Abstract
Moving beyond the objectives of conservation, today’s heritage profession aims for heritage management. The management approach reminds professionals and host communities to consider sustainability of heritage in economic, environmental and socio-cultural frameworks. Integration of tourism within heritage management frameworks can provide economic incentives for managing heritage sites and activities, whereas well managed and interpreted heritage resources can be popular destinations for tourism. However, there might be other unwanted and unforeseen consequences of these practices. While providing an economic support for heritage management, the economic attraction may entice exploitation of heritage resources, including over-use, theft and vandalism. Over-marketing of heritage resources may trigger promotion of cheap mimicries of heritage manifestations and values. Such consequences and discussion often revolve around the notion of authenticity—one of the much-talked about and widely used terminologies in both heritage management and tourism. The notion of authenticity may have different meanings for different contexts, resulting in a mismatch of perceptions of what and how to be conserved, preserved, managed and presented. This article explores some of the complications associated with the notion of authenticity in heritage management and tourism, and suggests a contextual approach to authenticity.
Introduction
In the evolving discourse of heritage management,
2
conservation and tourism are integrated for their mutual benefit. Tourism can provide an economic base for conservation and management of a heritage site, while conservation can help retain the ‘authenticity’ that heritage tourism seeks to capitalize on. This mutual relationship between conservation and tourism can be framed in two axes, similar to Throsby’s (2003) ‘two extreme positions’ of economic perspective of heritage conservation:
One with the principles and practices of the conservation profession as a non-negotiable framework around which the economic strategies are contextualized; And the other, with the economic environment as a given scenario within which conservation practice has to adapt to serve the needs of the consumers (Throsby, 2003).
Rather than resorting to one or the other, heritage management needs to negotiate between these two positions. Tourism is one way of negotiating between the two scenarios.
Tourism has been ‘the largest form of temporary migration’ and ‘the largest industry’ in contemporary world economy (Timothy & Boyd, 2003). The World Tourism Organization (WTO) has recognized that heritage (primarily built heritage) and culture have a major share—about 40 per cent—of international travel (Timothy & Boyd, 2003). Thus, heritage sites have offered ‘destinations’ for tourism and in turn, tourism has provided economic rationale for heritage sites management and conservation. However, ‘historic towns are now in danger of being valued for their tourist commercial worth only, as they are turned into theatrical backdrops of devoid of urban quality and historic reality, and as townscapes are simplified into products of heritage tourism’ (Orbasli, 2000, p. 75).
Another common occurrence for present conservation approaches, especially in developing countries, is that many conservation missions are supported by international organizations and donor agencies which have their own ‘experts’, ‘expertise’ and ‘expectations’ for these conservation missions. Even if there is no explicit connection with tourism, often the scope of conservation is influenced by the perception and expectations of the donor agencies and experts. As Al Sayyad (2001) puts it, ‘…the First World appears more interested in consuming the cultures and environments of Third World Societies’, and therefore ‘…First World nations are often the main advocates for and financial patrons of the preservation of Third World built environments as part of what they define as “universal” heritage—even when the “natives” do not recognize its historic value’ (Al Sayyad, 2001, p. 4). Such advocacies often resort to the notion of ‘authenticity’ to indicate a desired true state of a site or an object. However, the experts and the locals may have different views on what is authentic and what needs to be conserved.
There is growing interest among communities worldwide to take initiatives to conserve their heritage and to present it to the rest of the world—by either transmitting the heritage in various forms to the world or inviting the world to come visit them. Their goal is to present their ‘real’ or ‘authentic’ culture to the other world. As soon as local communities emphasize the need of ‘presenting’ their heritage to the world, they are most likely to subscribe to the global economic and tourism network. With the introduction of tourism as an incentive for conservation, the goal of conservation gets associated with the ‘tourist gaze’ (Urry, 2002).
The ‘tourist gaze’ contributes gradually in valourizing heritage in monetary terms, that is, artefacts or their replicas become souvenir that tourists can purchase; cultural sites or practices become on-demand shows, and so on. Even though the locals or hosts may not realize in the beginning how their ‘taken for granted’ things and practices are the attraction for tourists, they quickly learn this phenomenon and the potential economic opportunity it may bring. Moving forward in tapping into economic opportunity, the locals or host communities often start ‘presenting’ many things and practices that are already abandoned or ignored or those that are no more a part of ‘everyday life’.
Similarly, as heritage conservation aims to tap into tourism, either the heritage sites are restored overtly to emphasize on certain aspects of history to cater to the quest for exoticism or romanticized history and culture or they will be manipulated imaginatively to accommodate facilities for tourists. Often, in an effort of negotiating between the conservation process and tourism needs, the nature of heritage site gets (re)interpreted opportunistically. Thus, a heritage conservation that starts with an aim for ‘authenticity’ resorts to the practice of ‘staged authenticity’ (MacCannell, 2001) to fit itself in the flow of tourism. These consequences raise some questions about the notion of ‘authenticity’ in heritage conservation and tourism.
