace of archaeological knowledge for developing heritage tourism. Keywords  Community · Engagement · Knowledge · Transmission · Archaeological heritage · Tourism · Northwest Thailand

Introduction Following in the steps of many parts of the world, Southeast Asian archaeology has become very important as an economic asset (Hitchocock et al. 2010). In Thailand, cultural heritage tourism has rapidly received attention and promotion from the Tourism Authority of Thailand and Designated Area for Sustainable Tourism Administration (DASTA). At the same time, archaeology is also used to promote and empower the local community through community-based archaeology/tourism/ museums for sustainable heritage management (Prishanchit 2005). However, the pattern common in many developing countries is that research results are quickly R. Shoocongdej (*) Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Archaeology, Silpakorn University, Bangkok, Thailand e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 P.-L. Yu et al. (eds.), Heritage and Cultural Heritage Tourism, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44800-3_14

167

168

R. Shoocongdej

turned into new tourist attractions, which ignores the process of community participation in heritage. This hurried and flawed approach to proper heritage management threatens to affect the sustainability of these archaeological sites in the long term (Shoocongdej 2011a, b). The integration of community-based archaeology and tourism has grown slowly in Thailand. The majority of such work within communities has focused on open-air sites and/or local museums (Natapitu 2007; Prishanchit 2005). These tools are powerful educational vehicles for local communities and visitors to learn about local history and appreciate local heritage. To improve the quality of information disseminated to the general public and tourists, engaging the community in research is a valuable first step. To achieve that, a two-way communication method of knowledge transmission plays an important role in archaeological heritage management by facilitating the emergence of a sense of belonging and place. However, creating a sense of belonging and ownership so that the sites are preserved in a sustainable way requires more than merely linking a local population to an archaeological site by location. It can be much more challenging when the current local population is not connected to that archeological heritage through ancestry or historical events. This chapter explores archaeological heritage management in an ethnically diverse area where the current local groups are not the descendant population and have no historical connection to the archaeological sites. I present an approach used in recent fieldwork on Long Long Rak Cave in Highland Pang Mapha, Mae Hong Son province, northwest Thailand to argue that the presence of a long-term continuous research in the area in conjunction with efforts to continuously and deliberately, at all stages, engage local inhabitants in a two-way transmission of archaeological knowledge and history can create a sense of ownership of archaeological heritage even if there is no hereditary relation.

Tham Lod Communities in Highland Pang Mapha Pang Mapha is a mountainous area in Mae Hong Son province, along the border between Thailand and Myanmar. The inhabitants of this area consist of two groups as designated by the Thai government: the lowland “Thai” and the upland “hill tribe” minorities (Morton and Baird 2019). Most of the ethnic groups in northwestern Thailand migrated from South China and Myanmar (Young 1962). I will refer to the upland “hill tribe” minorities as “ethnic community(ies)/groups”. The ethnic community is comprised of six main ethnic groups, namely Shan, Karen, Lua, Lisu, Black and Red Lahu, and Hmong. Based on ethnographic research and oral histories in Highland Pang Mapha, most of these ethnic groups are not indigenous to this area. (Hoontrakul 2003, 2007). Tham Lod is a village under administrative organization of Pang Mapha District with a predominantly ethnic Shan heritage. The Shan were the first ethnic group to come to Pang Mapha, approximately two hundred years ago (Phusahaad et  al. 2003). The current population consists of two major groups: the first generation

14  Engaging Communities Through the Knowledge Transmission of Archaeological…

169

holding Thai nationality and a more recent migrants lacking Thai nationality. A total population of 938 consists of 299 households. Their major occupations are agriculture, animal husbandry, and ecotourism centered on the famously attractive Tham Lod cave (Fig. 14.1) of Mae Hong Son. There are three major governmental structures in the community: a village school providing kindergarten to junior high school instruction, a community hospital, and Tham Lod Wildlife Conservation Development and Extension Station (hence forth Tham Lod Station). The archaeological evidence discussed here has been obtained over several excavation seasons at the Tham Lod village under the control of Tham Lod Station. There have been many important discoveries dating from prehistoric periods to the historical Lanna period. Importantly, the Tham Lod community is not a descendent population and enjoys no historical linkage to any of these archaeological sites or the Log Coffin Culture. Log coffin sites in Mae Hong Son have often been referred to by the locals as “Phi Man cave” which the general public is particularly interested in. “Phi Man” is a Shan language term meaning “the appearance of a ghost.” It is a shared local belief of the Shan, Karen, and black Lahu that Phi Man spoke an unknown language that later became associated with the Log Coffin Culture of Pang Mapha (Shoocongdej 2019). This is of particular interest because it is so closely related to the local belief in the Shan spirit and the evidence is more tangible (coffins) than in other periods. Here, we also use the word “Phi Man” to represent the coffin cave of Long Long Rak.

Fig. 14.1  Mapping the Phi Man Long Long Rak cave. (Source: IHE Project. Used by permission)

170

R. Shoocongdej

“Long Long” refers to coated coffins. “Rak” refers to the lacquer (Gluta usitata), the resin used to seal the coffins (Shoocongdej 2020a). Long Long Rak coffin cave is an archaeological site located in a forest reserve area under Tham Lod Station (Fig. 14.1). This site is the first to reveal such extraordinary evidence of textiles, baskets, decorated strings, and weaving looms all of which are similar to the material cultures of groups currently living in the area, as well as other locations in northern Thailand and upland Southeast Asia more generally. This may represent a past indigenous knowledge that is directly related to modern groups in the region (Shoocongdej 2020b).

Tourism Developments at the Tham Lod Village The general policy of Thailand’s tourism industry since the 1960s has been to promote the hill tribes of northern Thailand as cultural assets. The highlands of Mae Hong Son are best known by foreigner tourists for the trekking tours that focus on the authentic and exotic ethnic cultures of the region. In 1997, the Local Administration of Pang Mapha district created the slogan “Phi Man (Spirit or Log Coffin) Land, the Land of a Hundred Caves, Spectacular Mountain Landscape, and Integrated Tribes” for its tourism campaign. Importantly, my first project in the area, a cave exploration and data-based study of Mae Hong Son province (2001–2003) became an element of local tourism development policy (Dilokwanich 1999). The initial tourism effort developed at the Tham Lod cave (Fig. 14.2) in Tham Lod village in 1987 has transformed Mae Hong Son into a significant eco and adventure destination tourism (Lortanavanit 2009: 151–156). Tham Lod is not only well-known for its cave formations but also for the log coffin remains. Tham Lod cave is legally controlled by Tham Lod Station –a government legal entity. However, while the Tham Lod communities have negotiated their tourism activities with the Tham Lod Station, the major income sources from lantern holding and bamboo rafting excursions in the Tham Lod cave is not fully under their control (Payadi 2000).

History of Archaeological Research in Highland Pang Mapha Archaeological sites containing log coffins discovered in Pang Mapha have been known to the local communities and archeologists for several decades as Chester Gorman Spirit Cave (Gorman 1970). In the years since 1997 an increasing number of archaeological projects have been carried out in the area by Thai archaeologists and scientists (e.g., Dilokwanich 1999; Shoocongdej 2004, 2019) (Table 14.1).

14  Engaging Communities Through the Knowledge Transmission of Archaeological…

171

Fig. 14.2  Tham Lod cave. (Source: https:www.cavelodge.com. Used by permission)

In the period 1998–2000, I first joined the Cave Exploration and Data-Based System in Mae Hong Son Province to document the sites in the local karst topography. Most of the survey sites had been destroyed by looters and animals. Since joining the Cave Exploration, I have excavated two key sites in Tham Lod village including Tham Lod rockshelter and Long Long Rak cave to establish and expand the chronology of the region (Fig. 14.3). The Tham Lod rockshelter, located near the Tham Lod cave, represents the earliest settlement of modern humans in the area, dating from 32,000 to 2000 years ago. The site was used for seasonal habitation and was the location of a lithic workshop. During that same time period the site functioned as a cemetery containing the skeletal remains of at least four individuals, including most notably that of a woman who has come to be known as the “Tham Lod Woman” (Hayes et  al. 2017; Pureepatpong 2007; Shoocongdej 2007). For the log coffin sites dated 2300–1100 years ago there are no human remains included in the archaeological evidence found in situ, until the new discoveries at the Long Long Rak cave in 2015. Log Coffin Culture is a unique feature of mortuary practice found in highland Pang Mapha. This mortuary practice is found throughout Southeast Asia indicating a relationship between the peoples and cultures in South China and highland Pang Mapha in the past. This research thus places Tham Lod village in an international context (Shoocongdej 2019).

172

R. Shoocongdej

Table 14.1  Chronology of research projects carried out in Pang Mapha, Mae Hong Son Province Years 1998– 2000 2001– 2003 2003– 2006 2007– 2008 2007– 2008 2007– 2008 2009– 2010 2011– 2012 2013– 2016 2017– 2021

Projects Cave Exploration and Data-Based System in Mae Hong Son Province Highland Archaeology in Pang Mapha Phase I (HAPPI) Highland Archaeology in Pang Mapha Phase II (HAPPII) Archaeological Heritage Management at Tham Lod and Ban Rai Rockshelters (AHM) Archaeology and Arts Project (AAP) Archaeological Exploration and Substainable Heritage Management in Pai-Pang Mapha-Khun Yuan Districts, Mae Hong Son Province Phase I (PPKI) Archaeological Exploration and Substainable Heritage Management in Pai-Pang Mapha-Khun Yuan, Mae Hong Son Province Phase II (PPKII) Archaeological Exploration and Substainable Heritage Management in Pai-Pang Mapha-Khun Yuan, Mae Hong Son Province Phase III (PPKIII) Interaction between Human and Environments in Highland Pang Mapha (IHE) Prehistoric Population and Cultural Dynamics in Highland Pang Mapha (PCD)

 he Archaeological Management and Knowledge T Transmission Processes Through public outreach programs archaeologists have been properly introducing their research findings to local ethnic communities through village meetings and school visits. I have also published extensively in academic journals and popular magazines and have disseminated my research results through such diverse channels as public talks, professional conferences, and workshops. For the general audience and as promotional efforts, I have authored documentaries, country-wide television documentary presentations, and engage the team to set up internet websites and Facebook posts (Kantrasri 2016, 2020). This knowledge has also been disseminated through an explanatory story-telling program presented to tourists during their visits to the log coffins sites inside Tham Lod cave. Over several decades, the local people of Mae Hong Son province have gradually learned about and come to appreciate the archaeological discoveries in highland Pang Mapha brought to light through the excavation at Long Long Rak Cave. The question naturally arises as to how to create the sense of place and belonging among the local community who live close to the sites. The sense of place involves a relationship between a people and a place highlighting the importance of everyday life and a sense of identity (Davis 2019; Hayden 1995). The sense of place can derive from short-term interaction between recent immigrants established

14  Engaging Communities Through the Knowledge Transmission of Archaeological…

173

Fig. 14.3  Location of Tham Lod cave, Tham Lod rockshelter, and Phi Man Long Long Rak cave. (Source: IHE Project. Used by permission)

communities whether or not the latter has prior connection to the place it occupies (Wright 2015). The focus now shifts to the management of this new knowledge in the interaction between the human and environments in Highland Pang Mapha. This has been done since 2003 to the present. Prior to two recent projects, the previous ones have continued their activities, including disseminating archaeological knowledge and local history in the form of skills training according to the needs of the Tham Lod communities. This includes Thai-English guide training, homestay host training, and product design training. Other training efforts have focused on heritage management skills such as museum workshops and a children’s workshop on detection of the past. Many generations of children and adults in the villages have participated in these activities (Shoocongdej 2004). Recent projects have trained children to serve as lantern-holding guides and bamboo rafting guides in the Tham Lod cave. Others

174

R. Shoocongdej

have become teachers at the village school and one became a research assistant in my archaeology project. It could be said that the villagers have accepted the importance of archaeological sites, although the technical details are not always thoroughly understood (Kantrasri 2020). But the continuation of research marginally adding to what they already know has given them new memories to add on to history. The engagement methodology involved group discussions, participatory action research, and participant observations (Table 14.2). There are four components of the community involvement processes: dissemination of information, community consultation, community meetings, and consensus community decision making on the management plans (Fig. 14.4, Table 14.3). The project applies the participatory action research method to make the local communities aware of the significance of

Table 14.2  The knowledge transmission processes between 2013–2021 Years 2013–2016 2017–2021

Project IHE PCD

Community meetings 3 5

Workshops 4 4

Site visits 13 10

Media 27 29

Fig. 14.4  Research teams have regularly consulted and returned archeology knowledge to the community at the Tham Lod temple which is a respected community gathering place. (Source: PCD Project. Used by permission)

14  Engaging Communities Through the Knowledge Transmission of Archaeological…

175

Table 14.3  Tham Lod community, school, government and private sector in PDC project involvement on the management of Long Long Rak Cave by the PDC project (Na Nongkai 2021) Stakeholders Tham Lod communities

Processes (no.) 1. Meetings (4) 2. In depth interview (9) 3. Focus groups (2) 4. Site visits (2) 5. Workshop (1) 6. Seminar (1)

Ban Tham Lod school

1. In depth interview (4) 2. Site visits (1) 3. Meetings (4) 4. Study tour at the site (4) 5. Survey and design a nature and archaeological trail (1)

Groups a senior group a headman a village committee a rafting group a women’s group a guide and lantern holding group a homestay group a tourism group a village pioneer group a local product group Teachers Junior high school students

Tham Lod Station 1. In depth interview a head of (2) station and 2. Focus group officers interview (2) 3. Site visits (1) 4. Survey and design a nature and archaeological trail (2)

Mae Hong Son chamber of commerce

Focus group interview (2) site visits (1)

President and members

Activities 1. Disseminating research result to community 2. Display a temporary exhibition at the meeting 3. Brain storming on the cave management 4. Site visits 5. Brain storming on community museum 6. Workshop on guide training 7. Seminar on local history

1. Introduction of teachers and researchers 2. Brainstorming on local histories 3. An approach to develop the Long Long Rak cave as a learning center 4. A children English guide activity 5. Site survey and visit 6. An experimental design on Long Long Rak cave as an educational site 1. Site visit and introduction to the Long Long Rak cave 2. Brainstorming on conservation of the cave and knowledge management 3. Survey and explore the trail from Tham Lod cave to Long Long Rak cave as a new nature and cultural trail 4. Brainstorming on exhibition of Long Long Rak cave at the center 1. Site visit and introduction to the Long Long Rak cave 2. Brainstorming on conservation of the cave and carrying the knowledge dissemination to the general public

176

R. Shoocongdej

archaeological sites and to promote a sense of co-ownership in protecting the archaeological sites. The potential long-term economic benefits also facilitate attention. Principles of knowledge management have been transmitted regularly to Tham Lod village school, Ban Tham Lod communities, Tham Lod Station, and Mae Hong Son Chamber of Commerce groups. That process has included meetings, in-depth interviews, focus group interviews, site visits, workshops, seminars, and surveys (Tables 14.2 and 14.3).

