Archaeological tourism: A creative approach

Abstract

This theoretical paper conceptualises the role of tourism providers in facilitating creative tourism experiences by focusing on their ingenious enterprise, which we argue can help capture the tourism potential of intangible archaeological heritage. Intangible archaeological heritage can be understood as knowledge emanating from actors' own interpretation of archaeological sites that have either become physically inaccessible or been destroyed since initial exploration. Archaeological heritage is often equated with tangibility, which results in an omission of experiences that intangible archaeological heritage can offer. By proposing a rethinking of the archaeological tourism framework, we argue that the touristic value of both tangible and intangible archaeological heritage is better realised and can be further utilised to study the easily overlooked aspect of providers' ingenuity. HIGHLIGHTS  Archaeological tourism fails to capture the intangibility of archaeological heritage  Creative tourism is proposed as a more suitable framework for archaeological tourism  Co-creation between tourists and providers is central to achieving creative tourism  A proposed framework underlines providers' creativity in delivering memorable experiences

Embracing change: how cultural resilience is increased through cultural heritage

“…In fact, the mighty statues could increase local resilience and have a positive impact on the future development of the Bamiyan Valley even while they remain physically absent from their former positions. Regional development and a minor tourist industry could capitalize on the 2001 events of destruction, interpret the empty niches that once contained the statues, and in a cultural centre tell the stories of the entire region (see Ross et al [2017]). Likewise, a process of creatively recreating, in some form, parts of the statues as part of a larger strategy of development in the area could have a positive impact, too.…”

“…Considering the future of heritage means thinking about a time in which heritage as we know it may no longer exist (Harvey and Perry 2015;Ceccarelli 2017;Ross et al 2017). In the words of the Canadian tourism researcher Catherine Cameron (2010, 203), we need to recognize the boundedness of heritage in time and space: 'It is logical to project that heritage and its manufacture may wane or change as new social and cultural conditions unfold in the future.'…”

Improvement of tourist valorization: Case study of the Viminacium archaeological site

“…The intangible archaeological heritage, as a knowledge that arises from the interpretation at archaeological sites, should be also taken into consideration. Archaeological heritage is often equated with tangibility, which results in the omission of experiences that the intangible archaeological heritage can offer (Ross, Saxena, Correia & Deutz, 2017). Archaeological sites attract the interest of tourists due to striking stories and creativity in providing tourist services.…”

Economía de la arqueología: valor e impacto económico del patrimonio arqueológico

“…Sobre la base de estas comprobaciones, a mi juicio y en síntesis, la arqueología dispone de dos componentes estrechamente ligados y que se combinan en distintas proporciones en cada caso o cada prototipo arqueológico (Figura 1): por una parte, el conocimiento del pasado, basado en premisas estrictamente científicas, y por otra parte, la imaginación sobre el pasado, cuya evocación también es compartida e incluso provocada por los propios arqueólogos e investigadores 4 , aunque constituye la precepción básica del resto de los individuos cuando visitan y disfrutan del patrimonio arqueológico como turistas o curiosos, bien sea en los yacimientos, en los museos, o en cualquier otra forma de consumo de sus productos derivados (Ross et al, 2017). En esta combinación de intereses y de usos del patrimonio arqueológico, la perspectiva del análisis económico establece que la sociedad discrimina recursos para el logro de los primeros fines, es decir, los asociados a motivos de investigación y conocimiento, que suelen estar provistos de manera pública a instancias de una decisión colectiva; mientras que distribuye y jerarquiza la asignación de recursos de acuerdo a los consumos y preferencias respecto de los segundos, es decir, la imaginación asociada al ocio y disfrute del patrimonio arqueológico.…”