Stepping into History. Factors contributing to the Tourist Experience on Archaeological Sites

(1)

Stepping into History

(2)

(3)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There is a number of people I wish to thank for their support and aid in completing this thesis. Firstly, I thank my thesis supervisor Gert Jan van Wijngaarden for his valuable insights and pushing

reassuring and inspiring me when needed. Secondly, those people who took the time to share their experiences had with me. In particular I thank Marlies Koenen, Redmar Riemersma, Johan Dijkstra and Anneke de Ruig-Veenstra for taking the time to speak to me. Lastly, I thank my parents for the love, patience and support during my studies and the writing of this thesis. Without the

(4)

(5)

Introduction

Have you ever been on holiday? Rather more specifically: have you ever been on a holiday in which you visited archaeological sites? From a personal perspective, I can answer both these questions with a straightforward “yes”. There is one particular experience I wish to share.

When I was a high school student, I had the opportunity to go to Rome in the sixth grade. The programme consisted of many archaeological sites of which one was of special interest: Pompeii. In class we had learned about Roman culture in general and heard and read about the town, the disaster that had happened and what was now presented. The short of it being that Pompeii is a site where everything is “frozen in time” and every structure still stands, giving you the possibility to experience “being Roman”. This was the idea which formed inside my head. The consequence of this idea was that I was very excited to visit Pompeii. What I wanted to do first and above all was walk across the stepping stones, the Roman

equivalent of the pedestrian crossing.

Thereafter, it was time to absorb all the other information which the site contained –

educating myself on Roman culture through the signs and specific elements of culture which can only be found here – and make my experience “ a complete package”.

The reason for starting with this anecdote is because it lies at the heart of this thesis: being a tourist visiting an archaeological site and having a certain experience. The possibility to visit archaeological sites through one of the largest existing industries in

contemporary society (tourism)1, shows that the past exists and is being used in the present.2 In essence, an archaeological site is the nexus between archaeology and tourism (Fig. 1). As a

consequence archaeology enters the public, non-academic world. Within tourism, archaeology is abundantly present. One only needs to glance at various holiday brochures and see the many photographs containing archaeological remains. This connection between archaeology and tourism leads to the research question of this thesis: which factors contribute to the tourist experience at archaeological sites and which roles do these factors play?

Answering this research question will contribute to better understand the process of tourist experiences on archaeological sites and the roles played in this process by the archaeological

discipline. The relevance of this topic for archaeologists is that such an understanding may have large implications for archaeology and its role in society. As C. Holtorf argues archaeology is not only an academic science but is also cultural and social.3 Comprehension of the demands of archaeology with regards to tourism and what the discipline’s appeal is, is of paramount importance.4

1_{Ursache 2015, 130.}

2

Duke 2016, E-book chapter 1, 1. 3

Holtorf 2010, 27. 4_{Holtorf 2010, 15.}

Figure 1 Illustration showing the archaeological site as the nexus between archaeology and tourism. (Illustration created by author)

(8)

6

In order to answer the research question of this thesis, a number of sub-questions need to be answered. Each of these questions will be dealt with in a separate chapter. In the first chapter the relationship between archaeology, tourism and the public is discussed. How are archaeology, tourism and the public connected to each other and which concepts lie at the heart of this relationship? In the second chapter I will discuss the creation of archaeological sites as tourist destinations. Which (groups of) people are involved in this process? How are they creating a tourist destination? And based on which meaning do they contribute to this process? In the third chapter, the concept of authenticity will be the subject. How can authenticity be defined? How is authenticity applied in the fields of archaeology and tourism? And how is the concept implemented in this research? The information gathered in the first three chapters will then be brought together in the fourth chapter where two case-studies will be analyzed on the tourist experience(s) had there. After these four chapters, I will return to my research question in the conclusions of this thesis.

(9)

7

Chapter 1: Theorizing the Tourist Experience on an Archaeological Site

When a tourist visits an archaeological

site a relationship is created between three different entities. This

relationship can be seen as a triangle in which each point represents one of the entities (Fig. 2). One point

represents the public by which I mean here all people who interact with an archaeological site in any capacity or intensity. Another represents the archaeological profession. The third point which forms the triangle is tourism.

Important to realize is that

archaeological research, public interest and touristic exploitation are not necessarily steps on a chronological ladder. For example, the public interest might be roused by the exploitation of a site or vice versa. Furthermore, different people, ideas, perceptions and aims are present within each entity. This makes the relationship quite complex; more complex than a schematic triangle.

However, the triangle provides a handle to determine the concepts important in my research. Comprehension of the concepts underlying the sides (or lines) of the triangle is of

paramount importance in understanding a tourist experience. So what are the important underlying concepts of the sides of triangle?

For the sake of clarity this chapter will be divided into sections each dealing with one side of the triangle. In the first, the perception of archaeology by the public will be outlined. The second will deal with the concepts important in the field of tourism research especially those regarding the experience of the tourist. The third section will discuss which role(s) archaeology has within tourism. What we will end up with is a number of concepts and an understanding of the triangular

relationship. Bringing these concepts together in a theoretical tourist experience on an archaeological site will be the subject of the final section of this chapter.

1.1 The public Perception of Archaeology

Whenever an archaeologist explains to someone outside the discipline what he or she does, what archaeology is and what it can mean for society (as I and many more have done), the archaeologist will very likely answer the following (or words of similar nature):

 “As an archaeologist, my primary concern is the study of the material past, trying to make sense of what has been left to posterity, and when so doing, applying the appropriate theoretical and methodological tools to the material in question.”5;

 “Archaeologists help to protect and preserve the material remains of the past for the future. [...] Archaeologists provide interpretations of the origins, diversity and long-term

5_{Hellerström et al. 2009, 206.}

Figure 2 Illustration showing the triangular relationship between the public, archaeology and tourism. (Illustration created by author)

(10)

8

development of human behaviour in the past throughout the world, which help us to understand and respect our own societies in the present and future.”6;

 Archaeologists uncover evidence of past societies and in so doing, they provide valued resources which modern people are able to use in defining their identities. Furthermore, they provide the materials for heritage tourism and consequently contribute to local and national economic growth.7

In my opinion, all three answers have merit and a combination of the three options is likely to be true at this point in time. However, does the public think along the same lines as the archaeologist does?

Unfortunately there is little research done on public perception.8 One benchmark study can

shed light on how the public perceives archaeology. In the book Archaeology is a brand!: the

meaning of archaeology in contemporary popular culture Cornelius Holtorf9 not only discusses the public’s perception of archaeology but also the causes of this perception. Therefore it will serve as the foundation of this section.