Discussion and Conclusions The contemporary generations in the community have engaged with archaeological heritages in the Tham Lod village through their personal experiences and memory. The continued activities offered by the research projects foster a feeling of belonging that contributes to an overall sense of place. The archaeological heritage has bonded the past to the cultural heritage of these ethnic groups to the present. Tham Lod cave has served the community as a valuable source of income and village identity for many decades. The sense of belonging and sense of place are very strong in the local population. While the Tham Lod rockshelter and Long Long Rak cave were only recently discovered and studied by outside archaeologists, the Tham Lod community has enthusiastically embraced the new knowledge to better understand the sites and their history. The media, including social media, have played a significant role in transferring this knowledge. This exposure has facilitated greater community understanding of the value of the sites and made archaeology more relevant to the community in numerous ways. First, a variety of forms of collective memory exist among Tham Lod villagers. Personal and collective memories are associated with growing awareness and appreciation of archaeological projects since 1998. The project teams have lived near the site and participated in traditional village activities for several years. Other memories relate to the excavations and the discovery of skeletal remains from Tham Lod rock shelter dating to 32,000 years ago making it the oldest site yet found in Mae Hong Son province. Tham Lod youth grow up in a globalized culture watching news on cable television and the internet, and through these media they have received regularly updated information concerning the Tham Lod woman (Fig. 14.5). Over the past five years new memories have been created through the news regularly presented by television, news articles, magazines, online magazines, podcasts, radio programming, and social media focused on the facial approximation of the 13,000-year-old Tham Lod woman (Fig. 14.6). Results recently were published in Antiquity (Hayes et al. 2017) and the story has been widely picked up and repeated by national and international media. The continuing discovery of exciting archaeological evidence from Long Long Rak cave is frequently reported as breaking news on national television in Thailand.

14  Engaging Communities Through the Knowledge Transmission of Archaeological…

177

Fig. 14.5  A documentary of the 13,000-year-old Tham Lod woman appeared on national television in Thailand. (Source: Thai PBS https://program.thaipbs.or.th/TherKaoRaoKrai/episodes/63128, used by permission) Fig. 14.6  A facial approximation of the 13,000-year-old Tham Lod woman. (Source: Hayes et al. 2017. Used by permission)

These collective memories create a self-identification of community members with the sites. For example, the Tham Lod Station published the picture and information about the Tham Lod cave and the woman for the general public. During and after the excavation at Long Long Rak cave, numerous members of Tham Lod community responded quite favorably to the experience of visits to the site and learning to appreciate the archaeological heritage. Second, the news and social media have had a strong impact on sense of pride, place, and belonging by publicizing archaeological activities in  local villages.

178

R. Shoocongdej

Previously, I found for several years that my own efforts at working on the issue of community engagement were not receiving enough attention. Perhaps the presented information was too academic and difficult for the community to understand. Also, not all villagers possess sufficient knowledge and reading skills, thereby resulting in a greater reliance on television and social media platforms. Regardless of the source, the acquisition of this new knowledge has had a positive impact that not only makes the Tham Lod villagers proud of their archaeological heritage but extends that pride to the people of Mae Hong Son and the Thai general public as well. It can be said that these publicly reported news stories repeated on social media have contributed even further to an increased sense of pride and self-esteem among the Tham Lod community. A third positive outcome is the recognition of mutual benefits of Long Long Rak cave by a variety of stakeholders with a broad range of interests and ideas. The elders and the school authorities want to preserve and use the site as a learning center (Fig. 14.7). Villagers want to integrate the narrative of Tham Lod rockshelter and Long Long Rak cave into the village local museum development plan. The village headman, village committee, and Mae Hong Son tourism authority would like to develop the site as a new tourist destination. The Tham Lod Station suggests developing a connective trail linking the natural and archaeological heritage along a route from the Tham Lod cave to Long Long Rak cave. And finally, the Mae Hong Son Chamber of Commerce would like to conserve and protect the caves as local and national cultural heritage site, thereby enhancing their inherent tourist appeal.

Fig. 14.7  Students paying respect to the cave spirit on their visit to the Phi Man Long Long Rak cave. (Source: PCD project. Used by permission)

14  Engaging Communities Through the Knowledge Transmission of Archaeological…

179

Hopefully such diverse ideas and goals will result in the creation of a sustainable plan to safeguard the sites in the future through sound cultural heritage management. Finally, continued transmission of knowledge to the public will expand and strengthen the impact on local education institutions and economic development. The Tham Lod school, Tham Lod kindergarden school, Pang Mapha school, other agencies such as the Tham Lod Nature and Wildlife Education Center, and the Tham Lod Library, seek to employ archaeological knowledge in their educational programs for the benefit of future generations. For example, the schools have incorporated archaeological knowledge into the local history curriculum. The economic impact includes the utilization of this knowledge in interpreting archaeological sites and training local guides in an effort to generate increased revenues from tourism and the branding of local products. In conclusion, the long-term involvement of archaeological knowledge transmission and social activities are keys to the successful construction of a sense of place and belonging, regardless of the presence or absence of true ancestral ties to archaeological sites in Tham Lod village. Knowledge dissemination and community engagement is a fundamental strategy in the creation of a storytelling narrative about archaeological and cultural heritages in an area where there is a conscious attempt to construct new identities linking community, place, and heritage. Acknowledgments  This research is part of the Prehistoric Population and Cultural Dynamics in Highland Pang Mapha Project and is supported by the Thailand Science Research and Innovation (TSRI, Grant No. RTA6080001). I thank Anchada Charoenrook, Tristine Smart and Will Wormsley for their support and comments on the earlier versions of this chapter.

References Davis P (2019) Sustaining “sense of place” and heritage landscapes. In: Brown K, Davis P, Raposos L (eds) EULAC Museums, pp 54–73 Dilokwanich S (ed) (1999) Cave resources. Proceeding of Cave Resources, Bangkok, 4–5 August 1999 (in Thai) Gorman C (1970) Excavations at Spirit Cave, north Thailand. Asian Perspect 13:79–107 Hayden D (1995) The power of place: urban landscapes as public history. MIT Press, Cambridge Hayes S, Shoocongdej R, Pureepatpong N, Sanvichien S, Chintakanon K (2017) A late Pleistocene woman from Tham Lod, Thailand: the influence of today on a face from the past. Antiquity 91(356):289–303 Hitchocock M, King VT, Parwell M (eds) (2010) Heritage tourism in Southeast Asia. NIAS Press, Singapore Hoontrakul U (2003) Ethnic diversities in highland Pang Mapha, Mae Hong Son. In: Shoocongdej R (ed) Proceedings of human, culture, and environment in Highland Pang Mapha, Mae Hong Son Province., Silpakorn University, Bangkok, 20–21 February 1999, pp 41–58 (in Thai) Hoontrakul U (2007) Final report of highland archaeology in pang Mapha, phase II, vol 6: ethnoarchaeology. Thailand Research Fund, Bangkok. (in Thai) Kantrasri S (2016) Public outreach and research utilization. In: Shoocongdej R (ed) Proceeding of interaction between human and environments in highland Pang Mapha, Mae Hong Son Province, Silpakorn University, Bangkok, 27–28 February 2016, pp 469–478 (in Thai)

180

R. Shoocongdej

Kantrasri S (2020) Public outreach and research utilization. In: Shoocongdej R (ed) Proceeding of archaeology of Pre-Tai in highland Pang Mapha, Mae Hong Son Province, Sirindhorn Anthropological Center, Bangkok, 5–7 March 2020, pp 481–493 (in Thai) Lortanavanit D (2009) Decentralization, empowerment and tourism development: Pai town in Mae Hong Son, Thailand. Southeast Asian Stud 47(2):150–179 Morton MF, Baird IG (2019) From hill tribes to indigenous people: the localization of global movement in Thailand. J Southeast Asian Stud 50(1):7–31 Na Nongkai W (2021) Final report of prehistoric population and cultural dynamic in highland Pang Mapha, Mae Hong Son province, vol 10: cultural resource management. Thailand Science Research and Innovation, Bangkok. (in Thai) Natapitu S (2007) Contribution of archaeology to the quality-of-life improvement at the village of Ban Pong Manao, Lopburi province, central Thailand. In: Chia S, Proceeding of the international seminar on archaeology and nation building, Pusat Penyelidikan Arkeologi Malaysia, Univerisiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang, 4 August 2007, pp 52–65 Payadi C (2000) The development of community involvement in ecotourism management. Mae Jo University, Chiang Mai. (in Thai) Phusahaad A, Dechsongchai S, Pitakpanasit S, Praiketsiri C, Sukruenthong N, Nantaful U, Charntanawat P, Iiemturien W (2003) Final research report of local history on community management of public resources of Lang-Nam Klong rivers, Pang Mapha district, Mae Hong Son Province. Thailand Research Fund, Bangkok. (in Thai) Prishanchit S (2005) Community archaeology: management of the past and community development. Community Archaeology, Bangkok. (in Thai) Pureepatpong N (2007) Recent investigation of early people (late Pleistocene to early Holocene) from Ban Rai and Tham Lod rock shelter sites, Pang Mapha district, Mae Hong Son province, northwest Thailand. In: Bacus EA, Glover IC, Pigott VC (eds) Uncovering Southeast Asia’s past. NUS Press, Singapore, pp 38–45 Shoocongdej R (2004) Highland archaeology in Pang Mapha, Mae Hong Son. Silpakorn University Press, Nakorn Phatom. (in Thai) Shoocongdej R (2007) Late Pleistocene activities at the Tham Lod rockshelter in Highland Pang Mapha, Mae Hong Son province, northwest Thailand. Uncovering Southeast Asia’s past. NUS Press, Singapore, pp 22–37 Shoocongdej R (2011a) Public archaeology in Thailand. In: Okamura K, Matsuda A (eds) Global public archaeology. Springer, New York, pp 95–111 Shoocongdej R (2011b) Contemporary archaeology as a global dialogue: reflections from Southeast Asia. In: Lozny L (ed) Comparative archaeologists: a sociology view of the science of the past. Springer, New York, pp 707–730 Shoocongdej R (2019) Log coffin culture of Thailand in the southeast Asian context, 2nd edn. Charansanitwongse Printing, Bangkok. (in Thai) Shoocongdej R (2020a) Human, animal, and things: a reflection of society and culture from Phi Man Long Long Rak cave. In: Shoocongdej R (ed) Proceeding of archaeology of Pre-Tai in highland Pang Mapha, Mae Hong Son Province, Sirindhorn Anthropological Center, Bangkok, 5–7 March 2020, pp 31–61 (in Thai) Shoocongdej R (2020b) The challenge of archaeological interpretation and practice that integrates between the science of the past and local knowledge. SPAFA J 4(2020):1–21. https://doi. org/10.26721/spafajournal.v4i0.632 Wright A (2015) Private property, public archaeology: resident communities as stakeholders in American Archaeology. World Archaeol 47(2):212–224 Young G (1962) The hill tribes of northern Thailand. White Lotus Press, Bangkok

Part IV

Empowerment and Social Capital

Chapter 15

Conflict and Stability: The Potential of Heritage Tourism in Promoting Peace and Reconciliation Dallen J. Timothy

Abstract  Tourism is sometimes referred to as the ‘peace industry’, yet many scholars have argued that tourism itself does not create peace and harmony. Instead, these must exist before tourism can succeed. Nonetheless, tourism can help repair relations and create a certain level of benevolence. Heritage is one of the most contested tourism assets and has the potential to divide or unite peoples. This chapter examines the potential of heritage tourism to escalate and de-escalate conflict, advance benevolence between adversaries, and address other perspectives on peace. Key guiding principles are person-to-person contact, community empowerment, holistic heritage narratives, and emotive experiences. Keywords  Heritage · Peace · Conflict · Contention · Justice · Reconciliation

Introduction Tourism is often labeled the ‘peace industry’, yet many scholars have argued that tourism itself does not create peace and harmony. Instead, peaceful conditions must exist before the industry can succeed, because tourism is sensitive and highly elastic to political instability and contentious relations. In light of this condition, Litvin (2020:173) raises the important question, “Is tourism a cause of peace, or simply a beneficiary of peace?”. Litvin (1998, 64) earlier provided an answer to his 2020 question, suggesting that tourism does not thrive in conflict zones. Instead, “in the absence of peace, it cannot, therefore be a generator of peace”. Research since the 1980s has shown that tourism can in fact create unpeaceful or hostile relations between host communities and the people who visit through tourists’ insensitive and disrespectful behavior; unbridled tourism growth, which leads to crowded D. J. Timothy (*) Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 P.-L. Yu et al. (eds.), Heritage and Cultural Heritage Tourism, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44800-3_15

183

184

D. J. Timothy

conditions and the phenomenon of ‘overtourism’ in which ordinary life becomes in some ways unbearable for destination residents; and inflated costs of living through gentrification and high demand for local services. Despite mass tourism’s propensity to effect negative social, ecological, and economic outcomes, tourism has some potential to repair relations and create a certain level of benevolence between countries and peoples through person-to-person contact, which many believe will foster greater intercultural and interpersonal understanding (Pedersen 2020). Nevertheless, tourism clearly is not a panacea for curing the ills of conflict or automatically effecting other forms of peace (Pedersen 2020). Heritage is one of the most contested tourism assets and has the potential to divide or unite peoples and communities (Timothy and Emmett 2014). This chapter examines the potential of heritage tourism to escalate and de-escalate conflict, advance benevolence between adversaries, and provide a foundation for resolving injustices among some of the world’s oppressed populations. Some of the salient elements of heritage tourism as a vessel of peacemaking are examined with the help of several real-world examples. The chapter first looks at the role of heritage tourism in creating conflict and supporting injustices, followed by a description of several examples of heritage tourism’s ability to create more peaceful and benevolent relationships.