Authenticity in Heritage Conservation
The Venice Charter (ICOMOS, 1964) referred ancient heritage as ‘common heritage’ of humanity and that the goal of conservation should be to pass on our heritage ‘in full richness of their authenticity’ to future generation. This notion of authenticity was further reinforced by the UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention of 1972, which later in its operating guidelines strictly required the World Heritage Sites to ‘meet the test of authenticity in design, material, workmanship or setting and in the case of cultural landscapes their distinctive character and components’ (Sekler, 2003).
However, the notion of authenticity was challenged in other venues including Nara and Burra. The Nara Document on Authenticity (ICOMOS, 1994) emphasized on cultural diversity and suggested that authenticity should not be judged based on any universally fixed criteria, but should be based on specific cultural contexts. The Charter on the Built Vernacular Heritage (ICOMOS, 1999) extended the discussion explicitly to the case of vernacular settings and asserted, ‘changes over time should be appreciated and understood as important aspects of vernacular architecture’ (ICOMOS, 1999).
However, in general, conservation practice has been criticized for the espoused notion of authenticity.
The concept of ‘authenticity’, on which the current criteria for defining special interest rest, is presented as objectively definable and recognisable, given appropriate professional training. However, this creates two fundamental problems. First, it secures the legitimate determination of these features in the hands of an expert minority. Second, the concept of authenticity itself, as Lowenthal notes, is a ‘dogma of self-delusion’ (quoted from Ashworth 1997:97). (Hobson, 2004, p. 53)
Dell Upton criticizes the notion of authenticity, as being used by the scholars of heritage and tradition, as ‘a testable and desirable quality of tradition’.
Implicitly or explicitly, they assume the defense of tradition and authenticity against modernity and artificiality. (…) Our loyalty to modernity’s concept of authenticity has much to do with our own insecurity about what we do. As architects, planners, historians, anthropologists, and preservationists, we are part of the mechanism that manufactures heritage. As relatively prosperous privileged people, we are consumers of tradition. As postmodern intellectuals, we understand that authenticity is an elusive, perhaps non-existent quality. At the same time, for most of us at least, our political or emotional commitments incline us to side with those who seem to be the victims of modernity, and we search for some objective grounds for valorizing their position over that of Marx’s cosmopolitan bourgeoisie. In our heart of hearts, we want to be Gramscian organic intellectuals. (Upton, 2001, p. 300)
Authenticity in Heritage Tourism
The International Cultural Tourism Charter (ICOMOS, 1999) referred authenticity as an essential element of cultural significance of heritage sites, ‘as expressed in the physical material, collected memory and intangible traditions that remain from the past’, and that they should be retained, presented and interpreted to enhance the appreciation of the cultural heritage (ICOMOS, 1999). However, who interprets, and for whom, remains a critical question. While Richards (2007, p. 28) suggests ‘to make a distinction between “authenticity”…in the “guest” perspective and in the “host” perspective’, Timothy and Boyd (2003) question: ‘…how authentic are aspects of built environment given that they have been subject to decay, lack of attention, and then when prevented from further decay are subject to restoration, protection, repair and even rebuilding?’ (p. 237)
On the other hand, Wang (1999) points to the limitations of ‘object-related authenticity’ and suggests an ‘existential authenticity’ as an alternative idea for tourism experience. Wang (1999) identifies three types of authenticity in tourism experience: objective, constructive or symbolic, and existential authenticity. In tourism experience, objective authenticity entails a real or true nature of the object that is presented for tourists—like objects presented in a museum. Constructive or symbolic authenticity assumes the value for a mutually negotiated state of an object or activity that may not be true, but is presented in a way acceptable to both the hosts and the guests. In this sense, constructive authenticity is ‘socially constructed’. The alternative that Wang (1999) suggests is moving away from these two notions of authenticity that are based on the reality of the ‘objects’. This alternative authenticity regards the tourists’ expected experience as crucial than the true nature of the objects themselves. ‘[E]ven if toured objects are totally inauthentic, seeking otherwise is still possible, because tourists can quest for an alternative, namely, existential authenticity to be activated by tourist experience’ (Wang, 1999). He makes a case for how tourist experience and expectations have significant influence on interpreting authenticity for heritage tourism. It is this implication for heritage tourism that the question of authenticity may challenge in the ethics of heritage conservation, and vice versa.