According to Holtorf there is a wide variety of ways in which the public can encounter archaeology which can influence the perception of archaeology. The public can visit archaeological

excavations and sites or museums10 but they can also come into contact with archaeology in the

comfort of one’s own living room. This happens mainly through mass media such as television and

the printed press (e.g. movies, television shows, newspapers, novels, brochures).11

From all the ways the public can come into contact with archaeology, Holtorf distinguishes two general ways in which archaeology is used. In the first way archaeology is used to tell stories of

the past.12 In this sense, the result of archaeological research is more important than the research

itself. In other words, archaeology is not perceived as a scientific process but its result is a vehicle for information, education or entertainment. The second way in which archaeology is used, for example portrayed in newspaper articles, stands at the other end of the scale. Rather the archaeological

research is the story and the result of the research is of lesser importance.13 In this sense archaeology

is more perceived as a scientific process which itself becomes a vehicle for information, education or entertainment. However, because the public does not necessarily wishes to be educated in depth on the science that is archaeology, the stories concerning archaeological research are not too

complicated and not academic.14

Consequently, what is created is a simplified image, of both archaeology and the

archaeologist, which only sparsely overlaps with how the archaeologist perceives his own discipline. This means that the public’s perception of archaeology is largely based on metaphors and

stereotypes.15 An archaeologist goes on adventures, solves mysteries, excavates16 and tells stories.

One manner in which the public comes into contact with these stories, is through tourism.

6

Skeates 2000, 109 – 110. 7

Pacifico and Vogel 2012, 1591; Skeates 2000, 110. 8 Skeates 2000, 51. 9 Holtorf 2016. 10 Skeates 2000, 110 and 113. 11 Holtorf 2016, 28. 12_{Ibid., 4 – 6.} 13 Ibid., 50. 14 Ibid., 141. 15_{Ibid., 131.}

(11)

9 1.2 Tourism and the Tourist Gaze

Tourism is one of the largest industries in the world and is highly diversified. This diversity can already be seen in the large variety of different types of tourism: sun and beach tourism, religious

tourism, shopping tourism, cultural and heritage tourism are but a few of a much longer list.17 Each

of these types of tourism has its own characteristics and can be defined by them; the types of

tourists can be defined accordingly.18 Consequently, understanding which concepts are important in

the field of tourism research seems a herculean task at best. However, diversified as the field is, it is possible to discern commonalities.

A good starting point is to determine what constitutes a tourist – this allows for a first insight into what the commonalities within tourism are. A tourist can be defined as a traveller who is

temporarily and voluntarily on a round-trip or going on a long journey which is non-recurring or rare

and a goal in itself.19 The tourist is acting out a process of separation (i.e. leaving his home and

known culture), liminality (i.e. he is obligated to display types of behaviour which would be deemed inappropriate or uncommon in his or her own culture) and reintegration (i.e. returning to one’s own

culture, possibly bringing something back in physical and possibly spiritual sense).20

This process of separation, liminality and reintegration is the foundation which constitutes

tourism. The acting out of this process is characterized by a number of properties: 21

1. The desire for leisure; 2. The process is short-term;

3. It is not connected to work or other aspects of everyday life thus creating a division between

the ordinary and extraordinary; 22

4. The choice of destination is made based on the anticipation created by seeing photographs, television shows or hearing the experiences friends or relatives have had.

Around these properties the tourism industry constantly develops more and new provisions to

facilitate the tourist with what they need during the liminality-phase of the process.23

According to Urry, what tourists seek are objects to gaze upon. What Urry has named the

tourist gaze24 is the central concept in the process of separation, liminality and reintegration.25 The

most important characteristic of the tourist gaze is the fact that there is no single gaze;26 the tourist

is an individual with perceptions originating in his or her own individual background.

The tourist gaze can be defined as paying homage to an object.27 The term “object” can be

taken very literally (e.g. seeing the Mona Lisa) but also involves seeing unfamiliar aspects which were

16

Excavating is the most common association the public has with what an archaeologist does. This resulted out of surveys executed in for example the United States and Canada. See Holtorf 2016, 54.

17_{Timothy and Boyd 2006, 1.} 18

For example, various definitions of a cultural tourist are stated in Gali-Espelt, 2012. 19

Duke 2016, E-Book chapter 3, 2. 20 Ibid., 3 – 4. 21 Urry 2002, 2 – 3. 22 Ibid., 12. 23 Ibid., 2 – 3. 24_{Ibid., 1.} 25 Ibid., 11. 26 Ibid., 1. 27_{Ibid., 10.}

(12)

10

thought to be familiar or seeing ordinary lives or familiar tasks in unusual contexts.28

What all objects have in common is that they satisfy the tourists’ desire for authenticity – I purposely

do not go into this concept as it is intensively dealt with in the third chapter – or “the real thing”.29

Tourists are evoked to gaze upon objects because of the presence of signs.30 As it is with the

objects themselves, the term “sign” can be taken very literally. For example, a brown sign post on the side of the road indicating the presence of archaeological remains. However, the claimed uniqueness of an object or the amount of people (interested in) gazing upon an object can also be considered

signs.31 Both types of signs can influence the decision of tourists to gaze upon a certain object.

Despite the fact that the gaze is highly subjective Urry discerns three general subtypes which are of importance. One can discern a romantic gaze (the feeling of solitude is what defines the object), the collective gaze (the presence of people is what defines the object) and the spectatorial

gaze (the spectacle is what defines the object).32 A dichotomy can exist between different types of

gazes and perceiving something as authentic or not. 33 As stated above, the choice for a destination is

based upon created anticipation. Thus, it is possible that the “real thing” does not live up to the created anticipation. For example, someone visiting the archaeological site of Pompeii wanting to wander around the site in solitude and seeing a long line of other people desiring to enter the site, might feel that this object does not live up to the anticipation created when looking through the holiday brochure. Furthermore, sharing the site with many other people might lead to an experience which does not feel extraordinary nor provides the leisure desired. This shows how fickle and

subjective the tourist gaze in essence is.

What this all shows is that the tourist gaze is a very complicated concept to grasp, yet is the

central concept around which the relationship between tourism and the public is formed.34 It is the

tourist gaze which sparks leisure and the experience of something extraordinary and real for tourists. One needs to bear in mind that tourism is a dynamic field, constantly adjusting to consumer demand. At present, this is characterized by moving away from mass consumption towards more

individualized patterns.35 The dichotomy stated in relation to the example of Pompeii are a point in

case. What this example showed above all, is that a relationship exists between archaeology and tourism.