Heritage, Tourism and Peacemaking Pervading discourse suggests that peace means the absence of war, violence, or contention. However, during the past two decades, scholars have moved beyond this overly simplistic view to argue that peace is more than the absence of war or conflict. Rather, it is far deeper and broader and includes national, community, and personal contentment and one’s ability to live a just, equitable, and enjoyable life. Haessly (2010) argues that peace may be viewed as either negative or positive, or put differently, peace may entail an absence (of conflict or violence—negative peace) and a presence (justice, happiness, contentment—positive peace). Thus, holistically, peace entails a simultaneity of absence and presence, with states working together to form a more just world and individuals working for peace in what Moufakkir and Kelly (2010) term ‘participatory peace’. Beyond simply an absence of violence, peace may manifest as a “presence of some desirable conditions in society, including integration, justice, harmony, equity, freedom, wholeness, the promotion of the dignity of each person and the wellbeing of all of society’s citizens” (Haessly 2010: 5). In a culture of peace, people can achieve their full potential as they care for themselves and one another while experiencing an inner liberation and serenity brought about by security, harmony, goodwill, and justice and an absence of poverty, hunger, pain, and illiteracy (Moufakkir and Kelly 2010). In the profound words of Moufakkir and Kelly (2010: xviii), “Combatting peacelessness is a multifaceted task, which must address the existence of poverty, disease, terrorism, environmental disasters, racism, religious fundamentalism, alienation, discrimination, prejudice, ignorance, bigotry and hatred”.

15  Conflict and Stability: The Potential of Heritage Tourism in Promoting Peace…

185

Clearly, the concept of peace is multifaceted and complex. It requires the efforts of many stakeholders and changes to social, economic, and geopolitical conditions. Although tourism has been known to stoke peacelessness and contention, many tourism advocates continue to promote the notion that tourism is the world’s ‘peace industry’. Likewise, despite its being one of the most politically charged and socially contentious forms of tourism (Timothy 2021), many scholars have argued that heritage tourism has considerable potential to help bridge the gap between peace and peacelessness, to help smooth disputations between peoples and places, combat discrimination and ethnic discord, tackle ignorance, and build bridges between visitors and the visited. The growing number of peace museums throughout the world is often cited as evidence of this potential (Herborn 2014; van den Dungen and Yamane 2015). First, however, we must acknowledge heritage tourism’s role in stirring intergroup conflict and discord.

Heritage Tourism: Stirring Discord Heritage tourism often sows disharmony, either intentionally by guides and narrators, or naturally because of heritage’s inherent character and the ways in which history is portrayed and interpreted. In some cases, owing to the dark heritage of a place and the public (or personal) memory it evokes, difficult experiences and discord are natural outcomes of a visit. For example, because of the inherent darkness of slavery and the horrid occurrences that took place at certain localities in West Africa centuries ago, many African Americans who visit slavery heritage sites in Ghana have mixed experiences associated with deep emotional place attachments (Mowatt and Chancellor 2011). Timothy and Teye (2004) identified several ways in which visits to the Elmina Slave Fort in Cape Coast, Ghana, traumatically affect African American visitors. Standing in a place where their forebears were imprisoned, tortured, sent away into slavery in the New World, or even executed without cause is extremely unsettling for many visitors. Many African Americans expressed hopelessness, rage, hatred, and vengeance towards the White descendants of those who tortured and murdered their ancestors. In addition to the inherent grief associated with the site, some guides intentionally stir up emotive responses to enhance the visitor experience of slavery. Likewise, the heritage of war and conflict in Northern Ireland is still used as a political propaganda mechanism by some guides, tour agencies, and government bodies not just to add drama and entertainment to tours of Belfast but also to sustain the subdued conflict of ‘the Troubles’ and promulgate the divide that continues to exist in the country (McDowell 2008). Similar conditions exist in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where tours, especially in Sarajevo, continue to revolve around the Bosnian War (1992–1995) and are used as a means of keeping the memory of the war fresh in the minds of residents and tourists (Timothy 2021; Wise and Mulec 2014). Naef’s (2016) work describes how Sarajevo is depicted in contemporary tours as the ‘martyred city’, whose martyrdom is a common means of

186

D. J. Timothy

memorializing the traumatic events of the 1990s and sensationalizing the tragic events of the Siege of Sarajevo simultaneously for tourists’ consumption and to refresh locals’ memories of the war.

Heritage Tourism: Building Bridges While acknowledging the potential dissonances and conflicts associated with different types of heritage tourism, it is the intention of this chapter to elucidate more the idea that heritage tourism can help build bridges toward reconciliation and therefore feed a culture of peace. Heritage tourism is frequently forwarded as a potential tool for bridge-building, raising awareness, and creating more benevolent relationships (Di Giovine 2010; Gelbman 2008, 2019; Timothy 2021). As noted previously, although roots journeys by African Americans or others of African decent to their ancestral homeland may be a traumatic experience, they are also regarded as therapeutic in many respects. The shared experiences of slavery in situ evoke strong collective senses of sadness and mourning for ancestral suffering, but for many visitors, both Black and White, they are unifying experiences that contribute to a “collective indignation of slavery” (Mowatt and Chancellor 2011: 1422). Despite (or perhaps because of) the pervasive deep-seated loathing of the African slave trade, visiting slave heritage sites in Ghana provides a catharsis— one that helps African diasporic people feel a sense of homecoming, spiritual closeness to deity and their ancestors and, more importantly, a permeating sense of healing and forgiveness: a forgive-but-not-forget experience (Timothy and Teye 2004). White American visitors to the same commemorative places expressed regret, sadness, and a deep sense of atonement for the actions of their ancestors, with a renewed commitment never to allow such atrocities to happen again (Teye and Timothy 2004). The conciliatory sentiments of both Black and White visitor segments suggest that there is redemptive power in visiting sites of conflict and darkness. Parallel experiences are being felt in the US South at slave plantations and other sites associated with the history of prejudice and violence against African Americans. With a growing realization of the need to provide more truthful and balanced versions of American history, increasing numbers of heritage sites in the US South are now providing more balanced narratives of enslavement and minority disempowerment (Timothy 2021). Efforts to tell more balanced stories of slaves and the subsequent maltreatment of African Americans through the Jim Crow period have begun to heal some of the wounds created by the horrific history of slavery. According to Skipper (2016: 515), slavery-based heritage tourism that is intentional and which recognizes deep racial disparities and prejudices in the antebellum South (and later) can help generate a greater sense of community and belonging for today’s African Americans by empowering them economically, psychologically, politically and socially. Heritage tourism that goes beyond only an economic model will also provide a reconciliatory foundation upon which tolerance, understanding, and healing can take place (Barton and Leonard 2010). Skipper (2016: 525–526)

15  Conflict and Stability: The Potential of Heritage Tourism in Promoting Peace…

187

rightfully notes that the interpretation of Black heritage is not only the responsibility of the African American community, but White Americans must also participate and nurture the efforts, not “simply remain silent”. She likewise argues that “reconciliation must be multi-generational and not just multiracial”. During the past two decades, considerable effort has been made to create a more just and truthful heritage narrative of the Black experience in the United States. While much progress has been made, there is still a long way to go in providing a more equitable heritage narrative and strengthening cross-racial reconciliation (Alderman and Modlin 2016; Barton and Leonard 2010). Another prominent conflict situation from recent history is the intersectoral fighting (the ‘troubles’) between the Irish Republicans and the British Loyalists in Northern Ireland, which killed more than 3500 people between 1968 and 1998 (Boyd 2000). Although community divisions remain strong in the province, the 1998 ceasefire (Good Friday Agreement) has held, and tourism has begun to normalize in the post-conflict region (Boyd 2019). The primary factors of success in the post-Irish conflict have been cross-border and cross-sectoral cooperation and bringing people together so that they understand the need to support a greater cause than one side alone. According to Anson (1999: 59), “…successful tourism planning in the aftermath of violence means…the different communities’ full participation in the peacebuilding process and an agreement in the interpretation of the contested heritage that has been the catalyst for conflict and civil war”. Erwin and Sturm (2022) describe unique new heritage experiences offered to all Northern Irelanders as a way of creating greater cross-sectoral understanding and tolerance. The unique experience they describe brings domestic tourists from Protestant and Catholic communities together to experience ‘out-of-place’ conflict heritage activities and events, including a mixed marriage, a UDA funeral, an IRA wake, and a night walk through a military checkpoint. According to the research by Erwin and Sturm (2022), these emotive experiences helped participants relate better to the contested other, empathize and sympathize with former belligerents, and in the process build respect, trust and tolerance. Nisbett and Rapson (2020: 1) concur and suggest that even though ‘troubles tourism’ in the past might have focused on the division of Northern Ireland, today it is more geared towards enabling “the contested nature of the conflict to be understood by allowing competing discourses to co-exist and divergent positions to be tolerated, which is politically important for peace”. The ongoing conflict between Jews and non-Jewish Poles has significant implications for heritage tourism, especially in important heritage places such as Krakow. There, the city’s Jewish ghetto (Kazimierz), which is one of the best preserved in Europe, continues to be maintained by Poles as a way of reconciling the past and reaching out to Jews throughout the diaspora. Many Jews, however, criticize the non-Jewish Poles for commoditizing the Jewish heritage for commercial gain, especially in light of what transpired there in the Second World War. Nonetheless, some Jews visit the Kazimierz neighborhood in an effort to accept Polish efforts to atone for the past. In the worlds of one French Jewish tourist, “People come here [to Poland] and say ‘It is awful, it is awful.’ I say, ‘No’. I don’t come here to say it is

188

D. J. Timothy

awful. I just come to make peace with people…I didn’t want to go back to Poland to see anti-Semitism. I want to stop this” (quoted in Lehrer 2010: 271). Even in the Polish-Jewish encounter, which is still a contentious one, understandings can be fostered by visiting heritage places that were once important to the Jews and now commemorated by the non-Jewish Polish population. Through heritage tourism, Krakow, once a center of malevolence against Polish Jews, is trying to extend an olive branch and welcomes Jewish diasporic tourists to return and see what they have done to protect the Jewish memory in the city. Krakow has become, in Lehrer’s (2010: 283) words, “a place where Poles and Jews can be heard listening to each other’s truths”. Similar conditions are found in Israel and Palestine, where conflict has abounded since the 1948 establishment of Israel, and even earlier. The conflict there is largely between Israelis and Palestinians in the Palestinian Territories, but even within Israel proper, there is strong disharmony between Jewish Israelis and Israel’s Palestinian citizens. In the case of a heritage tourism program in the historic city of Nazareth, which is populated primarily by Arab Israelis, success was realized only when cross-cultural tensions were navigated, new ways of partnering between the two population cohorts were found, more contact between the groups was initiated, an inclusive vision of community development was proposed, and a community-­ based tourism model was introduced (Gelbman and Laven 2016: 120). Identifying shared interests in both the Jewish and Arab communities was essential, as was bringing diverse peoples together (Pedersen 2020), enabling participants to tackle the complexities of their shared heritage (Gelbman and Laven 2016).

Heritage Tourism and Peace: Principles Learned What lessons can be learned from these brief examples about the principles underlying the peacebuilding potential of heritage tourism? At its essence, the crossover between peace and heritage tourism resembles the general principles of sustainable tourism: equity, harmony, empowerment, value, socioeconomic development, and justice. However, peace is not an automatic outcome of heritage tourism, especially when visits are fleeting and ephemeral, making it difficult to establish any type of meaningful relationship between tourists and residents (Pedersen 2020). Developing meaningful, harmonious relationships and personal contentment takes a lot of time and concerted effort by peace-loving individuals who work toward common goals. Peace and harmony through heritage tourism should be ensconced within the planning frameworks of difficult sites and destinations where dissonant heritage prevails. Perhaps the most impactful of all conditions in heritage tourism settings is person-­to-person contact—both between tourists and destination residents, and between belligerent stakeholders within the destination for the cause of tourism. In terms of the latter, identifying shared goals and interests is key, even if these

15  Conflict and Stability: The Potential of Heritage Tourism in Promoting Peace…

189

interests are approached differently. Sustained interaction between interest groups and individuals is tremendously important in the development of successful heritage tourism in conflicted settings (Gelbman and Laven 2016). Partnerships between community groups and even cross-border cooperation between belligerent polities may be necessary to satisfy the principles of sustainability in many heritage tourism settings. A second principle is that communities of all kinds must be empowered to share their heritage. The inclusive heritages of different groups should be prioritized equally, rather than focusing only on the heritage of colonists or other dominant groups (Gelbman and Laven 2016; Skipper 2016). All perspectives should be highlighted, not only the one-sided narratives of yesteryear, regardless of how dark or uneasy these perspectives might be. Otherwise, conflict and division will remain, maintaining discontent and discord. Heritage tourism for reconciliation requires a “willingness to challenge people’s perceptions and demand that people consider a civil rights perspective and a worldview that represents society’s disenfranchised and marginalized members” (Barton and Leonard 2010: 136). This will enable greater support for transcultural causes and reduce the social distances between conflicted groups in the destination and between those who visit and those they visit, as heritage spaces become important venues for “conciliatory civil society development through meaningful engagement with difficult histories” (Lehrer 2010: 4). There is a common consensus that heritage tourism which empowers communities in all ways, not just economically, will have the best chance of peace building and healing (Anson 1999; Gelbman and Laven 2016; Skipper 2016). Solutions can be found in grassroots communities, not in what outside planners and stakeholders want to impose in their own best interest. Therefore, psychological, social and political empowerment will prevail when even people who are at odds are allowed to generate ideas, provide inclusive and balanced views of the past, and work together to create more harmonious futures. For heritage associated with difficult pasts, appropriate commemoration and a holistic and balanced interpretation can encourage greater understanding and reconciliation (Sharpley 2020; Timothy 2021). This is particularly true at sites where visitors have a direct or indirect connection to the events and their victims. In these cases, the prevailing narrative must be one of understanding, empathy, and harmony. For true reconciliatory heritage experiences, the heritage presented should be educational in nature, presenting a balanced view of the past and encouraging visitors and other stakeholders to communicate, reflect, and “overcome past differences in a spirit of tolerance and forgiveness” (Sharpley 2020: 712). Sharpley argues that to achieve this goal, sites must be accessible and welcoming to everyone who desires to visit and managed and interpreted in a way that represents all stakeholders’ perspectives. The goal of reconciliatory heritage management should be to instill an emotive sense of unity and hope in order to foster a deeper commitment among visitors to work toward achieving peace, empathy, and understanding.