Reflections on the Notion of Authenticity Related to Heritage Conservation and Tourism
In an approach of integrating tourism as a future means of support to a Buddhist Gompa (Buddhist monastery or place of worship) in the Himalayan region in Nepal, I have personally experienced how we shift our notion of authenticity. When I joined a project on restoring a fifteenth century Gompa in Lo Manthang on behalf of John Sanday Associates, one of my first major tasks was the restoration of a wall in the vestibule of the Gompa. To ensure that the restored wall would be safe from dampness due to the accumulated rain and snow on the adjacent damaged or crumbled space outside of the extant vestibule (Figure 1), we decided to provide a new roof on the outer space. Following the evidence of the existing joist holes on the earthen walls on three sides of the extant structures, the decision to place a roof by reinstalling new joists in those joist holes seemed promising in terms of an authentic restoration. However, we significantly negotiated the notion of authenticity as we brainstormed further for the future of the Gompa.
The new space—with a roof over it—seemed as a promising place to keep the wooden artefacts recovered during the repairs of the roof. The next development of thought was that the space could be a good storage as well as a small museum. The idea of tapping into the recently introduced tourism seemed like a feasible economic base for the upkeep of the restored heritage, and therefore we started turning the external crumbled/damaged space into a museum. A part of the existing mud wall was used as a canvas where our wall painting team prepared an exhibitory panel showing different layers of mud plasters and painting system that we believed was used in the original wall paintings inside the main Lhakhang (main prayer hall). Soon, the proposed museum also became a new home for a fragmented collection of a very old mud wall painting that was recovered from being buried into two layers of wall. Once it was decided that the display of these paintings would be housed in this new emerging museum, the design of the roof changed and we provided some skylights to allow adequate day light for people to see the paintings and other artefacts inside (Figure 2). One could see departure from a historic authenticity as the museum space was created. However, overall the space still kept up with the vernacular mode of construction. Whether this development is an authentic practice for a cultural heritage conservation project can be debated either way.
In another instance, I had an ‘eye-opening’ conversation with a local resident in Lo Manthang. He was planning to build a teahouse right in front of the historic town wall. From our conservation mindset, such randomly built new houses were undermining the historic character of the place, so I asked him if he would rather consider building his teahouse in an alternative location. He argued that it was the best bet for him to benefit from tourists and visitors, otherwise his property adjacent to the wall would not earn him anything at all. Implicitly, I was referring to the notion that tourists would visit this place in search of an ‘authentic’ fifteenth century-walled settlement that had survived to date. I cautioned him that the undermining of the historic character might have negative impact on tourism, which he was aiming to tap into. In fact, similar arguments were presented by a group of conservationists, including myself, to local leaders who were desperate on getting a motor road right up to the walls of the historic settlement. However, neither did that individual nor the Village Development Committee cared about the notion of authenticity that was advocated. The teahouse was built even causing some damage to the wall and the motor road was built allowing the cargo trucks to arrive to the main door of the walled settlement (Figure 3).
Another observation relates to cultural practices. Though local people generally wore their traditional costumes, I observed that people wore more elaborate ornaments and dresses during the festival times. As more and more tourists started to arrive to ‘see’ these festivities, the ‘display’ of traditional etiquettes became economic activities. The women wearing those dresses and jewelleries would demand a payment in lieu of taking a picture of them or the ornaments. This is similar to an emerging practice by many local communities in Upper Mustang to charge tourists for entering their Gompas. Tourists get annoyed for having to pay extra fees, while they had already paid a handsome amount as an entry fee for these controlled or restricted areas. On the other hand, the acts of local people can also be justified if we understand their resentment for not getting a single paisa channelled back from the government-collected revenues. If all other players, including government, tour operators and the tourists, are benefiting one way or the other, the local people too have a right to claim some direct economic gain. However, I have heard from visitors and management consultants that the locals should be discouraged to ask ‘money’ for such inauthentic acts.
Even though a sign posted by the Annapurna Conservation Area Project (ACAP), a conservation agency in the region, reminded tourists that they were there to influence themselves and not to influence the locals, in practice both the locals and visitors influence each other. While the tourists consume the ‘otherness’ or ‘exotic’ culture, the host community also gradually imports the ‘foreign’ culture. No matter what the slogan and mission of introducing tourism in an otherwise un-toured area is, the consequences always strike back at the very reasons that made the place a tourism destination. For example, Kathmandu was in the 1960s–1970s an exotic destination and now it is a mixed place—no longer ‘authentic’ as it used to be. The result is that Nepal’s tourism industry is in constant search for ‘authentic’ destinations, like Upper Mustang/Lo Manthang, the Annapurna circuit at present. Running along with this search for destination is the need of preserving these destinations, thus promoting the most visible relationship between heritage conservation and economic development of any destinations.