1.3 Archaeology and Tourism

Now we have arrived at the last side of the triangle displayed in the beginning of this chapter. Without an understanding which role(s) archaeology plays within the tourism industry, one cannot fully comprehend how a tourist experience is formed on an archaeological site.

The origin of the connection between the two fields can be traced back to the same roots:

the Grand Tour.36 This specific type of travel involved aristocratic, well educated individuals visiting

the most important cultural locations especially in Greece and Rome.37

28 Urry 2002, 13. 29 Ibid., 9. 30 Ibid., 12. 31 Ibid., 42 – 44. 32 Ibid., 43 – 44. 33 Ibid., 94. 34_{Ibid., 11.} 35 Ibid., 15. 36 Millett 2007, 33 – 34. 37_{Johnson 2011, 299.}

(13)

11

This would result in the individual having the cultural sophistication needed to take his place in

society.38 This type of travel not only resulted in an increasing amount of people visiting these

locations but also in an increasing desire to collect and research antiquities. This last result being the

foundation upon which the archaeological discipline was built.39

Since the 17th and 18th century, the relationship between the two fields has changed. To a

large extent this was caused by the scientific and academic development of the archaeological discipline. The reasons for travelling changed from studying the existing remains to executing

fieldwork for one’s research project. In other words, archaeology became a profession rather than an educational form of leisure. From the perspective of the field of tourism, the cause lies in the

emergence of mass tourism. This type of tourism has its foundation in industrial capitalism.40 The

changing society caused a process of democratization of travel41 which shows in the exploding

numbers of travelling people since the 1960’s.42 In other words, tourism became a widely available

source of leisure.

The changes in the two fields had as a consequence that the role(s) of archaeology broadened and changed. The key concept in this situation is heritage. Through the exploration of heritage, local people have an ability to define their identities; archaeology provides them with the

material remains to engage in this process.43 For example, the Acropolis in Athens is both a symbol

for Greek Antiquity and a symbol of contemporary Greekness.44 Because the availability of history to

gaze upon is one of the strongest tourist incentives45, this provision of heritage by archaeology has

the direct consequence of attracting more visitors.

Archaeological remains being attractive to visitors creates the possibility to exploit them as a tourist destination. Through exploitation an economical role of the remains becomes clear: they become the vehicle to spark economic rejuvenation or development by which the entire system is

stimulated.46

This different role of the archaeological remains has two important consequences. The first is

that the attention to preservation is enhanced;47 if anything, heritage needs tourism.48 The second is

that this economic role leads to increasing commodification of the archaeological remains49 in order

to meet the demands of tourists and maintaining a degree of attraction.50

One of the ways in which the commodification can be discerned, is the use of archaeological remains as a marketing tool in tourist brochures. The remains are often used in connection with other features, such as a beautiful beach, to further market a specific destination. This makes

archaeology essentially a luring mechanism51 which can especially be used in the case of destinations

associated with sun and beach holidays.

38_{Duke 2016, E-book chapter 3, 1.} 39 Millett 2007, 33 – 34. 40 Ibid., p. 2. 41_{Urry 2002, 16.} 42 Ibid., 6 – 7. 43

Pacifico and Vogel 2012, 1590. 44

For a full description and analysis of this example, see Yalouri 2001. 45 Ismagilova et al. 2015, 158. 46 Ursache 2015, 130 – 131. 47 Ibid., 133. 48_{Harrison 2010, 21.} 49

Ursache 2015, 133.

(14)

12

The use of archaeology in this case enlarges the season and diversifies the touristic field.52

Furthermore, the centrality of photography in tourism53 and the globalization process (e.g. the

internet) only increase the opportunities to use archaeology in this manner. Travel agencies

gratefully seize these opportunities and as result “the site becomes sight”.54

What can be discerned is an ever more changing role of archaeology within tourism. The role

has drastically changed since the 17th and 18th century. It has become a means to create heritage and

consequently a possibility to exploit the archaeological remains as tourist destinations. This in turn creates the foundation for archaeology to become a commodity and a marketing tool within tourism. 1.4 The tourist Experience at Archaeological Sites, in Theory

After all the theory, concepts and relationships described in this chapter we have now completed all three sides of the triangle. But what should we take away from it all in light of this thesis?

Firstly, theoretically a tourist experience on an archaeological site is more about the “what” (i.e. the remains) than the “how”(i.e. the process of archaeological research). This can be discerned from the concept of storytelling which is one of the important ways in which the public perceives archaeology. It seems logical to assume that if the “how” plays a too large a role, the tourist experience would move away from the leisure desired by tourists. Of course, tourism being a field concerning individuals, there are always exceptions to this rule.

Secondly, archaeology is compatible with the characteristics and central concept important in the field of tourism. An archaeological site provides the tourist with a possibility to experience what history has been like for the country they spend their holiday in. Furthermore, when a tourist gazes upon objects he or she hopes to see the extraordinary and “the real thing”. Depending on the tourist, an archaeological site can provide both.

Despite the fact that there are several elements in archaeology that are compatible with tourism, it is important to realize that each point of the triangle is a different field. The public is comprised of individuals. Hence, the expectations each individual has and whether they are met influences their experience. To reiterate the example given in paragraph 1.2: someone visiting the archaeological site of Pompeii wanting to wander around the site in solitude and seeing a long line of other people desiring to enter the site, might feel that this object does not live up to the anticipation had when looking through the holiday brochure. Furthermore, archaeology and tourism are research fields with each their own concepts, ideologies, opinions and aims regarding archaeological remains. This heterogeneity causes each point to treat archaeological remains differently manipulating the sides of the triangular relationship.

52 Ursache 2015, 135. 53 Urry 2002, 125 and 130. 54_{Ibid., 130.}

(15)

13

Chapter 2: Authoring an Archaeological Site as a Tourist Destination

The manipulations of the sides of the triangle spur the actions which create an archaeological site viable as a tourist destination. At the core of these actions lies the meaning which these (groups of) people attach to the archaeological site. To understand the creation of a tourist destination and by extent the tourist experience one needs to comprehend the different meanings given. But which groups are important in the creation of a tourist destination? Which meanings lie at the foundation of their actions? And how do these groups create a tourist destination?