190

D. J. Timothy

Conclusion Heritage tourism can be a tool for healing segregated and alienated societies with difficult pasts. This is sometimes referred to as ‘phoenix tourism’ and, if planned and managed properly and if the principles discussed hereto are infused in policy and practice, it can help build bridges between belligerent peoples in a destination or make the destination more inviting for visitors (or their progenitors) who might have been alienated from the location at some point in the past. Most heritage, especially that of a contested nature, is interpreted from the viewpoint of the winners of wars or the powerful elites of society. Nonetheless, there are efforts afoot to provide a more balanced, harmonious, and empathetical historical narrative that will help disenfranchised communities come to terms better with their uneasy heritage. When hosts and guests come together and meet other people who share similar life aspirations, and who want nothing more than a better world for their children, heritage tourism can be an important tool for building bridges. As noted at the outset of this chapter, peace is far more than the absence of conflict; it is broad and vast in its reach (Timothy 2015). Heritage tourism can satisfy many of the requirements of negative and positive peace by eradicating poverty, providing economic stability and livelihoods, providing opportunities to travel and explore other cultures, creating more harmonious relationships, promoting individual and intragroup confidence and solidarity, encouraging pride in people’s own cultural heritage, building a stronger sense of empathy for others, and ensuring that both tourists and destination inhabitants live a more just, equitable, and enjoyable life.

References Alderman DH, Modlin EA (2016) On the political utterances of plantation tourists: vocalizing the memory of slavery on River Road. J Herit Tour 11(3):275–289 Anson C (1999) Planning for peace: the role of tourism in the aftermath of violence. J Travel Res 38(1):57–61 Barton AW, Leonard SJ (2010) Incorporating social justice in tourism planning: racial reconciliation and sustainable community development in the Deep South. Community Dev 41(3):298–322 Boyd SW (2000) Heritage’ tourism in Northern Ireland: opportunity under peace. Curr Issue Tour 3(2):150–174 Boyd SW (2019) Post-conflict tourism development in Northern Ireland: moving beyond murals and dark sites associated with its past. In: Isaac RK, Çakmak E, Butler R (eds) Tourism and hospitality in conflict-ridden destinations. Routledge, London, pp 226–239 Di Giovine MA (2010) World heritage tourism: UNESCO’s vehicle for peace? Anthropol News 51(8):8–9 Erwin J, Sturm T (2022) Living in the wake of rural Irish troubles: building an institution for sustainable peace through emotive out-of-place tourism. J Sustain Tour 30(2/3):515–532 Gelbman A (2008) Border tourism in Israel: conflict, peace, fear and hope. Tour Geogr 10(2):193–213

15  Conflict and Stability: The Potential of Heritage Tourism in Promoting Peace…

191

Gelbman A (2019) Tourism, peace, and global stability. In: Timothy DJ (ed) Handbook of globalization and tourism. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 149–160 Gelbman A, Laven D (2016) Re-envisioning community-based heritage tourism in the old city of Nazareth. J Herit Tour 11(2):105–125 Haessly J (2010) Tourism and a culture of peace. In: Moufakkir O, Kelly I (eds) Tourism, progress and peace. CABI, Wallingford, pp 1–16 Herborn P (2014) A time for peace museums. Soc Altern 33(4):67–72 Lehrer E (2010) Can there be a conciliatory heritage? Int J Herit Stud 16(4–5):269–288 Litvin SW (1998) Tourism: the world’s peace industry? J Travel Res 37(1):63–66 Litvin SW (2020) Tourism and peace: a review and commentary. Tour Rev Int 23(3–4):173–181 McDowell S (2008) Selling conflict heritage through tourism in peacetime Northern Ireland: transforming conflict or exacerbating difference? Int J Herit Stud 14(5):405–421 Moufakkir O, Kelly I (2010) Introduction – peace and tourism: friends, not foes. In: Moufakkir O, Kelly I (eds) Tourism, progress and peace. CABI, Wallingford, pp xvi–xxx Mowatt RA, Chancellor CH (2011) Visiting death and life: dark tourism and slave castles. Ann Tour Res 38(4):1410–1434 Naef P (2016) Tourism and the ‘martyred city’: memorializing war in the former Yugoslavia. J Tour Cult Chang 14(3):222–239 Nisbett M, Rapson J (2020) The role of ex-paramilitaries and former prisoners in political tourism. Polit Geogr 80:102185 Pedersen SB (2020) A passport to peace? Modern tourism and international idealism. Eur Rev 28(3):389–402 Sharpley R (2020) ‘Kamikaze’ heritage tourism in Japan: a pathway to peace and understanding? J Herit Tour 15(6):709–726 Skipper J (2016) Community development through reconciliation tourism: the behind the Big House Program in Holly Springs, Mississippi. Community Dev 47(4):514–529 Teye VB, Timothy DJ (2004) The varied colors of slave heritage in West Africa: White American stakeholders. Space Cult 7(2):145–155 Timothy DJ (2015) Cultural heritage, tourism and socio-economic development. In: Sharpley R, Telfer DJ (eds) Tourism and development: concepts and issues, 2nd edn. Channel View Publications, Bristol, pp 237–249 Timothy DJ (2021) Cultural heritage and tourism: and introduction, 2nd edn. Channel View Publications, Bristol Timothy DJ, Emmett CF (2014) Jerusalem, tourism, and the politics of heritage. In: Adelman M, Elman MF (eds) Jerusalem: conflict and cooperation in a contested city. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, New York, pp 276–290 Timothy DJ, Teye VB (2004) American children of the African diaspora: journeys to the motherland. In: Coles T, Timothy DJ (eds) Tourism, diasporas and space. Routledge, London, pp 111–123 van den Dungen P, Yamane K (2015) Peace education through peace museums. J Peace Educ 12(3):213–222 Wise NA, Mulec I (2014) Semblances of ‘war tourism’ in Sarajevo, post-2005. Am J Tour Manag 3(1):1–9

Chapter 16

The Partnership between Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management: Key Actions at the International Level Hilary du Cros

Abstract  The nature of the partnership between tourism and cultural heritage management is discussed in this chapter. Ideally, sustainable cultural tourism should involve a partnership that satisfies both tourism and cultural heritage management stakeholders. The chapter discusses the parallel evolution of tourism and cultural management, which leads into a discussion of their role as potential collaborators. Six possible relationships that exist along the conflict/partnership continuum are then discussed. Full partnership represents one end while open conflict represents the other end. A case study is presented which explores the nature of the relationship and key actions at the international level for World Heritage properties regarding strategic planning and resilience building. Finally, recommendations are made for better information sharing and more collective problem-solving to move beyond peaceful coexistence to close partnerships between the sectors at international and destination levels. Keywords  Heritage tourism · Stakeholder responsibilities · Resilience building

Introduction “You are looking at it through whale-tinted glasses! Whale watching tours won’t help beef up cultural tourism at Levuka!” The immortal words in the above quote were uttered in a heated debate many years ago by an exasperated tourism expert to a cultural heritage one. As I remember, the argument was brief. However, differing perspectives on the tourism development planning for Levuka in Fiji were evident

H. du Cros (*) University of New Brunswick, St John, New Brunswick, Canada © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 P.-L. Yu et al. (eds.), Heritage and Cultural Heritage Tourism, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44800-3_16

193

194

H. du Cros

through the rest of UNESCO Bangkok1/Nordic World Heritage Office event in Bhaktapur, Nepal, in 2000. Bringing both sets of authorities to the table to discuss use and planning issues was rarely smooth though it did eventually result in an action plan for Levuka (UNESCO 2000). However, given the challenges facing us and the need for leadership and resources at the international level, strategic tourism planning should be based on free open discussions and healthy cross sector relationships. This chapter sets out to investigate the situation historically and then with a case study regarding the existence of co-produced resources for destination resilience building.

 he Parallel Evolution of Tourism and Cultural Heritage T Management Systems Global and local factors influencing most cultural heritage management (CHM) systems are closely linked to such intellectual concepts as nineteenth century notions of scientific discovery, classification, and preservation, as well as the twentieth century’s social movement towards public and professional accountability that prescribes strategic and systematic planning. Research in the twenty-first century can—and does—produce an over-riding system for drawing together the most successful elements from this 220-year-long odyssey of caring for heritage assets that is evident in many places. This journey is undertaken, in most cases, via a broadening of perspective (Table 16.1). It grows from (i) preserve—the initial effort to retain heritage assets; (ii) to include conserve—the effort to systematically care for them; and then incorporate (iii) integrate— the attempt to bring together holistically, fully, and systematically, the notion of heritage management being part of all relevant governmental and non-governmental initiatives. Five specific sets of activities are evident corresponding to five groups of key indicators and carried out in many developed countries. Most countries have moved through these five sets of activities before they reach a level of maturity in their CHM systems. Indicators within these five phases can also be seen as basic tools or “constants” in a process that truly systematic and strategic CHM system needs to be considered part of what intergovernmental organizations (such as UNESCO) and non-government organizations (such as ICOMOS) consider “International Good Practices” in cultural heritage management. Meanwhile, there are some similar  Listing of organizational abbreviations used in this article

1

UNWTO UN World Trade Organization GSTC

Global Sustainable Tourism Council

ICCROM International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property ICOMOS International Council on Monuments and Sites UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNWTO United Nations World Tourism Organization

16  The Partnership between Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management: Key…

195

Table 16.1  The evolving framework of cultural heritage management and tourism Paradigms Preservation (c.1800s – 1960s)

Stages Inventory

CHM indicators Growing community interest Documentation of heritage assets Evolution from amateurs to professionals conducting work Initial legislation First-generation legislation to guide identification and protection of heritage assets Focus on tangible but not intangible heritage Creation of government heritage agencies Little integration with other government agencies or laws (especially urban or town planning)

Conservation Professionalism (1960s–1980s)

Stakeholder consultation

Tourism indicators First organized commercial tour in 1841 (Thomas cook) Mass tourism arising in late 1800s

Recognition of tourism impacts Beginning of city and local government involvement in tourism planning Recognize the need to commodify heritage assets to be tourism attractions First theme parks (Disneyland) Boorstin’s notion of ‘contrived reality’ Heritage NGOs at all levels Tourism precincts initiated Tourism NGOs at all levels Tourism planning develops Formalized codes of ethics, as a profession and conservation principles in charters, etc. (and UNESCO’s discipline Historic theme parks declarations/conventions) Cultural tourism becomes a Development of heritage-­ related professions (public and product category in 1975 private), quality assurance Basic computerization of heritage data Recognition of the linkage between urban planning/land use management (e.g., conservation areas, urban recreation areas, tourism precincts) Sustainable tourism Wide array of stakeholders development is established emerges as an important planning Areas of conflict identified concept More attention paid to Cultural tourism identified community interests an important special interest type of tourism Focus on gaining community Niche cultural tourism support for strategies, such as products appear adaptive reuse Cultural heritage assessment included in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process (continued)

196

H. du Cros

Table 16.1 (continued) Paradigms Heritage (1990s+)

Stages Review

CHM indicators New understanding of responsibilities of stakeholders to heritage assets Recognition of multiple claims on heritage assets New or revised legislation Concept of ‘integrated conservation’ Rise of the concept of cultural landscapes Greater awareness of intangible heritage Broader range of tangible assets conserved (e.g., twentieth century, colonial, industrial) Recognition that Eastern and Western views of authenticity and heritage differ Interest in government heritage agencies facilitating ‘heritage development’ in public private partnerships Self-reflexivity: research, training and journals and other publications dedicated to understanding CHM

Tourism indicators Development of codes of ethics for sustainable tourism development and cultural tourism Integration of tourism concerns in wider planning framework Government facilitation of some sustainable tourism development projects Cultural tourism fastest growing market segment requiring more study Self-reflexivity: research, training and journals and other publications dedicated to understanding cultural tourism and sustainable tourism

Based on du Cros and Lee (2007)

developments happening in tourism over this period (Table 16.1), though overall it can be seen to developing in a much different way, because it is principally a commercial activity. Meanwhile, like the underwater paddling legs of a swan, many individuals exist whose cross-sectoral dealings have influenced a range of joint activities. They work to develop a variety of relationships between the intergovernmental and international non-government organizations that appear in this chapter. For instance, the four UNWTO/UNESCO World Conferences on Tourism and Culture did not emerge from a vacuum. As such, they have generated three Declarations on Culture and Tourism, namely these: • Siem Reap Declaration, 2015, which recommends closer and targeted partnerships between stakeholders of culture and tourism • Muscat Declaration, 2017, which encourages the contribution of tourism and culture in national SDG strategies • Istanbul Declaration, 2018, which promotes tourism development as a tool for safeguarding culture, contributing to sustainable cities and the use of technology to facilitate access for all

16  The Partnership between Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management: Key…

197

This Conference series hopes to continue the discussion on how the tourism and culture sectors can work more collaboratively together and increase public-private partnerships to ensure the protection of cultural heritage (UNWTO 2021). This greater level of cooperation has its basis in the links both organizations have to the United Nations. Since 2015, both have fallen in line with the UN’s sustainable development agenda and feature its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in all their key outputs. Finally, there is the ICOMOS Scientific Committee for Cultural Tourism. Since 1976, it has promoted its Cultural Tourism Charter (1976, 1999 and revised 2021). It has a provided guidance and advice in a range of settings, including the production of a tourism congestion management manual for the UNWTO (2004) and direct involvement in various sustainable tourism codes. Personally, as an expert member, I provided pro bono cultural tourism planning advice at workshops for state parties in South Korea, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and the UK regarding their World Heritage properties.

 xamples of Recent Initiatives with Varying Levels E of Cooperation The failure to appreciate the need to consider both legitimate cultural management and tourism needs results in weak governance and the sub-optimal delivery of cultural tourism experiences that can drive further unsustainable development. Fortunately, an increasing number of authorities at all levels realize that tourism plays an important role in overall management and presentation to visitors. Examples of three recent initiatives at the international level are outlined below that show the varying level of cooperation between the sectors.

The Sustainable Tourism Pledge The Sustainable Tourism Pledge is an example of a combined effort by UNESCO, Expedia Group, and the Tourism Authority of Thailand to promote sustainable tourism and heritage. While it is being piloted in Thailand, the intention is to spread the concept around the world, changing the nature and impact of global tourism. The pledge highlights environmental and cultural protection, requiring hotel operators to introduce firm measures to eliminate single-use plastics and promote local culture. By sharing information on what is already being done towards these aims and future planning for the next 12 months, hotels can showcase their commitment for review by potential guests (UNESCO Bangkok 2021).