Implications of Authenticity in Conservation and Tourism
Just as UNESCO takes great pains to verify the supposed authenticity of …(World Heritage) sites, so too are tour guides…with pointing out the ‘real’, ‘the true’ and the ‘authentic’ in every venue and destination. …Yet there is a fine line between authenticity of tangibles and authenticity of experience, and ‘preserved’ heritage sites often find themselves negotiating this line. (Di Giovine, 2009, p. 172)
Hewison argues, ‘[t]he heritage industry is not interested in art as a process of making and renewal, but in works of art that are already achieved, where they can be absorbed as symbols of the general culture the heritage institutions support’ (1987, p. 144). However, such prescribed and objectified notion of authenticity may not always be easy for the community who hosts the heritage as everyday life. The consequences could literally desert a traditional place, or the community may resist in destructive ways. In contrast, the host community may also take a ‘smart’ move and attempt to benefit from the context introduced by institutions of conservation and tourism. Whatever be the contemporary practice and heritage, the community may start (re)inventing their heritage, thus displaying ‘staged authenticity’ (MacCannell, 2001) to satisfy the conservation goals and ‘tourist gaze’ (Urry, 2002). Consequently, the traditional cultural practices become staged shows for tourists, while the income, thus, generated may help the locals to afford non-traditional lifestyles. Even for a slow changing community, the dynamics of economics and consumerism may induce quick and significant changes. Hence, within the frameworks of conservation and tourism, the path that begins from authenticity leads to inauthentic consequences by its own standards.
As an approach to broaden the notion of authenticity, Eduard Sekler (2003) endorses Alois Riegl’s five values associated with the work of conservation as corresponding to different kinds of authenticity. The five values are age value, historic value, commemorative value, use value and art value. While they help to ease the problem caused by the rigid notion of historic authenticity, they still face the ethical challenge of: Whose value interpreted by whom? For example, regarding a use value, do we consider a use suitable to tourists’ experience or in accordance with a conservationist’s vision, or do we accept a contemporary use adapted by the host population as well?
Conservation professionals would justify adaptive reuse or reconstruction for rehabilitation, but what about local people’s interventions to satisfy their own needs? A UNESCO mission introduces reinforced concrete ring beam in a historic palace in Kathmandu. Another project supported by an Austrian government grant installs a steel beam and post instead of a traditional wooden beam and post in another palace in Patan—another World Heritage Site in Kathmandu. However, the UNESCO and the Government of Nepal condemn the residents around the World Heritage Site for using cement and concrete to build or repair their homes.
Where does one draw a line between authentic and inauthentic? The argument here is not about the material per se, but the lack of sensitivity towards living heritage sites for the sake of maintaining a particular notion of authenticity. The issue is also about not distinguishing between the monumental heritage and everyday heritage, that is, the ones that are memories of past versus the ones that are residential houses used for everyday living.
How does heritage management approach tackle these situations where, I would argue, the ‘one size fits all’ approach does not work? Hence, I argue that heritage management needs to respond to specific contexts and, accordingly, various terminologies, including authenticity, need to be used sensitively responding to the specific contexts.
Conclusion: Rethinking the Notion of Authenticity in Heritage Management and Tourism
Lowenthal (1996) recognizes that heritage consists of biased interpretation and selective manifestations of history. Culture, on the other hand, too is a subjective but a collective continuation of practices and values by the concerned community. A particular notion of authenticity, therefore, may just be a reflection of a biased history or a staged culture. As Smith and Duffy (2003) rightly point out, the question of authenticity complicates the ethical responsibilities on both the hosts and guests (in tourism). Di Giovine (2009) shows how the politics of World Heritage nomination, conservation and presentation is situated in a global web of institutions of heritage and tourism. The notion of authenticity too is situated in such webs of local and global institutions. Tourists learn to ‘gaze’ for authenticity and hosts learn to ‘stage’ the authenticity within the webs of practice created by all local and global institutions. Hence, authenticity is not an absolute concept, but a relative and situational construct. Therefore, this construct needs to be constantly revisited, rethought and appropriated for each individual site and context.
What does this mean for heritage management? On the one hand, constructs like authenticity constantly remind us of being ‘truthful’ to the heritage resources and the values attached to it, whereas the prospect of tourism is to bring in the much needed economic opportunity that may help in the livelihood of host communities, as well as in the regular upkeep of the heritage resources. Sustainability of heritage conservation and management may not be achieved by focusing on only one—either just preserving the authenticity or just considering the tourism benefits.
The direction this article is suggesting is a contextual one, in which time, place, and people need to be accounted for. This means that authenticity cannot be regarded as an absolute term and parameter, but rather as something that needs to be collectively articulated. This also comes with complexities of its own, particularly due to the diverse interests there might be within the same community as well as the diverse interests among the visitors. However, the approach of redefining authenticity based on the individual context may help in ensuring retention of an acceptable level and aspect of authenticity while ensuring that there is a system of logical transactions between the hosts and the guests, eventually benefitting the heritage resource that is at the core of the entire dynamics.