In order to answer the questions posed one first needs an understanding of the concepts of authorship and meaning implemented here. What is an author, how does authorship work and what does the concept of meaning entail? 55 This will be the subject of the first section. In the second section we move on to the (groups of) people, their predominant attached meanings and the landscape the (groups of) people create. The final section will deal with what to take away from it all in light of this thesis.

2.1 Authors, Authorship and Meaning

Authors, authorship and meaning are the key issues in the biographical approach56 which more and more finds its way into the Dutch archaeological discipline. Authorship is based on the notion that one cannot separate landscape (in this case archaeological sites) and the people interacting with it in any capacity or intensity.57

These people interacting with the landscape and having an effect on it are what we call authors. The origin of the term in this context lies in the notion that a landscape can be seen as a text.58 The most important characteristic is that the term “author” is widely applicable. Whenever an individual, group or institution interacts with a landscape whatever position or role they may have in society, they can be considered an author. For example, what would a landscape like the city centre of New York be without the people going about their daily routine?59 Important to realize is that the landscape itself can be its own author because it also changes on its own without any human interference.60 Therefore it is impossible to see a landscape without an author61 and authorship is always present in one form or another.

Through interaction (elements of) the landscape change. In essence this is what authorship is. 62 It is what authors do in (or to) a landscape which causes the landscape to change.

55

The choice has been made here to not implement the concepts of stakeholders and value. The reason for this is that both concepts are highly categorized and hierarchical in nature and intensely debated on. Darvill 1995, Samuels 2008 and Wallace 2015 are sources which can be consulted on these concepts and debates. The advantages of the concepts implemented in this section are that there is no hierarchical structure in terms of authorship. Furthermore, the concept of meaning is broader and more fluid than value which makes it more suitable to apply in the light of this research.

56

Kolen and Renes 2015, 32. 57

Ibid. 58

Testimony of this notion can be found in Samuels 1979, 63 – 65. 59_{Kolen and Renes 2015, 33.}

60

Samuels 1979, 63. 61

Ibid., 64 – 65. 62_{Ibid., 61.}

(16)

14

What this quite simply means is that a landscape is a product of interaction.63 Authors can interact with a landscape in many different ways. For example, working on or visiting an archaeological site. However, even by looking, taking and displaying photographs of a landscape someone interacts with a landscape as well.

Through their interaction authors can create two different types of landscape products. Firstly, landscapes of impression can be created. This type of product is a symbolic representation of a landscape. It is not created by changing the physical landscape itself; it is more passive and indirect. In general these are created through interaction with varying media sources and people.64 For example, when someone is confronted with photographs of the Athenian Acropolis in every tourist brochure one looks in the symbolic representation that the Acropolis is the destination to visit when one desires to experience Athens, Greek Antiquity or “Greekness” can be created. In other words, the photographs influence the image people have of a specific landscape. Secondly, authors can create landscapes of expression. This product is created by actively and directly making physical alterations to a landscape. 65 For example, excavating an archaeological site, placing a fence around it and information signs on it, create a differently designed landscape.

The foundation upon which landscapes of impression and expression are created by authors is the attachment of meaning to a landscape.66 For every author the meaning attached to a landscape can differ. For example, the tourist industry sees opportunities to make money, the local government sees it portraying a region or country’s history and locals can hold dear memories when being in the landscape with someone special. Consequently, meaning is very subjective and it can be practical, pragmatic and also emotional at the same time.

The group of authors for a specific landscape can be very diverse. All these authors operate in a society in which certain ideas, ideologies and perceptions exist.67 Taking into account that society constantly changes it is only logical to assume that the predominant ideas, ideologies and

perceptions also change. For example, the meaning given to and creation of archaeological sites is executed very differently in the present in comparison to two centuries past because of societal and academic differences. So the attachment of meaning is not only subjective but also context and time specific.

In short, authors are actors of a highly subjective and dynamic process of meaning making, resulting in a landscape product, in this case archaeological sites. It is this characteristic that makes the implementation of authors, authorship and meaning essential.

2.2 Multiple Authors, varying Meanings

In light of this thesis five different groups of authors have been identified to be discussed here: 1. Archaeologists

2. (Local) Government institutions

3. Local and international NGO’s and institutions 4. Local communities 5. Tourists 63 Samuels 1979, 62. 64_{Ibid., 70.} 65 Ibid., 69. 66 Ibid.,, 52. 67_{Ibid., 61.}

(17)

15

Undoubtedly this division can be subject to debate. The division into groups of people does not do justice to individuals and their subjective views on the matter. Furthermore, a certain amount of overlap is possible between the groups. For example, an archaeologist can be a tourist and a member of the local community can have a seat in the local government. However, for the sake of clarity and brevity this division has been made. Acknowledging the fact that the given meaning might differ within a certain group, there is a tendency towards a certain meaning in each of them.

2.2.1 Archaeologists

This first group of authors first and foremost exercises their profession. A profession in which material remains of the past are researched and interpreted to shed light on history. Consequently, which meaning an archaeologist attaches to an archaeological site mostly stems from the

responsibilities connected to their profession. This means that an archaeological site holds meaning for research and education purposes.

The process of research is quite varied. This means that the way in which an archaeological site is authored by an archaeologist can vary strongly. Each archaeologist performs his research on the basis his research question, field of interest, chosen methodology, educational background and personal interests. To put it simply, it is the archaeologist who decides what and how something is excavated or not and preserved, restored, put in storage or discarded. It is the archaeologist who creates the archaeological record68 and by extent a landscape of expression which can be interacted with by others. For example, the archaeological site of Knossos in Crete as excavated and restored by Arthur Evans shows how much a landscape is authored by the archaeologist.69_{The site is}

simultaneously a highly specific reconstruction of the Cretan past and an expression of how archaeologists thought of that past during that time.

From this point of view, the authorship of archaeologists is very decisive towards

archaeological sites. Through the execution of excavations, landscapes of expression are designed. However, at the same time archaeologists’ authorship is quite passive in terms of creating a tourist destination. In this regard the archaeologist mainly provides the resource material for exploitation by other authors.

2.2.2 (Local) Government Institutions

To be straightforward: governments can “self-fashion the raw materials of history and tradition – archaeological sites and landscapes, relics and cultural practices – into claims that authenticate national identities and narratives.”.70 This means that archaeological remains become a vehicle by which a history and heritage is provided to people.71 Subsequently, the meaning attached to archaeological sites is ideological and emotional in nature. Furthermore it allows for people to be educated on their own history. In short, it allows for insight into “who we are”.