198

H. du Cros

City of Athens Sustainable Tourism Assessment Another recent example close cooperation is the City of Athens and the Athens Development and Destination Management Agency project with the Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) to assess Athens as a sustainable tourism destination. Athens Acropolis was inscribed as a World Heritage Site in 1987, however the city is not a member of the Organization of World Heritage Cities. In Athens, the process will include more than 70 on-site evaluations in neighborhoods and parks, public services, museums, archaeological sites, and other attractions. The Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) established in 2010 promotes its own set of global sustainable standards, known as the GSTC Criteria. There are two sets: Destination Criteria for public policymakers and destination managers, and Industry Criteria for hotels and tour operators. These are the guiding principles and minimum requirements that any tourism business or destination should aspire to reach to protect and sustain the world’s natural and cultural resources, while ensuring tourism meets its potential as a tool for conservation and poverty alleviation. The GSTC is an independent and neutral organization, legally registered in the USA as a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that represents a diverse and global membership, including leading travel companies, hotels, tour operators, NGO’s, national and provincial governments, individuals, and communities—all striving to achieve best practices in sustainable tourism (GSTC 2021).

 NESCO’s World Heritage and Sustainable Tourism U Recovery Survey Another initiative that shows less integration is the global online survey held over 2020-21 on the impacts on World Heritage of the COVID 19 pandemic. According to UNESCO (2021), World Heritage sites experienced a 66% drop in visitation and a 52% decline in ticket sales in 2020 because of COVID-19. More in-depth data was required to analyze the mid and long-term impacts of the crisis on sustainable tourism management at World Heritage properties by UNESCO. An initial survey was conducted in 2020 followed by second survey in 2021, which were both aimed at World Heritage site managers and staff responsible for tourism management. The results will help shape UNESCO’s World Heritage and sustainable tourism policies and recovery strategies going forward. The survey aimed to: • • • • •

assess recovery preparedness identify priority needs for capacity building and training measure the contribution of tourism to World Heritage revenues assess visitation trends collect information on innovations and advances in visitor management in response to the crisis.

16  The Partnership between Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management: Key…

199

This survey was developed by UNESCO in collaboration with the Advisory Bodies to the 1972 World Heritage Committee in the framework of the UNESCO Task Force on Culture, Tourism and COVID-19. It is part of an ongoing process to monitor the impacts of the crisis on sustainable tourism at World Heritage properties. The survey was largely developed by CHM experts associated with the organization and mainly targeted the sector’s own practitioners who are the site managers without direct input required from tourism industry stakeholders.

 Review of Six Possible Relationships Between CHM A and Tourism An examination of tourism’s relationship with CHM should be undertaken first, before exploring the range of possible relationships between them. A complex relationship exists between tourism and CHM that is affected by at least five mitigating factors: the independent evolution of tourism and CHM (Table 16.1); the existence of a politically imposed power balance between stakeholders; the diversity of stakeholders with different levels of knowledge; the diversity of heritage assets under consideration, and the different ways in which assets can be consumed (McKercher et al. 2005). The separation of tourism and CHM may provide some benefits if each has a clearly defined role and sees little need to interfere in the other’s role. Problems tend to arise only when the political power balance changes between stakeholders or governments seek to introduce or change heritage management governance. Six possible relationships have been identified that exist along a conflict / partnership continuum, as shown in Table  16.2. Full partnerships represent one end. Partnerships are unlikely to evolve spontaneously; instead, they need careful tending over many years. However, conflict is unlikely to be long lasting, as eventually stakeholders either reach some sort of equilibrium or one stakeholder is excluded.

Full Cooperation It is easiest to achieve full partnership where the number of competing stakeholders is limited, clearly defined financial and cultural heritage management objectives have been identified and a clear power/management hierarchy exists to ensure that the objectives of both sectors can be achieved in a balanced manner. In such cases, there must be mutual agreement among all stakeholders that either tourism or cultural values management interests will dominate the management process and that the others’ needs will be modified to serve the needs of the overall management goals.

200

H. du Cros

Table 16.2  Possible relationships between tourism and cultural management Full cooperation True partnership for the mutual benefit of both sectors Meaningful and regular dialogue

Working relationship Realization of common needs and interests

Peaceful co-existence Mild annoyance Sharing of the Goal same resource interference attributable to one stakeholder

Begin dialogue

Some dialogue, but little cooperation or recognition of the need to cooperate

Lessened satisfaction because of contact

Interests are well-­ balanced

Work to ensure that the interests of both are satisfied

Derive mutual benefits from its use, but still largely separate and independent

One stakeholder exerts adverse effects, lack of understanding between stakeholders but without real hostility

Nascent conflict Problems without easy solutions emerge

Full conflict Open conflict and hostility between stakeholders

Changing power relationships with emergence of one dominant stakeholder whose needs are detrimental to the other stakeholder

Based on du Cros and McKercher (2020)

Working Relationships Functional working relationships, rather than full partnerships, are more likely to occur in joint activities or projects shared by tourism and CHM. Both sets of stakeholders appreciate that the other set has legitimate interests, and both also appreciate that, while they may have their differences, they also share much in common. Gradually, a working relationship develops between stakeholders with each set willing to make some accommodations to satisfy the needs of the other. Management structures are put in place to retain the relationship that has evolved.

Peaceful Coexistence Peaceful coexistence is likely to occur when both sets of stakeholders share an activity or project. However, they may feel little need to cooperate. Likewise, this type of relationship is most common when cultural heritage management activity is low, or when management occurs in a manner that does not interfere with tourism interests. At other times, it can result from overt cultural heritage management practices, where tourism is involved intermittently.

16  The Partnership between Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management: Key…

201

Mild Annoyance Mild annoyance, possibly leading to a later state of conflict occurs when the actions of one set of stakeholders are seen to interfere with the desired goals of another set. It does not stop the individual from participating in an activity but lessens the level of effectiveness. Mild annoyance is likely to occur when the stakeholders feel that the current situation is beginning to evolve in an unfavorable direction. Or it may be that changing governance and management regimes is a factor affecting the ability of either set of stakeholders to achieve their sector’s goals.

Nascent Conflict Nascent conflict is the step between mild annoyance and full conflict. The actions of one stakeholder or set of stakeholders are seen to have an adverse effect on the other(s). Moreover, the problems that arise defy easy resolution. Nascent conflict will emerge when a stable system is pushed out of stasis due to external factors. It is also likely to emerge when the power relationship between stakeholders changes fundamentally. Ideally, nascent conflict can be resolved before it evolves into full conflict.

Full Conflict Open conflict can emerge between cultural heritage and tourism stakeholders. While conflict has been identified often in the literature, McKercher et al. (2005) note it represents a temporary stage in the relationship between stakeholders. Over time it tends to self-resolve, either by residents adjusting to new users/situation, or measures being taken to accommodate all protagonists. Conflict can be triggered by certain factors, with change in power relationships being the most common. The emergence of tourism as the dominant player, coupled with the perception that governance is weighted towards tourism use can produce a strong reaction from cultural heritage management advocates.

Methodology The research methodology used for the chapter followed a case study approach. Data was obtained in a desktop study combined with an opportunistic tapping of the author’s brains trust and professional connections on social media. The latter was intended to roughly gauge perceptions about, and nature of change in, the

202

H. du Cros

relationship between cultural heritage management and tourism organisations at the international level. The use of this approach was meant as a test of a potential research approach in the time of COVID 19, which limited face-to-face interviews and research. The desktop study data was collected between April and September 2021.

 ase Study: The Relationship at the International Level C Regarding Cultural Tourism Strategic Planning for Resilience Tourism and cultural heritage authorities seem to be largely running on parallel tracks with very little cross-over regarding destination resilience strategic planning. Key exceptions for new frameworks at the time of writing for encouraging resilience planning in both sectors are UNESCO’s Visitor Management Strategic Tool (VMAST) and Resta and Perossini’s (2019) Safeguarding Cultural Heritage through Technical and Organizational Management (STORM). VMAST is intended by UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre to fill a gap that SWOT analysis and external experts miss regarding the complex conditions associated with World Heritage properties’ visitor management. Its development was triggered by WH property overuse issues that periodic reporting required by UNESCO was not fully addressing. It is an online platform that WH site managers can sign onto and upload information. It will cover their current situation initially to generate baseline data, then they can access it whenever they like for long-term planning. UNESCO hopes it will encourage them to engage with more stakeholders to help advance priorities and objectives to build resilience. It is connected to the social media platform, World Heritage Catalysis, to promote information sharing and problem-solving with a highlight on on-going cooperation, learning and capacity development amongst World Heritage site managers and authorities (Smith-­ Christensen 2021). Bangkok UNESCO is already integrating VMAST into their WH site manager/guide training programs as VMAT, although at the time of writing neither VMAST nor Catalysis had not been formally launched. This UNESCO office already recognizes its usefulness for its region. The Organization of World Heritage Cities is also about to integrate the platform into its strategic tourism planning tool for destination resilience that it is developing. Resta and Perossini (2019) work has elements of both tourism and CHM concerns included in their framework by aligning CH resilience requirements with that of the STORM project. This project focuses on Smart tourism responses to build resilience. Its goal is to provide critical decision-making tools to multiple sectors and stakeholders engaged in the protection of cultural heritage from climate change and natural hazards. The STORM project platform and its content could be part of a wider offer addressing an engaging experience for tourists, providing a full visibility viewpoint of mitigation strategy to apply to specific cultural sites, if adopted by the growing number of smart cities around the world (Resta and Perossini 2019: 3).

16  The Partnership between Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management: Key…

203

Tourism Generated Frameworks There has been an increasing number of articles in the last 5  years on Tourism Destination Resilience (TDR) though most do not include heritage in any way. Best references are the special issue in Tourism Review International on destination resilience (2018) and Butler’s (2017) edited book. One example of a TDR framework applied in more than one place that includes some cultural indicators is Sharma et al. (2021) resilience-based framework. It has four prominent factors for building resilience in the industry: government response, technology innovation, local belongingness, and consumer and employee confidence. Noorashid (2021) tested this framework in Brunei and added two major transformational indicators: innovation of roles and practices and the appreciation of local culture and products. Sharma et al. (2021) make this important point about the success of their framework’s application: There is a disconnect between what UNWTO (World Tourism Organization) is preaching (sustainability) and what (it) is exercising (growth expansion). These disconnects need to be understood and repaired before considering tourism’s future (Sharma et al. 2021: 6). Otherwise, there’s a massive amount of literature with wishful thinking about COVID 19 pandemic causing a major reset in tourism and the establishment of circular economies, but not much practical information on how to build the relationships needed for collaborative change. For instance, Higgins-Desbiolles et al. (2021) would like to transform tourism to evolve to be of wider benefit and less damaging to societies and their cultural assets.

Heritage Generated Frameworks Esen and Alinoz’s (2021) have developed a Heritage Resilience Scorecard for measuring risk governance performance of organisations and agencies that work to protect cultural heritage. The measurement system is based on the concept of Mark Moore’s Public Value Scorecard and consists of three elements: public value, legitimacy and support, and operational capacity. In line with the internationally accepted principles of disaster risk management of cultural heritage, specific and measurable indicators are developed for each element of the measurement system. A performance measurement framework allows organisations to conceive a sustainable value-creating strategy in terms of heritage risk governance and building resilience. Besides, it enables them to assess their risk governance performance, track progress, and identify the governance gaps. The Heritage Resilience Scorecard was tested by examining the risk governance performance of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Turkey. They hope that international organizations can utilise this approach to understand the areas on which they can focus their attention to support capacity building of World Heritage state parties.

204

H. du Cros

SENDAI Framework for disaster risk reduction (ICCROM 2021) has some relevance at the international level for cultural heritage resilience building in relation to preservation of cultural places and objects, however, it is largely ignored by the tourism sector.

Discussion and Conclusion Contacts in UNWTO recognize the need for resilience building and are keen to work with those in UNESCO through the formal channels they have established with the World Heritage Centre on building resilience at World Heritage properties. Elsewhere, many authorities have been adopting SDGs, however, both sectors are mostly working on resilience building separately. What is lacking is a better engagement model for building relationships between stakeholders to share information and develop new initiatives. It appears that most stakeholder sets are struggling to move beyond peaceful coexistence on strategic planning for destination resilience. There needs to be a space (virtually then also face-to-face, because of COVID 19) for building working relationships that can be carefully tended to become partnerships between tourism and cultural heritage management stakeholder sets at the international, as well as destination level. UNESCO’s use of a travel pledge to engage tourism and hospitality stakeholders and the VMAST and its forum Catalysis could be examples of a way forward to build communities with closer partnerships between the sectors. Intelligent use of social media platforms such as, LinkedIn and Researchgate, by practitioners and academics could also support this objective as future challenges require more collective problem-solving and innovation.

References Butler R (ed) (2017) Tourism and resilience. CABI International, Wallingford du Cros H, Lee YSF (2007) Cultural heritage management in China: preserving the Pearl River Delta cities. Routledge/Abingdon, London du Cros H, McKercher B (2020) Cultural tourism, 3rd edn. Routledge/Abingdon, London Esen SY, Alinoz GB (2021) The heritage resilience scorecard: performance measurement in risk governance of cultural heritage. Hist Environ Policy Pract 12(5):1–30 GSTC (2021) Athens joins GSTC.  Available at: https://www.gstcouncil.org/athens-­joins-­gstc/. Accessed 5 Dec 2022 Higgins-Desbiolles F, Chew B, Doering A (2021) Socializing tourism after COVID-19: reclaiming tourism as a social force? J Tour Futures ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). Follow journal https:// doi.org/10.1108/JTF-­03-­2021-­0058 ICCROM (2021) ICCROM Sendai framework from 2015. https://www.undrr.org/implementing-­ sendai-­framework/what-­sendai-­framework. Accessed 27 Apr 2022 ICOMOS (1976, 1999, 2021) Cultural tourism charter. https://www.icomos.org/en/resources/ charters-­and-­texts. Accessed 27 Apr 2022

16  The Partnership between Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management: Key…

205

McKercher B, Ho SY, du Cros H (2005) The relationship between tourism and cultural heritage: evidence from Hong Kong. Tour Manag 26:539–548 Noorashid N, Wei LC (2021) Coping with COVID-19: the resilience and transformation of community-­ based tourism in Brunei Darussalam. Sustainability 13(15):8618. https://doi. org/10.3390/su13158618. Accessed 27 Apr 2022 Resta V, Perossini F (2019) Resilient tourism in a resilient cultural heritage site. In: Kavoura A, Kefallonitis E, Giovanis A (eds) Strategic innovative marketing and tourism, Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-­3-­030-­12453-­3_131. Accessed 27 Apr 202 Sharma DG, Thomas A, Paul J (2021) Reviving tourism industry post-COVID-19: a resilience-­ based framework. Tour Manag Perspect 37:100786. ISSN 2211-9736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tmp.2020.100786. Accessed 27 Apr 2022 Smith-Christensen C (2021) Building resilience through visitor management and monetory innovation. Poster at living heritage and climate change Scientific Symposium August 2021 Special issue on destination tourism resilience research in Tourism Review International (2018), vol. 22 UNESCO (2000) Levuka Fiji action plan. Forum conducted UNESCO cultural heritage management and tourism: models for cooperation among stakeholders’ conference/workshop, Bhaktapur, Nepal 8–12 April 2000 UNESCO (2021) World heritage in the face of COVID-19. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco. org/ark:/48223/pf0000377667. Accessed 28 Sept 2021 UNESCO Bangkok (2021) About. UNESCO sustainable tourism pledge. Available at: https:// unescosustainable.travel/en/about-­the-­pledge. Accessed 28 Sept 2021 UNWTO (2004) Tourism congestion management at natural and cultural sites. UNWTO, Madrid UNWTO (2021) UNWTO/UNESCO world conference on tourism and culture investing future generations. Available at: https://www.unwto.org/4th-­unwtounesco-­world-­conference-­tourism-­ and-­culture-­investing-­future-­generations. Accessed 29 Sept 2021

Chapter 17

Heritage Tourism and Indigenous Communities in the American Southwest Joëlle G. LeMer, Nikki Cooley, and Lyle Balenquah

Abstract  For average tourists to the American Southwest, there is often a disconnected view of indigenous people. Their perceptions might include that people who once lived here have left and no longer have ties to the land and resources. Few tour guides are Indigenous. Non-indigenous tour guides are ill-prepared to speak about the land’s rich human heritage, even while visiting ancestral places of living cultures. There is recognition and attribution that tribal affiliations exist. Yet, for non-­ tribal tourists these are simply stories meant for entertainment that have boundaries and meanings often inconsistent with living cultures. Incorporating and sharing Indigenous voices is one way to expand tourist awareness of cultural heritage. This chapter explores how Indigenous perspectives at the Grand Canyon National Park were developed and shared with non-Indigenous tourists. This case can be used as an example of a respectful and culturally sustaining approach to heritage tourism. Keywords  Tourism · Heritage · Decolonization · Indigenous · Interpretation

 eritage Tourism and Indigenous Communities H in the American Southwest “My people sat by the river, and they began to bring forth song because the river was speaking to them… Grand Canyon is my home, the home of my mother and father, my grandparents. My people lived in contentment in this beautiful place of awe… This is my home. We share this powerful place, this river and canyon, with all the world, but we understand how it was, before the scientists. It was our home before J. G. LeMer (*) · N. Cooley Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] L. Balenquah Independent Contractor, Bacavi, AZ, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 P.-L. Yu et al. (eds.), Heritage and Cultural Heritage Tourism, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44800-3_17

207

208

J. G. LeMer et al.

it was a national park. It’s a very beautiful education for people when people stand on the rim and look down. They cannot believe this sight. You say, “How small I am in this world.” It hits us that we are not the powerful ones; we are not the ones to choose. We create, but things fall down.” – Dianna Sue Uqualla, Havasupai. Grand Canyon is the home and a sacred place to several contemporary Indigenous peoples including Apache, Diné (Navajo), Havasupai, Hopi, Hualapai, Southern Paiute, Yavapai, and Zuni (Fig. 17.1). Havasupai and Hualapai still live in the Grand Canyon. Hopi and Zuni origin places are located in the depths of the Grand Canyon, where they lived before migrating to their present homes. For Hopi and Southern Paiute, the Grand Canyon is also the place where their dead return. The Diné reservation abuts the eastern border of the Grand Canyon. The canyon features prominently in their songs, stories, prayers, and daily lives. Every one of these Indigenous peoples have strong cultural ties to Grand Canyon. The authors of this chapter acknowledge the Grand Canyon as home to the Indigenous tribes mentioned. We respect their sovereignty and connections to this region. The Grand Canyon National Park is a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage (UNESCO World Heritage Centre n.d.) site and draws visitors from around the world. Average visitation for the years 2016–2019 (pre-COVID pandemic years) is 6,144,739 visitors per year (Grand Canyon National Park 2021). Surprisingly, few tourist studies have been conducted for the Grand Canyon National Park. Northern Arizona University

Fig. 17.1  Nankoweap, Grand Canyon National Park. (Photo credit: J. LeMer)

17  Heritage Tourism and Indigenous Communities in the American Southwest

209

(Cothran et al. 2005) conducted a comprehensive tourism study in 2005. At the time of the study, tourists visiting the park for one day spent an average of 7.3 hours and those visiting multiple days spent 2.5 days. Tourists ranked their interests in the park as (1) geology, (2) flora and fauna, (3) wilderness and solitude, (4) cultural history, and (5) park ecosystem and ecology. A large percentage of visitors are between the ages of 46 and 65 (47.5%) and identify as White (78.7%). The focus for this chapter is on tourist interest in cultural history and what it means in understanding cultural history from Indigenous perspectives particularly when most visitors to the Grand Canyon are older, white tourists. Cultural heritage tourism has been defined by the United States’ National Trust for Historic Preservation to mean “the business and practice of attracting and accommodating visitors to a place or area based especially on the unique or special aspects of that locale’s history, landscape (including trail systems), and culture” (Exec. Order No. 13287, 3 C.F.R. 10635 2003). UNESCO further describes cultural history as both tangible (UNESCO 2017) and intangible cultural heritage (UNESCO 2003). Tangible cultural history represents physical aspects of culture including items that can be moved, such as artifacts; immovable sites, such as dwellings; and underwater elements, such as shipwrecks. Intangible cultural heritage is knowledge and wisdom conveyed in language, arts, social practices, cultural teachings and practices, and craftsmanship. Archeological sites in the American Southwest are commonly interpreted through a western European scientific lens with complementary Indigenous information included (Atalay 2006). Indigenous cultures are often interpreted through heritage celebrations that promote selling of arts and performances in traditional dress (Bunn-Marcuse 2018). This segregation of interpretation of archaeological sites and Indigenous culture results in a cultural history that is disconnected from the cultural significances of the region. Views about the importance of cultural heritage and collaborations with Indigenous peoples are not new to archaeologists (see Chilton 2018; Watkins 2018; Yu 2018). However, tourism concerning cultural heritage is problematic. Tourism industries see cultural heritage as a money-making business, rather than an opportunity to preserve cultures (McKercher and duCros 2002). Non-Indigenous perspectives often drive cultural heritage tourism. It is vital to approach heritage tourism in ways that integrate the tangible and intangible through Indigenous voices. Decolonizing tourism in this way  results in a shift of knowledge, behavior, and power in relating perspectives of place that does not privilege Western explanations or exploit Indigenous peoples (Chambers and Buzinde 2015). Our chapter presents such a case for decolonizing and sustaining cultural heritage of the Grand Canyon region with the Native Voices on the Colorado River (Clark et  al. 2007) program. We founded and directed this program from 2007–2012.

210

J. G. LeMer et al.

Native Voices on the Colorado River Native Voices on the Colorado River (Native Voices) is a cultural heritage interpretive program created in 2007 for Grand Canyon Colorado River outfitters on Indigenous cultural history of the Grand Canyon. The goal of the program is to increase understanding and communication about the relationships of affiliated tribes with the Grand Canyon from their own perspectives and in their own words for tourists rafting the Grand Canyon on the Colorado River. Grand Canyon’s eleven affiliated tribes are: Diné (Navajo), Havasupai, Hopi, Hualapai, Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, Las Vegas Paiute, Moapa Band of Paiute Indians, Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (representing the Shivwits Paiute), San Juan Southern Paiute, Yavapai-­ Apache (representing the White Mountain, San Carlos, Yavapai and Tonto nations), and Zuni. This program began when Grand Canyon National Park required commercial rafting concessionaires to improve their interpretation of Indigenous peoples. The Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association (GCROA) funded the program, which is an organization of the sixteen professional river outfitting companies operating within the Grand Canyon National Park. An advisory group consisting of tribal, park service, and outfitter representatives in collaboration with the program’s three directors, who are White, Diné, and Hopi, (Fig. 17.2) developed the Native Voices’ program ideas, logo, products, and educational opportunities. Two examples of the collective efforts of the advisory group and directors include the creation of a multitribal logo (Fig. 17.3) and a regional map (Fig. 17.4) depicting the current location of the affiliated tribes. Each symbol, color, shaded area has implications for

Fig. 17.2  Founding directors for the Native Voices on the Colorado River program. (Photo credit: J. LeMer)

17  Heritage Tourism and Indigenous Communities in the American Southwest

211

Fig. 17.3  Native Voices on the Colorado River program logo. (Used by permission)

Fig. 17.4  Native Voices tribal map. (Used by permission)

understanding what is important to affiliated tribes. For this type of program to succeed, collaboration and time investment are needed to build relationships with Indigenous communities and for tour guides to deepen their cultural understanding to better interpret heritage resources.

212

J. G. LeMer et al.

Freeman Tilden, leader in defining interpretation for national parks in the United States, says that interpretation must be personal and that visitors to national park areas be given time to experience and reflect on what they learn (Tilden 2007). The same is true for the tour guides who gain knowledge needed to provide interpretation for visitors. In that vein, the Native Voices created numerous personal learning opportunities for Grand Canyon River guides to inform and enlighten their passengers about Indigenous issues and cultural heritage. Note that the river tour guides are predominantly non-Indigenous men and women who need specific information to share with their clients on river trips ranging from 6–18 days. Prior to Native Voices, much of the information used for interpretation on the Colorado River was derived from published western scientific sources, such as archaeological reports and books. The standard interpretative narrative delivered by non-Indigenous tour guides at popular tourist stops along the Colorado River corridor fails to convey the continuity of time, place, and spirituality that affiliated tribes have for the Grand Canyon. Indigenous relationships to place have no discrete boundaries and are not tied specifically to any particular archaeological site, spring, or mineral source. They comprise regional wisdom (Basso and Cohen 2018) borne in stories that sustain their cultural identities and survival. It is contained in the language used to describe places. It is a timeless present containing the past and future tied together in intangible ways that rely on responsible stewardship of the region. To connect and educate tour and river guides, the program offered experiential cultural workshops for guides in a variety of settings, including on Indigenous lands, printed tribal series written by Indigenous authors, and an informative website (Clark et  al. 2007) that contained deeper information and videos featuring Indigenous voices speaking about the Grand Canyon. Examples include river guides participating in cultural workshops provided by tribal members at guide training seminars; planting Hopi corn fields and later harvesting and roasting corn; a Hualapai tradition of roasting agave; and visiting the pueblo of Zuni and hearing directly about Zuni culture from cultural leaders. To decolonize interpretation, affiliated tribes used their own internal processes to determine what information they wanted tourists and river guides to know. It is important that tour guides and the public they serve understand that not all cultural knowledge can or should be divulged. Some information is privileged and can only be shared under specific conditions with certain individuals. Thus, the Native Voices program worked closely and respectfully with the affiliated tribes to determine how their narratives should be presented, and what concerns or limitations there may be regarding this information. From the experiences provided by Native Voices, river guides developed personal connections with tribal members and new stories to share with their passengers on the river. For instance, guides often point out archaeological evidence of agave roasting pits while visiting certain camps on the Colorado River. Through Native Voices, they learned from Hualapai how agave was roasted by participating in the process (Fig. 17.5). First, they dig a large pit and build a fire, preparing the coals to last overnight. Dense river rocks are placed on top of the coals followed by dozens of agave hearts. To keep the agave from drying out, slabs of barrel cactus and wet burlap cover the hearts. Dirt is then piled back onto the pit for 24  hours. Once unearthed, the agave can be eaten or preserved for future use.

17  Heritage Tourism and Indigenous Communities in the American Southwest

213

Fig. 17.5  Hualapai agave roasting process. Native Voices of the Colorado River. (Used by permission)

The river guides experience this roasting process, the artichoke-like texture of roasted agave leaves and the smoky sweetness of its taste. Those participating in the roast can now use their own words to describe how archaeology ties to the present, connecting the tangible with the intangible heritage in creating a deeper cultural understanding and relationship to place.

Excerpts of Native Voices The following are a few excerpts from written documents (Fig. 17.6) produced by the Native Voices on the Colorado that reflect Indigenous controlled narratives of cultural history of the Grand Canyon. “The Dilzhe’e are the Apache People who inhabit Central Arizona and utilized the South Rim of the Grand Canyon as a resource base… Our People roamed all over their Homelands to provide a living for the family including the South Rim of Grand Canyon… The Canyon is a spiritual place to us. The Dilzhe’e tell stories of how Naa ye’ nas ghane, killer of enemies, created the canyon. The canyon is to be respected and preserved in its natural state and all people should honor this responsibility (Randall 2010).”

214

J. G. LeMer et al.

Fig. 17.6  Native Voices on the Colorado River Tribal Series. (Used by permission)

“To the Hopi people, the Grand Canyon is known as Öng’tupqa, or Salt Canyon, named after the naturally occurring salt deposits found near the confluence of the Colorado and Little Colorado Rivers. This salt has been collected and used by Hopi People and their ancestors for centuries…The Grand Canyon also represents a spiritual “emergence” point of Hopi ancestors, the Hisat’sinom, (People of Long Ago), who were seeking a new way of life… The science of archaeology states that the presence of Hopi ancestors within the canyon stretches back thousands of years. Yet to most Hopi People, it is enough to know that our ancestors were among the first to experience the spirit of the canyon and call it home. Because of this, the Grand Canyon will forever remain an integral part of Hopi’tutskwa, the Hopi Cultural Landscape (Balenquah 2012).” “Hualapai traditional belief ties sacred significance to areas such as the Colorado River and associated canyons which are principal landmarks with intrinsic spiritual values for Hualapai people. Regionally this area is embodied with sacred esoteric cultural and traditional values for Hualapai. The Colorado River is revered as a life-­ giving source, known as “Ha’yiđađa,” the backbone or spine of the river. It is the belief that with-out the spine, Hualapai cannot survive as a people. The long expanse of the River through the canyon and the riparian eco-systems makes a life-way connection that flows through the hearts of the Hualapai people. The Hualapai maintain this connection through ties of sacredness to the Colorado River. Hualapai believe that they were created from the sediment and clay of the River (The Hualapai Department of Cultural Resources 2010).” “Navajos emerged at Mount Blanca, near Alamosa Colorado, but the surface of the earth was covered with a vast body of water. Through divine acts, First Man, First Woman, and Changing Woman – Navajo Holy People, came into being, and Mother Earth and the Navajo homeland was made livable. Rivers, creeks, and streams were created to drain the world, function¬ing as the “veins” of Mother Earth. Humpback God, who is manifested by bighorn sheep and mountain goats, stood in the center of the world, and dragged his cane from east to west to create the Grand Canyon, through which flows the living entity, the Colorado River, considered a male entity. The Little Colorado River is considered female because it is gentler in nature (Two Bears 2008).”