The provision of history allows for a more pragmatic meaning to be attached as well. It creates the possibility to educate oneself on the destination (or: “this is who they are”). This means that governments can incorporate archaeological sites in their tourism industry. In addition, this attaches a firm economic meaning on top of the ideological and educational meanings.

68_{Duke 2016, E-Book chapter 1, 9.} 69

Ibid., chapter 5, 12. 70

Porter 2008, 270.

(18)

16

Based on these different meanings it can be argued that governments have a tremendous influence on how the landscape is authored both in impressional and expressional sense. These institutions control the budget, plans and ideas for development in order to ensure that their version of historical reality is portrayed in the material remains. Furthermore, the government provides the information sources which can be used in education. In a sense, the governments are in the driving seat.

There are other institutions which have a facilitary role within government bodies which can influence the authorship of governments. UNESCO and ICOMOS are examples of such organizations. Both organizations “[..]attempt to preserve and develop sites [...]”.72 Because these organizations tend to look at archaeological sites as somebody’s heritage and not as means for economic gain governments can be influenced in their attaching of meaning.

In order to enforce the mission to “preserve and develop” the facilitary organizations have created certain means to help them. The World Heritage List maintained by UNESCO is a good example .73 Departure point of this list is the notion that there are sites which can be deemed of global importance.

However, these organizations and mechanisms (especially the World Heritage List) have an important ripple effect because they serve as stamps of quality. While executing their attempt to preserve and develop archaeological sites, they create landscapes of impression. If this landscape product is deemed special enough for people to visit, the created attention can easily spark the process of a site becoming a tourist destination. In short, inadvertently organizations such as UNESCO and ICOMOS, create the possibility for the meaning of economic gain to be attached.

Lastly, it is important to realize that governments do not necessarily put themselves in the driver seat at all times. The creation of Parco Archeologico di PAVA in Tuscany is a case in point. Here, the local government, archaeologists and the local community have been included in the

development process and the activities held there in order to appreciate the different meanings attached to the archaeological site.74 However, this is just one example. Whether this actually occurs, differs in every situation because every country or indeed region, defines and consequently treats (archaeological) heritage differently.75

2.2.3 Local and International NGO’s and Institutions

From the title of this group of authors, one can discern a high degree of diversity and breadth. However, the meanings attached to an archaeological site allows for a division into two large groups facilitating visits: the tourism industry and informational or educational institutions.

The first group, the tourism industry, attaches a strong economic meaning to archaeological sites. The agencies active within this group are all about selling their products of consumption. To reach that goal, the archaeological site does not need to be a destination. As has been discussed in chapter 1.3 the tourist industry uses archaeological sites in tourist brochures as a marketing tool to spark interest in turn causing a tour or travel to be sold.

However, it needs to be acknowledged that the tourism industry is not a homogenous group of institutions. Because there are many different types of tourism and tourists there is also a plethora of different agencies facilitating answers to the demand these different types have.

72_{Porter 2008, 272.} 73 Porter 2008, 272. 74 https://www.facebook.com/ParcoArcheologicoDiPava/. 75_{Howard 2003, 213.}

(19)

17

Consequently, when an organization’s goal is not only to sell but also to inform their clientele on the history of a destination it is possible to discern an educational meaning.

Stemming from these meanings, the tourist industry authors vital landscapes of impression for the creation of archaeological sites as tourist destinations.76 The manner in which the

organizations do this is through images and stories. The content of these images and stories depends on many factors such as the location of the organization, the background knowledge of the people working there and the target group which they wish to facilitate. The commonality lies in the fact that the tourism industry through their varying media channels (e.g. brochures or an internet site) and the people working there (e.g. tour guides) author an archaeological site as an extraordinary object to gaze upon.

The second group embodies the informational and educational institutions. The best examples of this type are archaeological museums and schools. For these institutions an

archaeological site is a source of information to educate and inform visitors or students about the past or archaeology itself. Consequently, these organizations attach an educational meaning to archaeological sites.

These institutions author a landscape of impression. As it is with the tourism industry there are varying ways in which this impression is authored. An archaeological museum does it through the displayed objects; a teacher mostly does it through stories and images. Factors such as the location of the institution, the level and subject of the education given and the type of target group will influence the authored impression. Furthermore, the type as well as the well-known or intensively researched archaeological site itself will influence the landscape product. The commonality within this group lies in the fact that the institutions, through their images, stories and objects author an archaeological site as a source of information.

It is clear that the authors discussed in this section do not create a tourist destination in a practical and expressive sense. Other authors develop a site to meet visitors’ demands. However, when people do visit a site the authors discussed here influence the experience. Due to landscapes of impression creating a certain perception for visitors the harmony existing between the visit and the created perception will affect the experience.

2.2.4 Local Communities

This group of authors interact with archaeological sites in various ways. It could be said that a site is a part of a local community’s living environment. This means that a site is not only a possible place to visit but also the site (or a location close by) could be their place of employment. As a consequence, a wide range of different meanings can be attached.

Let us start with the most practical meaning members of a local community can have. When an archaeological site is a tourist destination, it provides various employment possibilities for locals. They can work on the site itself or in the vicinity of it. For example, they can work at the ticket office, give site tours and work or own a bar, restaurant or a souvenir shop. This “making a living” means that an archaeological site has a firm economic meaning attached to it.77

76

The example of Pompeii outlined on creating anticipation in chapter 1.2 is a case in point considering the vital role of the tourism industry.

77

It is not my intention to say here that none of the people having an archaeological site as place of

employment are not genuinely interested in the history a site presents. For example, a tour guide has to have a certain amount of inherent interest in these subjects to make his tour interesting for visitors.

(20)

18

However, archaeological sites can enter heritage discourse because archaeology provides the resources by which local communities can explore their identity.78 Without question, heritage is a tricky and complex concept to which I will not be able to do full justice here but certain aspects of the concept need to be discussed.79

Heritage is a use of the past in the present.80 The attribution of meaning to for example habits, landscapes or objects makes something become heritage.81 The concept is strongly connected to memory. It is the specific memory of for example an event or a tradition which ensures and maintains a heritage status.82 Because society changes and memories can fade other meanings might be attributed and other things can become heritage. In other words, heritage is culturally ascribed83 and in essence, it is made.84

From the perspective of heritage, the local community can attach a very different meaning to archaeological sites. This meaning is more ideological, emotional and subjective: the site is part of the community’s local cultural identity. The local community creates their own because it is part of their living environment. For example, a grandfather showing or talking about a site creates a different story compared to the archaeological remains themselves. Through this action, the archaeological site becomes a part of the grandchild’s memory, heritage and identity.

With these meanings as foundation local communities’ authorship is expressed in a number of ways. Firstly, they design a landscape of expression around an archaeological site through their restaurants, bars and shops in order to make a living. In essence, this is the creation of a

commodified product. 85 Secondly, locals create landscapes of impression of a site itself. This is done through the tour guide telling stories but also through their actions towards archaeological remains. For example, when Minoan artefacts located in the Heraklion museum were designated by the Greek government to go abroad, the local population revolted while the archaeological theme park created in Karfi (Crete) was treated with indifference.86

Hence, despite the fact that local communities do not develop a site as a tourist destination, they can influence it staying that way through their authorship. This depends on the meanings present at a site and whether the local community feels that these meanings do or do not reflect their own.

The consequential actions by the local community, can then influence if the predominant meanings stay the same or are changed. By extent, the authored landscape will change. For example the local community can embrace a site being a tourist destination and work at the site or at a souvenir shop or ignore the existence of the site entirely. Both actions will have impact on a site being a tourist destination. It is important to realize that both meanings discussed here can be upheld by one individual. This means that a member of the local community might still consider a site heritage while it is their place of employment. Consequently, which landscape product is created depends on the meaning each individual deems the most necessary to attach.

78

Pacifico and Vogel 2012, 1590. 79

One could for example turn to Benton 2010 or Harrison 2010 to get a more complete outline of the concept of heritage. 80 McDowell 2008, 40. 81 Ibid., 39. 82 Ibid., 42. 83_{Harrison 2010, 26.} 84 McDowell 2008, 43. 85

Duke 2016, E-book chapter 3, 11 – 15. 86_{Lowenthal 2006, 668.}

(21)

19 2.2.5 Tourists

Making the tourists a single group of authors is quite complex because there are many types of tourism and tourists. Fortunately, because the archaeological site is the constant factor, it is possible to discuss tourists as one single group of authors. However that does not mean that as a single group only a single meaning is attached to an archaeological site by these authors.

Tourists can attach a number of meanings to a site and the nature of these meanings range from the practical to the emotional and ideological sphere. Firstly, when a tourist finds leisure and entertainment in the visiting of archaeological sites, they attach recreational meaning. Secondly, if education is desired an educational meaning is attributed. Thirdly, it can be that an archaeological site holds a status as “must see”. Fourthly, a site can hold personal and emotional meaning based on memories of events taking place thereby creating a connection between the tourist and the site. For example, my brother did his marriage proposal at the archaeological site of Paestum (Italy). Fifthly, a meaning as a consumer product can be attached. This is mainly the case when a site is part of a round trip and the tourists are simply there because it was part of that tour.

On the basis of all these different meanings, tourists author an archaeological site. Important to realize is that they first and foremost create landscapes of impression through their authorship. Who has never shown photographs or told stories to family or friends? By talking about a site and showing it to people, an impression is created for people listening and looking. In turn this type of sharing can spark interest in a site not visited or even known. In a way, tourists can do exactly what the tourism industry does with their landscapes of impression: market an archaeological site as a destination.

Considering the authorship of landscapes of expression it is important to realize that tourists do not design nor develop landscapes. However, tourists are an influential factor to other authors who do create this product. They do this by simply being present or absent on a site. In doing so a site holds meaning and it can be a meaning which had not occurred to other authors.87 Furthermore, when a site’s popularity grows, the landscape of expression needs to be developed by other authors to accommodate the tourists. For example, the steady growth in popularity of Pompeii caused other authors to revise the entrance to the site.

What follows from the above is that tourists do not create a tourist destination but they are the reason for it to be developed. Most importantly one has to realize that tourists first have to experience a tourist destination in order for them to become authors.

When these experiences are shared, it creates a landscape of impression. In turn, this landscape product can spark interest to visit and influence the tourist experience of a future visitor. 2.3 Authoring an Archaeological Site as a Tourist Destination

Having discussed five different groups of authors with all their different attached meanings to archaeological sites, it is logical to assume that developing an archaeological site into a tourist destination is a complex process. Each group authoring an archaeological site creates a differing landscape product founded by their attributed meaning. This means that an archaeologist will create something different than for example governments, locals or the tourism industry.

87_{Porter 2008, 274.}

(22)

20

The essential question must be then: which author and by extent which meaning is leading in how a site is developed and presented? Unfortunately there is no straightforward answer to this question because different authors claim that their ideas are the best way to go.88

This results in tensions between the different groups of authors. For example, the

archaeologists claim remains are (at least) their intellectual property89 and on that basis their created landscape is the way to go. But local communities can take offence to this because they are excluded from the archaeological research, in essence getting nothing in return for the possibility of

archaeologists executing academic research.90 Other examples are governments wanting to create a shared cultural identity and consequentially a different landscape to tell their story. Especially when governments wish to commodify or the sell a site91 tensions are created between them and local communities or tourists. The local communities can feel alienated from their own heritage because it is exploited for broader consumption.92 Considering tourists, the commodification of a site for something as global in nature as tourism can cause standardization which might not be what they want93 because it clashes with the desire to see extraordinary objects.

These tensions create a powerplay between authors and the result of this powerplay is the created landscape. Because this powerplay between authors differs at specific sites, different archaeological sites are authored differently. For example, the degree of commodification and restoration are signs of this differing nature. This ultimately results in tourists having different experiences on different sites. Important to realize is meanings, ideologies and perceptions are context and time specific. Therefore, the powerplay and by extent the result of the created landscape are dynamic.

However, there is not only tension. All groups of authors have one important aspect in common. Through their authorship they try to facilitate the tourist with “the real thing”.

88 Porter 2008, 277 – 278. 89 Skeates 2000, 20. 90_{Ibid., 111.} 91

Porter 2008, 275. 93_{Salazar 2010, 132.}

(23)

21

Chapter 3: Authenticating the Tourist Experience

Because authors claim to provide “the real thing” to tourists there is a crucial concept which needs to be discussed here: authenticity. This concept is crucial because it can be regarded to be central to consumerist behaviour in general 94 and one of the cornerstones of tourism (see paragraph 1.2). Equally, the concept is important in the field of archaeology.95 Consequently, to understand the tourist experience on archaeological sites a comprehension of authenticity is needed.

Unfortunately, authenticity is a notoriously broad, possibly vague and ultimately complex concept both in definition and application. In this chapter it will be attempted to clarify the concept. What is authenticity? How is the concept applied in tourism research and archaeology? And how will it be used in this research?