17  Heritage Tourism and Indigenous Communities in the American Southwest

215

“To the Zuni people or A:shiwi as we call ourselves, the Grand Canyon is not only a magnificent natural resource, it is essential to our culture and an integral connected piece within a complex cultural landscape extending into what are now four states and Central America. The Grand Canyon or Chimik’yana’kya is a place of emergence where ancestral Zunis spent time adjusting to the surface world after emerging from a place beneath the canyon. After some time at the canyon our people began a search for the middle place, which we eventually found near our present-­ day Zuni village in Western New Mexico…Zuni are very protective of cultural knowledge, and most will not attempt to explain the Zuni world and its intricacies to the outside public. Yet considering the threats to Zuni cultural resources within the Grand Canyon and across the Colorado Plateau it is vital to inform the outside public that to the Zuni this land, its waters, and even the ancient dwellings are sacred life sustaining forces (Enote 2009).” Indigenous voices interpreting the natural and cultural history of the Grand Canyon National Park shifts the narrative from a dominant non-Indigenous perspective to deeply rooted and personal Indigenous lived experiences. The short excerpts provided above illustrate that there are multiple relationships within this regional landscape. Communicating the diversity of these relationships reflects respect for Indigenous sovereignty and moves towards decolonization of information shared with tourists. Decolonized heritage tourism in this context means that Indigenous perspectives and connections to a region become the primary lens of interpretation. Instead of Indigenous views being integrated into western scientific explanations, interpretation begins with Indigenous perspectives and archaeological interpretations elaborate these with supporting evidence. Western scientific studies and interpretations of archaeological sites still inform the whole of the narrative. This approach to heritage tourism’s reveals a script that is multidimensional and that blends both intangible and tangible heritage. It acknowledges multiple perspectives of place, time, and human interactions. Indigenous voices can be heard through a variety of methods from shared experiences, oral story sharing, art, music, and writing. Through these ways, cultures and their language, traditions, and knowledge can be sustained and valued. The tourism industry as a whole is responsible for ensuring that information and experiences are accurate and respectful of Indigenous peoples. Indigenous existence should not be reduced to singular topics like traditional food, dance, or arts that tourists find curious and can purchase. There are interconnected aspects of culture tied to beliefs, concepts, identity, language, and time. Decolonized heritage tourism helps the public understand contemporary issues facing Indigenous peoples. It contributes overall to understanding history and relationship to place – and hopefully to reducing prejudice and racism. Today, the Native Voices on the Colorado River program continues as a training program for river guides with offerings held during the annual guides’ training seminar. The success of the Native Voices program relies on tour guides’ continued commitment to learn and to include Indigenous peoples. Based on the experiences from Native Voices, we offer these guidelines for promoting heritage tourism in cooperation with Indigenous communities.

216

J. G. LeMer et al.

• Indigenous people control the narrative. Decolonizing means that it is the sovereign right of Indigenous people to convey their own heritage in their own ways. This type of tourism provides an economic opportunity to promote Indigenous tour guides (Smith 2003). It should be recognized that in some areas, Indigenous tour guide development may be challenging as dominant political agendas, economies, and cultural conflicts may affect Indigenous abilities to engage in cultural heritage tourism. • Most heritage tourism/education programs are run by non-native institutions. It is vital then for non-Indigenous interpreters to take the time to develop reciprocal relationships with Indigenous groups. Talk with many Indigenous individuals and groups. Return and talk again and again. This repeated communication and personal presence builds trust. Present to tribal councils or other appropriate venues to let people know what you are trying to accomplish through heritage tourism and have patience while pursuing program development. Indigenous people have often been the subject of anthropological studies and may not be willing to give anything more. One cannot simply ask for information to be shared with tourists and expect that it will be shared immediately. It takes time to develop mutual understanding and trust. • Build a budget that provides travel and time costs for Indigenous people to engage in these conversations to develop the program. Also pay people for their time to develop, deliver, and sustain program deliverables, such as interpretive programs. • Embrace multivocality. There are so many cultural communications, oral histories, and relationships to places like the Grand Canyon that it becomes challenging to work with everyone to create the space where many voices can be heard. Each tribal group is unique. There is no one perspective or uniformity to the connections Indigenous people have. Ask Indigenous partners, what stories haven’t been told? Should these be shared? How or when should they be conveyed? • Become aware of how the culture of an Indigenous group has been exploited by tourism and how others may have benefited through cultural heritage efforts not controlled by the people themselves. • Become familiar with Indigenous issues currently being faced. How do those issues connect with their heritage and connection to place? • Recognize that not all information can be shared with the public. Information is power and not everyone has the authority to share information. This responsibility often comes at a personal cost to those who assume the burden of speaking for their people. Honor this situation and do not ask for anyone to violate their cultural obligations. • Do not take information shared and add a non-Indigenous interpretation. This is a violation of the trust built. If heritage tourism is based on Indigenous perspectives, that is the voice that must be maintained. • When at all possible, add intangible cultural heritage to interpretive narratives of tangible resources such as archaeological sites. Do not relegate cultural heritage to food, arts, or performances designed to entertain the public. Use heritage tourism as an opportunity to educate and get the stories right.

17  Heritage Tourism and Indigenous Communities in the American Southwest

217

Conclusion We share this approach to heritage tourism through Indigenous voices in an effort to broaden how perspectives and narratives of human history and relationships to world heritage places, such as the Grand Canyon in the United States are conveyed. To truly embrace decolonized heritage tourism, Indigenous connections to place must be elevated to a level similar in value to how Western European history is communicated. Indigenous people must be hired and valued as interpreters and directors of their own histories. This fundamentally changes the way past and current explanations occur as the viewpoint comes from emic or within Indigenous perspectives rather than from the outside or etic viewpoint. This dynamic of sharing what is familiar and personal maybe why many non-Indigenous interpreters feel more comfortable relaying information, for example, about non-Indigenous explorers like John Wesley Powell rather than Pauite traditions such as singing their departed ones to sacred places now known as Deer Creek. For the primarily non-Indigenous tourists experiencing an Indigenous driven interpretation, a deeper level of understanding about cultural heritage of place is possible. There may not always be tangible archaeological remains that convey cultural importance. The intangible cultural connections can only be understood through intentional programming. This personal connection to heritage is what Tilden (Tilden 2007) envisioned for visitors. The ideas presented in this chapter come from the development of the Native Voices on the Colorado River program in which eleven affiliated tribal communities were invited to decide on how their interpretations and relationships with the Grand Canyon in Arizona are told. Our process of program development and inclusion with direct Indigenous voices could serve as a model for others in developing heritage tourism. Through these efforts, we learned how to communicate the uniqueness and importance of the Grand Canyon to all affiliated tribes. The public can learn this too through purposeful interpretive programming. How else would tourists know that the Grand Canyon is the place of origin for both Hopi and Zuni or that it has been home for thousands of years for the Paiute, Hualapai, and Havasupai? When included in cultural interpretations of the past, Indigenous voices can result in deeper and more sustaining cultural understanding of the significances of the history of place.

References Atalay S (2006) Indigenous archaeology as decolonizing practice. Am Indian Q 30(3/4):280–310 Balenquah L (2012) We are the canyon: a Hopi perspective, Native voices on the Colorado River Tribal Series. Native Voices on the Colorado River Program Basso KH, Cohen SJ (2018) Wisdom sits in places. Tantor Media, Incorporated Bunn-Marcuse K (2018) Streams of tourists: navigating the tourist tides in late-nineteenth-century southeast Alaska. In: Bunten AC, Graburn N (eds) Indigenous Tourism Movements. University of Toronto Press, Toronto Chambers D, Buzinde C (2015) Tourism and decolonization: locating research and self. Ann Tour Res 51:1–16

218

J. G. LeMer et al.

Chilton ES (2018) Engaging “the public” in heritage: which public and whose heritage? In: Yu P, Shen C, Smith G (eds) Relevance and application of heritage in contemporary society. Routledge, New York Clark J, Cooley N, Balenquah L (2007) Native voices on the Colorado River. https://nativevoicesonthecolorado.wordpress.com/. Accessed 28 July 2020 Cothran CC, Combrink TE, Bradford M (2005) (rep). Grand Canyon national park northern Arizona tourism study. Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Ariozna, pp i–91 Enote J (2009) A Zuni corridor of memory, Native voices on the Colorado River Tribal Series. Native Voices on the Colorado River Program Exec Order No 13287, 3 CFR 10635 (2003). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-­2003-­03-­05/ pdf/03-­05344.pdf. Accessed 20 Sept 2020 Grand Canyon National Park (2021 September 1) 2020 Park profile. National Park Service. https:// www.nps.gov/grca/learn/management/statistics.htm. Accessed 1 Sept 2021 McKercher B, duCros H (2002) Cultural tourism: the partnership between tourism and cultural heritage management. The Haworth Hospitality Press, New York Randall V (2010) Dilzhe’e (Tonto) Apache, Native voices on the Colorado River Tribal Series. Native Voices on the Colorado River Program Smith MK (2003) Issues in cultural tourism studies. Routledge, New York The Hualapai Department of Cultural Resources (2010) About the Hualapai nation, 2nd edn. Hualapai Department of Cultural Resources Tilden F (2007) In: Craig RB (ed) Interpreting our heritage. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill Two Bears D (2008) Navajo traditional history, Native voices on the Colorado River Tribal Series. Native Voices on the Colorado River Program UNESCO (2003) Text of the convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://ich.unesco.org/en/ convention#art2. Accessed 22 Apr 2021 UNESCO (2017) What is meant by cultural heritage? United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-­trafficking-­ of-­cultural-­property/unesco-­database-­of-­national-­cultural-­heritage-­laws/frequently-­asked-­ questions/definition-­of-­the-­cultural-­heritage/. Accessed Apr 2021 UNESCO World Heritage Centre (n.d.) Grand Canyon national park. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/75. Accessed 22 Apr 2021 Watkins J (2018) Regulating indigenous heritage: impacts of governmental policies and procedures on indigenous heritage. In: Yu P, Shen C, Smith G (eds) Relevance and application of heritage in contemporary society. Routledge, New York Yu P (2018) The new data makers: indigenous innovations in cultural heritage management. In: Yu P, Shen C, Smith G (eds) Relevance and Application of Heritage in Contemporary Society. Routledge, New York

Chapter 18

Presenting the Past(s) and Engaging the Public(s) Elizabeth Chilton

Abstract  The chapters in this book span the globe and provide an expansive overview of the state of heritage and heritage tourism in the first part of the twenty-first century. This chapter frames the questions “which past(s) and which public(s)?” in order to thread together some of the important themes highlighted throughout. In the process, I outline the case for the importance of heritage and heritage tourism for economic and social development, place attachment and belonging, and the empowerment of historically excluded voices and communities. These chapters provide hope for how engagement with heritage can address some of the world’s most pressing problems in the twenty-first century. Keywords  Cultural heritage · Economic development · Place attachment · Heritage tourism · Community engagement

Introduction The eighteen chapters in this book span the globe and provide an expansive overview of the state of heritage and heritage tourism in the first part of the twenty-first century. This chapter frames the question: “which past(s) and which public(s)?” in an effort to thread together some of what I see as the important themes threaded throughout. As mentioned in the preface, the idea for this book took root at a workshop and resulting book in 2018, The Relevance and Application of Heritage in Contemporary Society. The resulting “Toronto Declaration,” was published in that volume. That volume and declaration emphasized the role of heritage values and meaning in contemporary society as a means to responsibly inform management practices and public policy. My chapter in that volume questioned the goal of “saving the past for the future.” I argued that “the past” was not a monolithic or objective E. Chilton (*) Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 P.-L. Yu et al. (eds.), Heritage and Cultural Heritage Tourism, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44800-3_18

219

220

E. Chilton

product that one could save. Instead, I highlighted the importance of identifying the audience and stakeholders in the preservation of tangible remains of cultural heritage. The present volume focuses squarely on heritage tourism, where the target audiences are more specific, if still amorphous. As the editors state, “This volume examines the ethical responsibility of the cultural heritage and tourism sectors, to present the past and engage the public in an accurate, balanced, and fair manner that contributes to understanding and tolerance as well as enjoyment and economic growth.” The chapters in this volume address both theoretical and methodological approaches to heritage tourism, with a number of case studies from around the globe. It is important to define what is meant by “heritage” before we discuss the goals of “heritage tourism.” Others may define heritage somewhat differently, but I find the most productive definition to be “the relevance of the past to contemporary communities and future generations.”1 Such a definition highlights the fact that the value and relevance of the past is constructed in the present and is context specific. As Araoz put it: “This gives rise to the paradox—or perhaps the oxymoron—of the concept of preserving the ability to change” (2011:58). How does one save, for future generations, something that is constantly changing? And does the past always matter? One of the best examples of this is Lertcharnrit and Watanasawad (Chap. 13, this volume). In 2015 Thailand ratified its own legislation to promote and preserve intangible heritage or “wisdom cultural heritage,” including folks’ literature, language, performing arts, rituals, festivals, craftsmanship, knowledge and practices, etc. So far this has resulted in a database for identifying national projects to promote ICH for heritage tourism (including traditional Thai medicine and masked dance), and it has led to an increase in the number of museums, tourism agencies, and websites dealing with tourism. This would appear to be a robust way to safeguard heritage values and resources. Heritage professionals and archaeologists, often take for granted that cultural heritage (or “the past”) matters (Avrami et al. 2000). Each of the present authors most likely has her or his own rationale, but very often we are not explicit about how our own cultural values map onto our stated importance of heritage. Therefore, before I summarize what I see as the implicit and explicit values assigned to heritage tourism by the volume’s authors, let me first summarize how the field of critical heritage studies has influenced my own thinking about heritage values: First, for a given place or object there is not one story to be told. There is not one “past” to present to any particular public; the stories we tell, pay attention to, and value are situational (Chilton 2018). Perhaps this is an obvious statement, but since the influence of postmodernism on archaeology in the 1980s, there has been a broad acknowledgement that all knowledge is context specific. As a result, over the past few decades there has been a strong case made for multivocality and making room for multiple narratives about “the past” (see for example, Habu et al. 2008).