For the sake of clarity in answering these questions, a division into sections is upheld here. The first section will deal with the term “authenticity “ itself. How can the term be defined? And which insights into the concept do these definitions give us? Following this, two sections will be devoted to the application of authenticity and some of the issues of that application within two scientific fields important in this thesis. Hence, the second section will deal with the application in archaeology and the third section with the application in tourism research. In the last section, all the information will be brought together to establish what will be important in this research.

3.1 Definitions of Authenticity

Up until this point, authenticity has been defined as “the real thing”. Arguably, a good definition which shows the breadth and complexity. However, simultaneously this definition is quite vague. Fortunately, more tangible definitions can be found in varying sources.

A first pair of sources where other definitions can be found is the translation of the ancient languages (Greek and Latin) and in the modern dictionary. The terms authentikos (ancient Greek) and authenticus (Latin) are generally translated as original, primary or authoritative.96 These translations still shine through in the definition of the English Oxford Dictionary. The dictionary defines authenticity as the “quality of being authentic”97 and defines this quality as follows:98

 “ Of undisputed origin and not a copy; genuine.”

 “ Made or done in the traditional or original way, or in a way that faithfully resembles an original.”

 “ Based on facts; accurate or reliable.”

Both the translations and the English Oxford Dictionary offer quite loose but considerably more tangible definitions of authenticity. Following the definitions of these sources a Roman oil lamp is deemed authentic because it either actually dates back to Roman times or because it is made exactly in the same way as they used to do during that time.

94

Egberts 2014, 23. 95

The importance of authenticity in archaeology becomes clear in for example Holtorf and Schadla-Hall 1999. 96_{Wallace 2015, 61.}

97

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/authenticity. 98

The definitions cited here are the first three definitions given. For all definitions see https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/authentic.

(24)

22

Another source where definitions can be found is in academic literature. In the archaeological discipline the definition of authenticity for the large part originates during the Romantic period (18thand 19th centuries). Since then its meaning has been “a condition of an object which can be revealed in so far as it exists but which cannot be created wilfully”.99 This is more commonly known as the aura of an object.100 Furthermore, when academic research deals with issues revolving around visitors, authenticity is also defined as a value, motivation, claim, perception and choice.101

The definitions upheld in the academic literature show that the definition of authenticity and by extent the concept itself is not only dynamic but also context dependent.102 It can be defined differently over time, in specific locations, by different people. For example, (academic) scientists will define the term more strictly opposed to people outside the sciences who will define it more

loosely.103 This creates a heterogeneous concept which is in a constant state of flux.104

It could be argued that the definitions in academic literature stated here do not offer a more tangible definition of authenticity. However, these definitions allow research to be conducted on the factors or reasons why an object is deemed authentic while still acknowledging a degree of

(necessary) complexity. This balance between tangibility and complexity is important especially when dealing with something as subjective as the tourist experience.

The most important aspect which can be discerned from all definitions given in this section is that there are two different departure points to define the term “authenticity”. The first of these departure points is the object. The properties inherent to the object (e.g. the age or material) are causing it to be authentic. This can be seen in the definition used in the archaeological discipline, the translation of ancient Greek and Latin and the dictionary. The second departure point is the

observer. In this case an object is authentic because the observer defines it as such based on the individual perceptions of authenticity. This is the case when authenticity is defined as a value, motivation or perception.

The question is then: is authenticity a property of the object or is it a judgement of quality made on the object?105 In other words, is authenticity object-based or observer-based? Both archaeology and tourism research have different answers to this question. In turn this causes differing applications of authenticity in the two fields of study.

3.2 The Application of Authenticity in Archaeology

In previous chapters it has already been established that archaeology is a science which concerns itself with the study of material remains of the past. When researching these materials an archaeologist is expected to establish properties concerning the objects of study (e.g. age, the material it is made of and the cultural area it is from). 106 Consequently, the attribution of an object being authentic is based upon these properties. This is not further negotiated because the properties do not change.107

99

Holtorf and Schadla-Hall 1999, 231 – 232. 100

Ibid., 231; Benjamin 1992 [1936], 211 – 244. 101

Brida et al, 2014, 521. The stated definitions come from an article concerning archaeology but are coherent with definitions given in articles concerning tourism researh. For example, see Wang 1999.

102

Holtorf and Schadla-Hall 1999, 230 and 243. 103 Ibid., 241. 104_{Brida et al. 2014, 519 – 520.} 105 Ibid., 522. 106

Holtorf and Schadla-Hall 1999, 231. 107_Ibid.

(25)

23

Adding the fact that people often take at face-value what they are presented with108 a notion is created that authenticity is part of the material integrity of an object itself.109 In short, the application of authenticity in archaeology is object-based.

This object-based application is enforced when archaeological objects are on display. Important to realize is that archaeologists consider themselves to be experts. They consider the archaeological record to be their intellectual property; they have the know-how to deal with it.110 Consequently, calling an object authentic is their expertise and that needs to be trusted. In other words, the authority of authenticating lies with the archaeologists. This makes the application of authenticity in archaeology not only object-based but also expert-based. 111

Because of the application of this specific conceptualization of authenticity the

commodification of archaeological sites becomes problematic. The foundation of this problem lies in the fact that history, as stated before, is something people like to gaze upon. Therefore, sites often are developed to receive visitors and give these visitors an experience they will enjoy. Consequently, restorations and reconstructions can take place which, according to archaeologists, damage the material integrity and presentation of the site, building or object. This feeling of unease towards authenticity is increased by slick marketing, increased accessibility due to globalization112, digital presenting possibilities113 and the fact that a market exists for reproductions of archaeological artefacts (e.g. Cycladic art114). At the very worst all actions result in the Disneyfication, meaning an archaeological site becomes a theme park attraction, ultimately making it inauthentic according to archaeologists.115

Consequentially, archaeologists fear the actions related to commodification of

archaeological sites because they threaten the object-based notions of authenticity. However, is this attitude towards such actions in any way justifiable?

In my opinion, this is very difficult. As has been discussed in the previous chapter, a landscape (in this case an archaeological site) is a product. Thereby, authenticity itself becomes a product. 116 Archaeologists contribute to the creation of this product. When they create the

archaeological record, this is done on the basis of their ideas, ideologies, perceptions and education which means it is not completely objective.117 The representation of history will not be either

because we interpret archaeological remains and objects in the light of our own era and not with the eyes of the creators and users.118 Hence, what needs to realized is that through archaeological actions the material integrity is damaged ultimately influencing the authenticity of an object just as commodification does.

108

Wallace 2015, 111.

109_{Holtorf, C. and Schadla-Hall, T., 1999, p. 232} 110

Skeates 2000, 20. 111

The application of authenticity being expert-based is tried to be kept at a minimum by the drafting of various documents such as the Venice Charter and the Nara Documents. However, because these are drafted by experts they still display object-based notions and western values, thereby enforcing the object- and expert-based application of authenticity. See Holtorf and Schadla-Hall 1999, 234.

112

Baram and Rowan 2004, 7 – 9. 113

Dueholm and Smed 2014, 286. This article excellently further describes the issues with and advantages of augmented reality integrated in the presentation of heritage sites.

114

Holtorf and Schadla-Hall 1999, 233. 115_{Gable and Handler 2004, 168.} 116

James 2004, 146. 117

Duke 2016, E-Book chapter 1, 9 – 10. 118_{Holtorf and Schadla-Hall 1999, 237.}

(26)

24

I do not mean to say here that the object-oriented application should be discarded completely. The properties of the archaeological material still makes people label it as authentic. However, this labelling is exactly why the observer cannot be disconnected from authenticity.

3.3 The Application of Authenticity in Tourism Research

Within the field of tourism research it is quite generally accepted that authenticity is an important incentive to visit strange or unknown locations.119 The cause of this lies in the fact that tourists do not experience authenticity in their day-to-day environment and search for other places to mend this feeling of alienation.120 Archaeological sites can be considered to be such places.121 This mending of alienation has led to a strong foundation for tourist destinations to be cultivated and marketed122 thereby strengthening the centrality of authenticity within tourism. Logically, this also created the necessity for researchers to focus on how the concept should be applied in their research.

The first to discuss the application of authenticity was MacCannell during the 1970’s who recognized the above stated alienation and the consequential cultivation of tourist destinations. MacCannell argued that objects are presented in such a manner that the observer is manipulated to perceive them as authentic.123 This is also known as “staged authenticity”.124

However, this application was harshly criticized for two reasons. Firstly, staged authenticity can be argued to be quite object-based.125 Secondly, it was argued that through this application tourists would become mere puppets who would not be able to see through the staging. This would ultimately lead to an inability to distinguish the authentic from the inauthentic, creating a flawed experience. 126

Hence, tourism research needed an application of authenticity which would be more observer-based in order for it to be compatible with something as human-based as tourism.127 A better application of authenticity was found in constructivism. Constructivism is based on the idea that reality is flexible and pluralistic as a result of interpretations by people each having their own ideas and perceptions.128

Taking this constructivist approach and making it the way in which the concept of

authenticity is applied, means that authenticity becomes a value or a quality attributed to something by different people.129 Therefore the concept cannot be subjected to one unified view.130 In other words, authenticity becomes firmly observer-based.

Consequentially, defining and perceiving authenticity is not done statically but dynamically.131 Consumers define and perceive authenticity differently than scientists.132

119_{Urry 2002, 9.}

120

Breathnach 2006, 104. 121

Duke 2016, E-book chapter 3, 7. 122_{Urry 2002, 9.}

123

Holtorf and Schadla-Hall 1999, 236. 124 Budruk et al. 2008, 187. 125 Wang 1999, 353. 126 Ibid., 352 – 353. 127

Dueholm and Smed 2014, 288. 128 Wang 1999, 354. 129_{Brida et al. 2014, 522.} 130 Ibid., 520. 131 Rickly-Boyd 2012, 129. 132_{Brida et al. 2014, 521.}

(27)

25

Even within the group of consumers themselves different definitions can exist.133 Furthermore, the dynamic nature is enhanced by the fact that many different factors and variables influence the definition and perception of authenticity.134

The observer-based application of authenticity through constructivism has four important consequences within tourism research. Firstly, in order to cope with the highly dynamic nature of authenticity many different authenticities can be found in the research literature.135 These different forms can co-exist when one looks at a single object.136 For example, an observer might perceive an object authentic simultaneously because it is created in a specific way, it is presented where it was found and in the manner in which it is presented. Secondly, authenticity becomes temporal because individual ideas and perceptions can change. This means that something that is considered authentic at one point in time might be considered inauthentic later and vice versa.137 Thirdly, due to the dynamic, temporal and context specific nature, it is argued by tourism researchers that the concept itself becomes redundant as it is no longer possible to definitively establish or perceive

authenticity.138 Fourthly, authenticity becomes an experience. This authentic experience can be had because of many factors. For example, tourists might have an authentic experience because they get the leisure desired through the activity itself or the company they are with (e.g. friends or family).139 This means that the objects gazed upon do not have to be original in the object-based sense of authenticity. Rather the objects are a factor based on which the label “authentic experience” can be attached by observers.

The constructivist application of authenticity and its consequences cause for several shortcomings of an observer-based application to be discerned. Firstly, the manifold authenticities present in the literature overcomplicate the concept. Simplification of the concept is needed, 140 This simplification can be facilitated by not creating a web of authenticities but considering these

different forms as factors by which people perceive authenticity. Secondly, it seems overly enthusiastic to have a observer-based application alone and neglect the object-based application completely. This is best illustrated by an example. When my best friend described her visit to Knossos she admitted that she felt the site was “fake” (i.e. inauthentic).The reason for this feeling was the large scale reconstructions which have shaped the site as it is now. In turn this created a certain scepticism towards archaeological sites and visiting them. What follows from this example is that the perception of authenticity can be caused by the properties of an object while it is still applied by individuals. Furthermore, it shows that authenticity is something sought after by people. In a nutshell, this example shows that authenticity is not redundant, thoroughly subjective and materialistic at the same time.

133_{Duke 2016, E-book chapter 3, 7.} 134

For a large variety of factors one can read Brida et al. 2014. 135

To give some examples: cool authenticity, hot authenticity, symbolic and emergent authenticity can all be found in Wang 1999, 351 – 356. Authenticity of place, authenticity of object, relational, creative and referential authenticity can be found in Egberts 2014, 23 – 25. Recovered authenticity in James 2004, 161. And exhibitional authenticity in Bobot 2012, 171. 136 Egberts 2014, 25. 137_{Wang 1999, 366.} 138 Ibid., 356 – 358. 139 Ibid., 358 – 365. 140_{Rickly-Boyd 2012, 127.}

Stepping into History. Factors contributing to the Tourist Experience on Archaeological Sites