 https://www.americananthro.org/ParticipateAndAdvocate/AdvocacyDetail.aspx? ItemNumber=20528 1

18  Presenting the Past(s) and Engaging the Public(s)

221

Second, as the current chapters elucidate quite nicely, there is not one “public” to whom we are presenting the past(s). Visitors to monuments and sites interpreted for the purpose of heritage tourism can include: • Local community members connecting to historic sites as a means to build connection to place or to their own cultural history, • “Tourists” for the purpose of entertainment or curiosity • Scholars, for research purposes • Pilgrims or religious observers Each of these groups of visitors brings their own prior knowledge and assumptions (and questions) to the sites they visit, which alter the stories that are told and those that are heard. Thirdly, the presenters of the “pasts” themselves are, of course, not monolithic. This is particularly clear in the chapter by Deng-Yu Chen (Chap. 4, this volume). She argues that it is impossible, in the context of a walking tour in this case, to distill a complex story into a short visit; therefore, when we are producers of information for the purpose of tourism, we are always abstracting and translating for a given audience. Chen’s chapter highlights the dialectical relationship between consumer and producer of knowledge at the heritage tourism interface. Finally, there is, of course, nothing tangible about heritage itself. As Pennington-­ Gray and Basurto (Chap. 6, this volume) note, the existence of the World Heritage List takes for granted that certain places have intrinsic value…universal value. However, if we start with a definition of heritage that focuses on “the act of making meaning in and for the present” (Smith 2006:1), then it follows that heritage changes through time in response to changing values in the present. Many heritage professionals talk about “tangible” versus intangible heritage. I would argue that there is no such thing as tangible heritage, only (intangible) heritage values that have physical manifestations.

Why Does Heritage Tourism Matter? What, then, is the value of cultural heritage itself and heritage tourism specifically? In these chapters we see examples of a number of benefits to stakeholders. These benefits include: (1) economic and/or social development (e.g., education), (2) place attachment, and (3) empowerment of voices that have been excluded. I highlight a few examples of these from the authors.

Economic and Social Development Several chapters make the case for museums and monuments/sites as places that contribute to social and economic capital (particularly Baxter, Jansen, Pennington-­ Gray and Basurto, Chaps. 5 and 6, this volume). And they also note the toll the

222

E. Chilton

pandemic took on the economic stability of heritage tourism. Jansen (Chap. 3, this volume) quotes ICOMOS (the International Council of Monuments and Sites) as saying that the pandemic “has highlighted the important role heritage plays in the economic and social life” and the recognition that “heritage sites are a non-­renewable resource for economic and social well-being.” Jansen also notes that the 2016 International Development Goals did not address the role of cultural heritage in improving economic wellbeing, and that this connection is even more critical now in terms of creating new value sets. Baxter (Chap. 5, this volume) also points out that heritage is a driving force in the tourism industry, but he argues that a series of disruptive events over the past few years have undermined the financial sustainability of the sector, specifically: (1) the COVID pandemic (which has led to more digital and local engagement with heritage resources), (2) social change movements (e.g., Black Lives Matter and a wider call for a more equitable society), and (3) the climate crisis, including a push for sustainable travel behavior. Chapman (Chap. 1, this volume) also explores threats to the economic stability of the heritage industry. In particular, he argues that while international tourism has expanded in recent decades, the heritage tourism has become a secondary draw. He also notes that rising middle classes throughout Southeast Asia means that they are active in the tourism market as well, and these new stakeholders will need to be accounted for in both economic models and the goals of heritage interpretation. Hassan (Chap. 11, this volume) argues that tourism can be deployed as a means to provide employment and improve quality of life for local communities. He makes the case that development should strengthen community resilience, wellness, and security. He outlines an ambitious plan for the Luxor International Heritage Center to serve as a hub for the integration of archaeological excavations, conservation, heritage tourism, and social and economic benefits. One of the challenges—for this heritage project and any other involving intense community engagement—will certainly be overcoming the power differentials in the various stakeholder communities, an issue I touch on below.

Place Attachment Attachment to place is the key to individual well-being and, on a societal scale, the key to cultural sustainability and human resilience. As climate change, pandemics, and social unrest wreak havoc on the human condition, connection to each other and social memory will need to replace connection to physical places. Climate change will continue to displace communities, and social upheaval and migration will force communities from traditional homelands and ecosystems. Heritage is linked to both physical and mental health (Baxter, Chap. 5, this volume), and cultural heritage provides the social glue that is vital for wellness and resilience (see Chilton 2018:103; Chilton 2019:29; Brabec and Chilton 2015).

18  Presenting the Past(s) and Engaging the Public(s)

223

In this vein, Pennington-Gray and Basurto (Chap. 6, this volume) note that the literature on mitigating societal risk in the face of threats underscores the “importance of improving infrastructure, risk monitoring, inclusion of stakeholders, and the role of transitional knowledge…in building resilience.” They point out that the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction championed the need for building resilient cities through their “Making Cities Resilient” campaign; the campaign recognizes the relationship between tangible and intangible heritage, and the important of heritage for social cohesion, well-being, and belonging. Their recommendation is that the tourism industry needs to prepare comprehensive and exhaustive crisis management plans. Baram’s chapter (Chap. 7, this volume) provides us with a sense of optimism on the implications of climate change for heritage tourism; he argues that the documentation of loss can be productive, and his case study reminds us of the opportunities for strengthening place attachment in the face of restrictions on travel brought about by the pandemic. Similarly, “Meet Up Formosa” formed to focus on cultural lessons for local Taiwanese (Chen, Chap. 9, this volume). Since the time that these chapters were written we are seeing exponential rising costs of travel because of fuel prices and staff shortages. Therefore, there will continue to be an important role for local heritage tourism. Many of the current threats to place attachment and human resiliency are caused by climate change. Yu (Chap. 8, this volume) examines climate vulnerability for cultural heritage in US National Parks. Her chapter presents new strategies for measuring such vulnerability using a “vulnerability measure.” This type of assessment of qualitative and quantitative data can be applied to other risks, including intensive tourism. One intriguing aspect of this approach is the assessment of “adaptive capacity,” which she defines as “the ability of resources and/or social systems to adjust or cope with changes.” This, to me, is where heritage values come into play. Once we know how vulnerable something is, and with the acknowledgement that we cannot “save” everything or stop change, how do we decide what to try to keep? Who gets to decide? Shoocongdej (Chap. 14, this volume) presents a case study of the integration of community-based archaeology and tourism in Thailand, in an ethnically diverse region where the current local community is not historically connected to the archaeological sites. She argues that engaging locals in a dialectical transmission of knowledge can create a sense of ownership of heritage. Shoocongdej notes that the archaeological activities over the past 20 years have become their own type of cultural heritage or “collective memories” connected to community identity, sense of pride, and belonging, as well as both social and economic development. Lee (Chap. 12, this volume) uses the “Boat Ritual” (Palunan) of the indigenous Amis in Taiwan to examine the relationship between the ritual landscape and cultural heritage. In doing so he highlights the importance of the intangible nature of cultural heritage, noting that “Cultural heritage of indigenous cultures cannot be isolated and sliced into framed exhibitions.” He notes the impact of environmental shift on traditional ritual activities, defining ritual as “where memories are created as well as how cultural and indigenous communities reassemble each other.” To me

224

E. Chilton

this is the perfect definition of sustainability and resilience in cultural heritage— embracing change through repeated action and connection.

Empowerment and Community Engagement Most of the chapters either make the case for or explore examples of community engagement, whether that includes the local communities and/or descendant communities. Of course, community engagement runs the gamut from simple public education to projects that are designed with and for the community. Timothy (Chap. 15, this volume) recommends person-to-person contact among stakeholders and recommends that communities be empowered to share their heritage. However, giving voice is not enough. Du Cros (Chap. 16, this volume), for example, notes the “existence of a politically imposed power [im]balance between stakeholders.” One striking examples of a way to break through power imbalances comes from LeMer et al. (Chap. 17, this volume), in a project to embrace indigenous perspectives in public interpretation at Grand Canyon National Park. They did so by building personal experiences and relationships with tribal members, rather than just relying on published information and western approaches to knowledge. The authors state that “interpretation begins with indigenous perspectives and archaeological interpretations elaborate these with supporting evidence.” By making this an ongoing part of the guides’ annual training, sustainability of the knowledge-sharing process will be ensured. The case study by LeMer et al. (Chap. 17, this volume) is a good example of what Baram refers to as co-production, saying that “co-production of heritage sites with local communities can significantly shape the definition of heritage for the location, the design of products for tourist consumption, and the rewards of the increased visitation (Zhu 2021:5–6, 23).” Co-production can act to level or mitigate power relationships that impede true collaboration (see, for example, Ya’ari 2010). Co-production can be especially beneficial in cases of “difficult heritage.” Timothy (Chap. 15, this volume) notes the potentially “redemptive power in visiting sites of conflict and darkness” and co-production could elevate that potential by engaging in the process of interpretation. A number of the articles in this volume address museums as a nexus of community engagement and tourism. Shen (Chap. 9, this volume) reminds us of the colonialist legacies of many museums, as symbols of “national disgrace” that resulted from colonization. He rightly points out that these issues are about moral and ethical practice, rather than legal boundaries. Shen argues that what is missing in many western museums is the “voice of the creators’ descendants.” Instead, interpretations are often perceived as justifications for imperialism and colonization (and I would add ethnocentrism and racism). He argues for inclusive strategic planning, along the lines of the co-production discussed earlier. Miksic (Chap. 2, this volume) notes that as Southeast Asians have become more educated, with time and money available, non-governmental museums have

18  Presenting the Past(s) and Engaging the Public(s)

225

proliferated. The non-government museums tend to be in more remote locations. While this means that the museums will reach audiences that would not normally be able to access them, the challenge will be to seek and reach a wider audience. In the case study presented by Nobayashi (Chap. 10, this volume), an important role of museums is to promote understanding of global indigenous issues more broadly. His chapter highlights the power of museums and of tourism as a place of learning that transcend times and space, as a means to increasing cultural understanding.

Whose Voices Are Missing? After reading these chapters, I felt that I had traveled the globe as a tourist myself, imagining all the many ways that a connection to the material and immaterial remains of the past would connect me to places both familiar and unfamiliar. Nevertheless, I find myself wondering whose voices are missing in the stories we choose to tell about the past(s), in the groups that we invite in to help us tell those stories as heritage professionals. Given that the amount of collaboration tends to correlate with the relative power of the stakeholders (Chilton 2018:99), how do we ensure empowerment of silenced voices, some of whom may not even be at the table? Most of the discussions here, and elsewhere, focus on so-called “official heritage.” This is especially true in the case of heritage tourism, which tends to be connected to nationalism. But what about the” unofficial heritage” or values attributed to places and objects that are not officially connected to the “authorized heritage” discourse (Harrison 2013:15; Smith 2006)? In fact, much of the state supported heritage work has dismantled “community intimacy” (Herzfeld in Byrne 2011), leading to alienation and erasure (Taylor 2022). An alternative or “alter-heritage” that centers resident-driven place-making (Taylor 2022), would relocate the power relationships and reframe the role of heritage professionals as facilitators. As a social process, heritage is vital to mitigating the effects of trauma and fostering ontological security (Fullilove 2005; Grenville 2007). It is also the key to the resiliency of human societies in the face of climate change, displacement, and violent conflict (Chilton 2019:30). Thus, cultural heritage can become a powerful tool of social justice in the present if we are able to unpack the underlying power relationships and motivations among stakeholders. Clearly the field of heritage management has moved beyond its early preservationist paradigm and mission; and heritage tourism and public education has also moved beyond multivocality as an end in itself. The opportunities for utilizing cultural heritage as a means to connect individuals to place and to each other, to support resiliency, and to buttress individual and societal wellness are great. As we navigate all the many challenges that lie ahead—climate change, pandemics, social upheaval—this volume and these case studies should give us all a great deal of hope in the future.

226

E. Chilton

References Araoz G (2011) Preserving heritage places under a new paradigm. J Cult Herit Manag Sustain Dev 1(1):55–60 Avrami E, Mason R, de la Torre M (2000) Values and heritage conservation: research report. Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles Brabec E, Chilton E (2015) Towards an ecology of cultural heritage. Chang Over Time 5(2):266–285 Byrne D (2011) Archaeological heritage and cultural intimacy: an interview with Michael Herzfeld. J Soc Archaeol 11(2):144–157 Chilton ES (2018) Engaging “the public” in heritage: which public and whose heritage? In: Shen C, Pei-Lin Y, Smith GS (eds) Relevance and application of heritage in contemporary society. Routledge, pp 96–104 Chilton ES (2019) The heritage of heritage: defining the role of the past in contemporary societies. In: Messenger PM, Bender SJ (eds) History and approaches to heritage studies. University Press of Florida, pp 24–31 Fullilove MT (2005) Root shock: how tearing up city neighborhoods hurts American, and what we can do about it. One World/Ballantine, Toronto Grenville J (2007) Conservation as psychology: ontological security and the built environment. Int J Herit Stud 13(6):447–461 Habu J, Fawcett C, Matsunaga JM (eds) (2008) Evaluating multiple narratives: beyond nationalist, colonialist, imperialist archaeologies. Springer, New York Harrison R (2013) Heritage: critical approaches. Routledge, New York Smith LJ (2006) Uses of heritage. Routledge, New York Taylor EP (2022) Making the old city: life projects and state heritage in Rhodes and Acre. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts Amherst, May 2022 Ya’ari E (2010) Promoting understanding of shared heritage (PUSH). Mus Int 62(1–2):9–13 Zhu Y (2021) Heritage tourism: from problems to possibilities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge