Chapt 7 er

The glocalisation of heritage

through tourism
Balancing standardisation differentiation and
Noel B. Solozar

Heritage meets global tourism

Year after year, the tourism and travel industries proudly present global sttistics showing steady increasesin international tourist arrivals and receiprs (UNWTO 2008), and a growing contribution to the world total GNP NTTC 2008). Even if the collection of thesefigures is fraught with methodologicalproblems, the numbers are i[ustrative of the trend: tourism, or travel-for-leisure,is on the rise acrossrhe globe (albeit unevenly).Given the pervasiveness local parricularity o{ heritage,it and is not surprising that heritage tourism is among thosenichesgrowing mosr rapidly (Timothy and Boyd 2006). Such specialinterest tourism is being developed,both as a primary objective and as a by-product of other leisure activities, by u wide variety of stakeholderson local-to-global levels. \While people have journeyed to witness historic placesof culrural importancesince ancient times, what is new is the everincreasingspeed, intensiry and extent of travel and tourism. Privare and public are sectorsworldwide, whether or not in collaboration, converting cultural heritage resources into destinations and attractions,in a bid to obtain a piece of the lucrative global tourism pi..'The money visitorsspendon admission fees,souvenirs, rranspoft, and food and accommodation contributes billions every year to the global economy and employs millions of people directly and indirectly (Timothy and Boyd 2003). Apart from economic incentives,heritage tourism servesimportant political purposes. On the domesticlevel, culrural heritageis commonly used to stimulate pride in the (imagined)nadonalhistory or to highlight the virtues of particular ideologies. In the supranational sphere, heritagesitesare marketedand sold as iconic markersof a local area,country, region or even continent, and the journey abroadas an oppor'Other' some go as far as promising a contribution to runity to learn about the worldwide peace and understanding. At the same time, tourism is increasingly recognisedand used rs an agent of socio-culural change.The mounting struggles (Salazar over who controls heritage tourism reflect its growth and success and Porter 2OO4; Porter and Salazar2005). Cultural heritage tourism in particular has been advocatedas an attractive alternative to mass tourism, providing sustainableliveliprotecting and sustainingthe cultural resources, hoods to small local operarors, and

Balancing standardisation differentiaron l3 | and

educating tourists and locals alike (N\7HO l99D.Cultural heritage management is

now commonly seen as a strategic tool to maximise the use of heritage within the global tourism market (Nuryanti 1991).This goes hand in hand wirh the overall trend to privatise goods and services, making heritage tourism more entrepreneurial and entertainment-oriented, appropriation. Some argue thar the globalisation of heritage through tourism has led to a greater respect for (both material and living) culrure than previously existed. However, the transformation of sites into destinations and cultural expressions into performances is seldom straightforward. developing and managing visitation are major issues facing the cultural heritage tourism sector (see Figure 7.1). The interface and relationship between heritage and global tourism is extremely cornplex. In a tourism setting, heritage can be (mis)used in a variety of wys for a variegy of purposes by a variety of stakeholders. This chapter discusses some of the most pressing challenges that lie ahead in cultural heritage tourism and stresses the importance of heritage interpretation for its sustainable development. The case srudy of central Java, Indonesia, illustrates the general trends and shows the urgent need for more dialogue and collaboration between the fields of herirage management and tourism. Conservation and preservation along with and leading to new types of conflict over ownership and

to Figure 7.1 Learning respectheritagethroughtourisml Localsat Borobudur,Indonesia (Photo by the author)

132 Noel B. Salazar

Global standards versus local distinctiveness

That tourism is a global phenomenonis not debated.Both consticutedby and contourism includes huge movemenm of people stitutive of globalisation processes, (tourists as well as tourism workers), capital (investmentsand tourist dollars), rechnologiesof travel and the circulation of closelyrelated tourism media and imaginaries (Salazar in press). There is a striking complicity and circularity in rhe relationship between transnational tourism and (neoliberal) globalisacion.They are inseparablefrom one another, as hybrid parts of the sameset of processes. The set is 'hybrid of becauseit is made up of an assemblage technologies,texts, images,social practicesand so on that togher enableit to expand and to reproduceitself across the globe' (Urry 2OO2: 144). Culrural heritage management, too, is caught up in a and dependencies between stakeholders complex web of global interconnections at various levels. Tourism development in particular has been instrumental in globalising heritage, its management,interpretationand appropriation. Engaging with global tourism inevitably necessitates certain degree of worlda wide integration and homogenisation,which are given tangible form via the standardisation of training, service and hospitality benchmarks. Indeed, for the global system of travel and tourism to work efficiently, internationally agreed standards need to be imposed across the board. That is why regulatory mechanisrnsand and control, developedat the internationallevel, are instruments of standardisation that this makessense for becoming increasinglypervasive. One readily understands (e.g. the Universal SaferyOversight Audit Programmeof the areassuch as transport International Civil Aviation Organisation)and food (e.g. the International Organisation for Standardisation'sFood Safety Management SystemsStandard). Universal criteria for service and customer care, on the other hand, are contested.Although UN\WTO and the International Organisation for Standardisation have been successful in creating international yardsticks in the area of tourism services(ISO interestgroups seethem as redundant and costly.2O.re 18513:200T, sector-based major criticism is that the promotion of standardisedservicesruns conary to the as tourists' desire for diversity in the travel experience, well as negating culrural and - one of global tourism's driving forces. geographicaldiversity in destinations The challenge of spndardisation is extremely relevant in the context of cultural to heritage management.Heritage destinationsworldwide may be adapting themselves the homogenisingrrends of global tourism, but, at the sametime, they have to com(cf. in modify their local distincdveness order to competewith other destinations Chang 'national') brandedas l99il.After all, it is the local panicularity of heritage(somedmes In in that tourism are most incerested witnessingand experiencing. other words,
[T]he more globalisation, of which tourism is a main agent, homogenizes habits and landscapes all around the world, the more whatever is available of the past tends to be iconicized as a symbol for national identification and, in touristic terms, as a unique sight.

(Peleggi1996: 445)

Balancing standardisation differentaron 133 and Tourism marketers and imagineers around the globe capitalise on the following assumption: If all places on earth and their inhabitants have a culture, and if this culture is necessarllyunique to a specificplace and people, then its transformation into heritage- cultural asse6in the form of the built environment,a living heritage expressed distinctive local customsand song, danc'e, and handicrafts,etc., and in art - should produce an exclusiveproduct reflecting and promoting a dismuseums tinctive place or group identity. Heritage is rhus used to endow peoplesand places 'unique with whac in marketing terms is calleda product's selling poinr'. Ironically, pioneering projects of originaliry and uniqueness have been successfully replicated to the the point where they no longer express sense a locally distinctive identity rhat of was the intention of their creatorsand promoters. The global increasein tourism has exerted pressureon many heritage sites. The 'tourismification' process of of heritage confronts those stakeholdersinvolved and communities affected with a whole set of complex issues,including authenticity, interpretation, heritage contestation, social exclusion, contested space, personal (Timothy and Prideaux2OO4;McKercher and Du heritage,control and preservation Cros 2002). Glocalisation- the patterned conjunctions that shapepeoplesand places and by means of which they shape themselves is a first approximation that suggests equal attention to globalisationand localisation(local differentiation)existing in a complex two-way uaffrc (Salazar2001; Robertson 1995).1 It is a fitting term ro whereby new boundariesare createdbetween localdenote the intertwined processes ro-global orders, and all gain strength. As an analyticalconcept,glocalisationdirects our attention to the institutions and power relationsthrough which globalisationas well as localisationare made possible. In this context, it is important to point out that there are significant economic, and interpretation differencesbetween social, political, management,conservation developed and developing countries in terms of heritage tourism. Especially poor countries have a hard time achieving the international standardsset by the tourism world that sector (Salazarin press). There are many issues in the less-developed crefie everyday obstaclesto the sustainabledevelopment and management of heritage, including the role of local communities in decision making, sharing in the benefim of tourism development, empowerment and power, ownership of historic places and artefacts,lack of funding and skills and forced displacement to accommodate tourism growth (Hampton 2005). The promiseof sustainable heritagetourism becomes the more difficult to realiseif we take accountof the fact that low-income all nations receiveonly a fraction of gtobal tourism revenue(UNS7TO 2008). The expansivegrowth of courism after \7orld \arII greatly helped to promote rh cosmopolitanidea of a common heritage,to be valued, sharedand enjoyedby the global ecumene.In fact, global tourism and world heritagerecursivelyreinforceand enhanceeach other in an ever-growingand influential lobby. UNESCO's high-profile (1913) Abu Simbel in Egypt (1966), Borobudur in Indonesia campaignsto safeguard \Wat in Cambodia(199, are salient examples chis. Iorld Heritage of and Angkor (\7HS),such as the three examplesabove,are consideredto be the centrepieces Sites of global heritage tourism (Shackley1998). The \florld Heritage List is a rapidly

134 Noel B. Salazar growing catalogue of the cultural and natural heritage that, according to the 1972 UNESCO Convention on the Protectionof the \7orld's Culrural and Nanral Heri'outstanding tage, is of universalvalue from the point of view of hisrory, art or sci(after having been nominated nationally and accreditedinrernationally).The ence' rst twelve sites were inscribed in 1978. Thirty years larer, the list includes 679 cultural, 174 natural, and 2, mixed sites in L4, countries (with Europeanand sites continuing to dominate).4The original purpose of SZHS Judaeo-Chriscian designation was to assist with management and preservation of the sires and ro the developmentof managementplans. encourage The mere inscription on the rWH list usually coincideswith a boosr in visitarion rates (Pedersen 2002). UNESCO's list thus plays an instrumental role, nor only in safeguardingheritage, but also in increasinginternationalvisitor numbers (and all the problems associated with this). Many S7HS have quickly become rnaior amractions. .With millions of tourists visiting the 878 siteseach yean, tourism hasnot only been economicallyrewarding, it has also becomea major managemenrconcernBy definition no two \fHS are alike, but they all sharecommon problems such as rhe need for a critical balance between visitation and conservation.Many sires lack crained personneland policy makers sometimeslack the experiencenecessrry use [o tcurism as a tool for sustainable development. In L999, ICOIVIOS adopred irs inrernationalCultural Tourism Charter,a policy document detailing rhe impormnce of managing tourism at placesof heritagesignificance.5 The overriding imporrance of tourism to $7HS, both as an opportunity and, if poorly managed,as a threr,was recognised by the \7or1d Heritage Committee when it authorised rhe \7orld Heritage Centre, in 2001, ro develop a Sustainable Tourism Programme-6 This hus resulted, among other things, in a practical manual on tourism managemenr (Pedersen2002). Since 20A4, National Geographic'sCentre for Sustainable Destinationshasasked hundreds of expertsto rate tourism destinations several on criceria.The idea behind this yearly exerciseis co improve stewardshipand attract.the most beneficial,Ieasr disruptive forms of tourism. ln 2006, the panellistsevaluated nHS deirinarions. 94 Among the highest-scoring cultural sites were the Alhambra (Spain), Yzelay (France),Guanajuato (Mexico), Crdoba (Spain),Bath Uf and vora (Ponugal). Ar the bottom of the list were the Upper Middle Rain Valley (Germany), Kyoro (fapan), Assisi (Italy), Avignon (France),the Loire Valley (France)and the Banks of the Seine(Paris).These type of rankings, together with the biennial S7orld Monuments \Watch list of 100 most endangered cultural heritage sites and UNESCO's \orld Heritage in Danger, provide oppoftunities ro raisepublic awareown list of ness,foster local participation, advanceinnovation and collaboration,and demonstrate effectivesolutions. Such actions are necessary becausethe tendency to adopt top-down heritage planning and managementprocedures has often resulted in the disenfranchisement 'official' of local people,giving greaterprominenceto expressions national, of culture and nationalismat the expense local .uiru.. (Wall and Black 2004).This kind of of approach has tended to freeze sites and displace human activities, effectively

Balancing standardisation differentarion 135 and

tourist awarenessof the significance and location of \f/HS ^t an all-time high, no wonder governmenrs srraregically choose which monuments to nominate as symbols of national character and culture and which ones not. Sfhile in some instances packaging I(/HS ro carer ro a world market appears to be subservient to the nationalistic needs and criteria of the individual countries in which the sites are to be found (Boniface and Fowler 199r, S7HS ae, par excellence, global heritage products. Every internarional visiror contributes to the globalisation of heritage by asserting the value of rhe sire as universal and the right of general accessibility to it (Di Giovine 2008). However, rhe very concept of universal heritage is increasingly contested. After all, it privileges an idea originating in the \7est and requires an attitude towards culture that is also distinctly European in origin. \Within the discourse of universal heritage, there is little room for specific cultural, political or religious positions that diverge from \(/estern, secularist viewpoins. The fact that the very concept of heritage is underpinned by the globalisation bf W.tr.rn values h"r pto-pted challenges, resisrance and misunderstandings (Salazar and Porter 2004; Porter and Salazar 2005). Today, global heritage tourism largely continues to base policies around a S7estern-centric network of organisations and technologies. The inrergovernmenral agenc-ies UNESCO oflicially charged with the de6nition, recognition, designarion of and protection of $odd l{eritage (especially the \Wodd Heritage Centre and its expert advisory groups such as ICOMOS) are often blamed for this bias. While they certainly pla) a role, it is rather a hesitant and ambiguous one. After all, the sites designated on the nH list represent those national choices and prioriries that have successflly been lobbied for, rather than any international srandard (Ashworth and Tunbridge 2000). In other words, organisations like UNESCO offer a forum for 'the national representation rather than world governance. \forld heritage is sum of scrutinised national heritages, a siruation which has the potential to creare competition given that heritage becomes an expression of national self-esreem' (Timothy and Boyd 2003: 15). Ironically, UNESCO's apolitical stance towards culrural conservarion feeds directly irno the heritage-tourism-development nexus creared by many governments. Indeed, we should not forget that many countries, especially poor ones, see tourism as a major tool to develop,' and that development in the eyes of those in power ofte equals erasing local, tradidonal cultural practices.T Of course, world heritage is but one facet of the move towards globalisation and while a shared heritage is desired by cercain countries, it is not a universal presumption. Moreover, UNESCO's idea of a \WH list is not new. Various precursor listings have been compiled over the ages to catalogue the most spectacular natural and cultural heritage in the world. One of the first known inventories was rhe Seven $Tonders of the Ancient \7orld, based on guidebooks popular among Hellenic sightseers, including monuments located around the Mediterranean rim.8 This ancient list inspired the creation of many similar rankings ever since. Recently, the Swiss-based NewT$Tonders Foundation invited people around the globe to cast their votes on the Internet for the New 7 \Wonders of the tVorld. Over 100 million people worldwide participated. On 1 J,rly 2001, the foundation organised a excluding local people from their own heritage. \7ith

136 Noel B. Salazar

televised declaration ceremony in which it announced the winners: the Great \Wall (China), Petra (fordan), Chichn kz (Mexico), the Statue of Christ Redeemer (Brazil), the Colosseum (Italy), Machu Picchu (Peru) and the Taj Mahal (India). The results were cleverly used by the winning countries to boost both national pride and international visitor numbers. For the same reasoni, countries such as Canada, Poland, Porrugal, Russia and Ukraine (who were not included in the final lisr) organised their own national Seven.\Tonders campaigns.

lnterpreting local heritage for a global audience

the globalisacion heritage through tourism can Although seldom acknowledged, of influence its interpretation, both for locals and tourists. We should nor seriously forget that cultural heritage mainly has value because the selectivemeaning that of people ascribe to it, often through personalidentification and attachment. The way people relate to a place is not so much causedby the specific site attributes but by the visitor's personal motivations and perceptions(Poria et al. 2O0r.Those who view a site as bound up with their own heritage are likely to behave signifrcanrly differently from others. A single heritage site can provoke varied degreesof understanding - be it on a local, national, regional or even global scale.In fact, there is no heritage without inteqpretation,and the atrachedsubjecrivemeaning is always cul'society and often contested,because filters herirage.througha rurally (re)constructed value system that undoubtedly changesover time and space,and acrosssociety' (Timothy and Boyd 2003: 2). As Adams writes: 'heritage' 'tradition' In today'scontext of internationaltourisr, and becomeall the more intensely rethought, rearticulated,and recreatedand contested,both politicians, and visitors. Tourism does not by insidersand outsider packagers, 'authentic 'invented past' and the simply imposedisjunctures betweenthe p6t', as eadier researchers suggested,but rather blurs these artificial lines, creating new politically chargedarenasin which competing ideasabout heritage, ritual, and uadition are symbolicallyenacted. (Adams 2003: 93) As a tourism construct, a wide variety of individuals and institutions attribute rneaningand authenticity to heritage(Peleggi 1996>. The interpretation of heritage is important to defining, evoking and enhancing its meaning (Uzzell 1989). Making the different layersof multiple and shifting meanings'and their dissonances accessible understandable, both local residents and for and tourists from varied backgrounds, requires carefully designed strategies of representation. Interpretative servicesare not a special favour to visitors; they are an essentialpart of the work of heritage management(seeFigure 7.2). As Moscardo 'successful inteqpretation is critical both for the effective management and argues, tourism' (1996: 376). This is conseryation built heriage sites and for sustainable of an extremely challenging task, becausethe desire to (re)presentheritage for both

Balancing standardisaton differentaton 137 and

Figure7.2 Aspiring heritage guides learning the trick of the interpretation trade (Photo by the author)

domestic and international audiences often createsa tension around the selection of 'although stories to be told and what is to be left untold (Salazarin press). Moreover, the global heritage dialogue tends to present the built environment as an empty container, places of heritage remain places where real people live and where real conflicts may arise' (Al Sayyad 2001 22). \fhat does the globalisation of heritage do to its interpretation? Alternative readings of heritage as imbued with local values and meanings risk being subsumed, and thus erased, by the universalist assertionsof global heritage tourism. $7hen the interpretation of heritage crosses boundaries and becomes entangled in the complex web of global tourism, it can have the effect of disembedding local (or nationally) produced sensesof identity. Local tour guides, therefore, play an instrumental role in of mediating the tension between ongoing processes global standardisation and local differentiarion. 2001).This Paradoxically, they often seem to rely on fashionable global tourism '[ocal' (Salazar tales to interpret and sell their cultural heritage as authentically is partly because tourists appear to appreciate interpretations that combine narratives about the particularities of a destination with well-known tourism imaginaries that are circulating globally. In tourism to developing countries, for example, marketing has long capitalised on culrural economies of the exotic and the primirive, each of which are to be discovered in the pre-modern, traditional. However, this does not mean that local guides merely reproduce normative global templates. Guiding is always to some extent improvised, creative and spontaneous,

138 Noel B. Salazar

in this way defying complete standardisation. In the interaction with tourists, local guides become themselves creative producers of rourism rhecoric (Salazar in press). trained heritage guides not only benefit tourists but also rhe local community, by preparing and instructing visitors to be more culrurally sensitive and ethical, follow minimal impact or responsible behaviour and encourage respect and proper consideration for local traditions and customs. UNESCO has recently also become aware of the importance of professional tour guiding and rhe organisarion has taken a proactive role in benchmarking heritage interprerarion, especially in Asia. Increased torism activities at heritage sites tend to ovedook the importance of transmitting knowledge about and learning the signi6cance as well as the cultural value of such sites (Dioko and Unakul 2005). The UNESCO Asia and Pacific region office in Bangkok, Thailand, was among the first to acknowledge this. In 2005, ir the Asian Academy of Heritage Managemenr nerwork, a regional-based programme for heritage tour guide training (UNESCO 2005). The 'Cultural Macao Institute for Torisrn Studies is che frrst institution ro offer a proposed, together with Heritage Specialist Guide Training and Certification Programme for UNESCO \World Heritage Sites'. The programme aims to address several important challenges arising from the greater and more frequent interface between heritage and global tourism and how on-site tour guides specially trained in heritage guiding can play a central role in meeting these cl'rallenges.It is noteworrhy that this is an example of a 'regional standards of excellence' practice, rather than an attempt to create a global benchmark. Highly

Glocalising heritage: the case of central Java, lndonesa

Java is the fifth largest and most populated island of the Indonesianarchipelago. The central region of Javacomprisesof two provinces:Central Javaand the much smaller Yogyakarta SpecialProvince.The earliestsigns of habiration in rhis fertile volcanic aea are prehistoric. From the seventhcenrury the region was domjnated by Hindu and Buddhist kingdoms, giving rise to the eighth-centuryBuddhisr shrineof Borobudur, the ninth-century Hindu temple complex:of Prambanan,and many other temples.Islam, coming mainly via India, gained ground in the inner areas of the island during the sixteenth century. The Dutch began to colonisethe archipelago in the early seventeenth century. The British established brief presence a on (1811-16), but the Dutch retainedcontrol Javaunder Sir Thomas StamfordRaffles until Indonesia'sindependence130 yearslater. \hen the Dutch reoccupied Jakarta afrcr the Japaneseoccupation of Java during \7orld Sfar II (194(c-/r9), Yogyakna functioned as the stronghold of the independence movement by becoming rhe provisional capital of the newly declaredRepublic of Indonesia.In return for this unfailing suppoft, the first Indonesian central government passed a law in 1950 granting Yogyakana the starusof SpecialProvinceand making im Sultan Governor for life. Organisedtourism to the centreof Javafirst developed under Dutch colonial rule, (Association of Tourist Traffic of the mainly through rhe Vereeniging Toeristenuerea

Balancing standardisation differentaton 139 and (now Dutch East Indies), which openedan Official Tourist Bureau in \Weltevreden governmentcontinued to the Jakarta)in 1908. After independence, new Indonesian promote international tourism, although President Sukarno'spolitical rhetoric was markedly anti-\estern. Under Major-General Suharto's New Order government (L966-98), long-term planning and a relatively stable environment for business transformed the country's tourism, and Yogyakarta became a major gateway to central and east Java, both for international and domestic visitors. By the midthird most important sourceof foreign rev1990s, tourism had becomeIndonesia's enue and Yogyakartathe secondmost visited destinationafter Bali. \While central J*^ offers a whole range of touristic activities, the main product is culrural heritage. The three Indonesiancultural sites on UNESCO's \7H List - the PrambananTemple Compounds (1991), the Borobudur Temple Compounds (199t) and Sangiran Early Man Site (1 996) - are all located in centnl Java.Four others rhe Yogyakarta PalaceComplex, the Ratu Boko Temple Complex, the Sukuh Hindu. Temple and the Great Mosque of Demak - are since L995 on UNESCO's tentative lisr. The most common tour package includes visits to Borobudur, the Yogyakara Palaceand Prambanan.\7hen time permits, tourists also have a chance ro experience central Java'srich intangible culrural heritage,including performing arts (tradirional couft dances,RamayanaBallet, shadowpuppet plays and gamelan orchestra uaditional craftsmanship(woodcarving, batik design, the silverware perfclrmances), from Kotagede and the pottery from Kasongan) and occasionalrirual or festive events (such as the annual Sekatenand Labuhan festivals). As Dahlespoints out in her study on the politics of cultural tourism in Indonesia, [T]he cultural heritage of the Yogyakarra areahas shaped the (international) images of Indonesia, as government propagandahas used architectural strucof tures like the temples and the sultan's palaceand expressions art like the Ramayana danceto promote Indonesiantourisrnworld-wide. (Dahles 200I: 20) during the New Order era,when This ti" of image building parricularlyhappened the central government (led by Javanese)strongly favoured central Javz in its (re)invention of Indonesia,promoting it as the cultural heart of the nation. The currenr planning and developmentof heritagetourism in the areais in the handsof many authorities at various levels: city (Yogyakana Ciry Department of Tourism, Arts and Culture) and regency (Magelang, Sleman and Klaten Tourism Offices), provincial (Central Java and Yogyakarca Provincial Tourism Offices), Java (|awa Promo),national(Ministry of Culture and Tourism),regional(ASEAN Commimeeon Trade and Tourism and APEC Tourism S7orking Group), and global (UNWTO havewidely policy makersat thesedifferent echelons and UNESCO) levels.Because at level are often contested another. decisionstaken at one diverging inrerests, UNESCO hasa long-standinghistory of involvementin centralJava'sheritage.In campaign to restore Borobudur, L912, it launched a US$25 million safeguarding ofren lisred as one of the sevenforgotten wondersof the world. Concurrent with the

140 Noel B. Salazar

part of the Ramayana story at Prambanan Figure Localtour guideenactng 7.3 elevation of Borobudur and Prambananto WHS in L99L, UNESCO collaborated with UNDP and the former Indonesian Directorate General of Tourism in the 'Cultural proTourism DevelopmentCentral Java-Yogyakarta' ambitious l99L-94 (UNESCO 1992). Since the May 2006 earthquake,UNESCO has been actively iect involved in the rehabilitation of the damagedPrambanantemple complex. Another influential global player in the area'sheritagemanagementis the non-profit S7orld Monumenm Fund, which listed Kotagede Heritage Disrrict in Yogyakarta on its sites.Kongede, which 2008 \orld Monuments \7atch list of 100 most endangered suffered severedamage after the 2006 eafthquake, is also the current focus of the local JoSi^ Heritage Society. (Hindu) It is no coincidencethat sites such as Sangiran(prehistoric),Prambanan and Borobudur (Buddhist) appear on UNESCO's list of \7orld Heritage, whereas Sukuh temple or the Sultan's Palaceare not (yet) included. Afier all, the central government in Jakanaproposessites to UNESCO and it is in its strategic interest to

Balancing standardisaton differentaton l4 | and 'safe' nominate politically monuments. Sukuh temple, for instance,is a beautiful Hindu temple rucked away in che highlands of Centnl Java.It is unique, not only in overall design, but also in decoration:it is the only known erotic temple on Java. Around the temple, statues and reliefs of erect male members abound. Given the moral sensibilities of the majoriry Muslim population (and the increasing power of fundamentalists), Sukuh is not a site the Indonesian government would want to promote. The Sultan's Palace,on the other hand, is Muslim (or, at least,pardy) but 'dead' heritagesite, a place where current politics are being played out insteadof a such as the Ratu Boko Hindu-Buddhist complex. The internationally little-known Mosque of Demak, the historical place from where Islam spreadaround Java,probas ably has more chanceof being reclassified world heritage than the Sultan's Palace. Such politics of heritage serveas a reminder that, ultimately, a \WHS is the product of agency on the national level. Besides,the Indonesian government has its own aadonal list of cagar bud*ya (heritage conservation).q Central Java is not only'passively undergoing ouside influences in its heritage management,but also acting as a symbolic location where broader heritage tourism agendasare being set. As a fashionablevenue for conventions,Yogyakarta has had in its shareof key conferences this domain. In L992, for instance,the International Conferenceon Cultural Tourism led to the Yogyakarta f)eclaration on National Cultures and Universal Tourism. This was followed up in 1995 by an IndonesianSwiss Forum on Cultural and International Tourism and in 2006 by an UN\TOon sponsoredInternational Conference Cultural Tourism and Local Communities, leading to the Yogyakarta Declarationon Cultural Tourism, Local Communities and Poverty Alleviation. In L994, the city hosted the APEC Tourism \Working Group meeting and, in 2001, it welcomedthe East Asia Inter-RegionalTourism Forum. In 2002, Yogyakarta housed the ASEAN Tourism Forum. During the last decade,centralJava's tourism has suflbred from a whole seriesof unfortunate events in Indonesia and the wider region (Salazarin press).However, 2006 dealt a faal blow to the alreadyailing industry. Between Muy and July of that year, the area had to endure numerous natural disasters,including multiple- erupin tions of Mt. Merapi (one of the most active volcanoes the world), a minor $unami (reminding Indonesiansof the tragic 2004 tsunami in Aceh) and a maior earthquake of 5.9 on the Richter Scale,killing around 6,000 people and leaving an estimated Large numbers of tourists cancelledtheir trips to homeless.lo 1.5 million Javanese exposingthe fragiliry of the local tourism sectorbut alsobringing to light the Java, resilienceof irs workers. Prambananwrs among those sites hit by the quake, along with parts of the Sultan's Palace.Borobudur did not suffer from the earthquakebut the monument was coveredunder dark greyash from Mt. had to be cleanedbecause Merapi's eruptions. The disasrersdisclosedsorneof the local-to-global polirics driving heritage tourism. Ir rook almost a monrh beforeUNESCO sent international experts to measure rhe damageto Prambanan.During that time, the monument was closedto visitors. a After che assessmenc,newly built viewing platform (very similar ro the oneserec2001 around Ground Zero in New York) allowed touriststo ted after 11 Seprember

142 Noel B. Salazar

see the main temple complex from a safedistance, without being allowed ro enter ir. PT Taman \fisata, the state-owned enterprise managing the park, decided nor ro lower the entrance fees (US$10 for foreigners). Anticipating tourisr complaints, many local tour operators decided to suspend trips to Prambanan. The few rourists who still came to visit did not want the service of a local guide (approximately U$5 extra) because they knew that they could not get near the main temples ^nyway. This left the local guides in a very precarious situation. Some of the securiry guards in charge of protecdng the site offered foreign tourists to enter the damaged main complex anyway, in exchange for sizeable amounts of cash. The on-site guides knew about these practices but preferred to keep quiet. The calamities became the feeding ground for new interpretative narratives and imaginaries (Salazar 2009). The adversity precipitated a spontaneous revitalisation of old Javanese myths and mystical beliefs, including the legend of Loro Jonggrang (see Figurc 7.4).rr In the weeks following the earthquake, the Prambanan guides

Localversusglobalnterpretations heritage Figure or of 7.4 RaraJonggrang Prambananl (Photoby the author)

and differentaton 143 ed.l.ingstandardisation blamed UNESCO for keeping the main temples closed to the public (preventing rhem from earning their living). This translated into thei r narratives containing to much fewer references the organisation or to the officially sanctioned interpretations of the \fHS. Through initiatives such as the 2008 Prambanan Camp for \lorld Heritage Volunteers, the negative perception of UNESCO in Prambananwas somewhatadjusred.This project, in collaborationwith the ArchaeologyDepartment and Provincial Tourism Offrce of Central Java, enabled international volunteers to assisr the expercswith the restoration of the temple and to increaserhe heritage of awareness local youth. The example of Prambanan illustrates how, in times of change, the local meaning and function of heritage can change too. The growing supralocal interdependenceof heritage tourism is irreversible but variously received (Salazar press).The global recognidon by UNESCO, for instance,is used srategiin and criticised cally when guiding for foreign tourists, but local guides clearly sensed 'distaace' - not recognising that, in the period after the earthquake rhe organisadon's were to blame rather than internadonal ones. narional instances often,

What's

next?

As this chapter has illustrated, cultural heritage tourisrn is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, ir can be a positive force to retain cultural values and to help mitigare threars. On the other hand, global tourism can become itself a menace to the sustainable managemenr of heritage. Therefore, a good understanding of the tourism secror, its markers and trends is instrumental to sustainable heritage managemenr (cf. Pedersen 2002). Those in charge of heritage sites clearly need to pay closer arrenrion to reconciling the needs of the various parties involved, each with rheir own interests. Instead of one universally accepted meaning, the significance of heritage - be it natural or cultural, tangible or intangible - is characterised by pluriversatility. Heritage appropriation and interpretation are always enmeshed in complex webs of meaning, variously cherished and expressed by shareholders at differenr levels. Cultural heritage is, by nature, a unique and fragile non-renewable resource. Therefore, it is imperacive to understand how to develop these sites sustainably while protecting and conserving them for the long term. If not, irreparable and irreversible damage can be done. Although often heralded as a likely solution ro conservation and communiry development challenges, local staff and communities in poor countries do not always have the resources,experience or training they need in order ro use rourism as an effective instrument for achieving these goals. The tools ro provide coherent and sustainable heritage management are yet to be fully developed or effectively applied. As I have argued, heritage interpretation and (re)presentation by local tour guides play a key role in this. To make local heritage workers more competitive in the current landscape of international labour circulation, standardisation seems to be the way to go. Even if rhere remain great local variations in qualifications, there is a global tendency to standardise, reinforcing the idea that tourism is a global practice. This chapter has argued that thinking of globalisation and local differentiation as being opposed to

144 Noel B. Salazar each other is not very helpful in understandingand explaining contemporarytourism. The constant (re)shaping of local heritage is in many respectspart of and simultaneouslyoccurring with the globalising processitself. By studying the daily local practicesof local guides and the way they (re)presentand actively (re)conscruct culture for a diversifred audienceof global tourists, we can learn a lot about how processes globalisation and localisationare intimately intertwined and how this of through tourism and other channels. glocalisation is transforming culrure processes negotiation regarding the interof Such srudies bring to light that the pretation and (re)presentation heritage ^re highly complex, multifaceted and of fexible owing to the involvement of various parties with different interestsin these interactions. As global rourism conrinues to expand, heritage sites will be the sourceof historically unprecedentednumbers of tourists. Most indicators suggestthere will be a iuge increasein tourisrn worldwide over the next ten years, virtually doubling the current numbers. It is estimaied that China alone will produce 100 million outbound tourists by 2025. Interestingly, a large amount of the increasedtravel for leisurewill be intraregional(rather than global). At any rate, the prediccedgrowth of intraregional to'urism - I.2 billion intraregional arrivals per year by 202A NTO For cultural heritage 2001) - will seriouslychange the global tourism landscape. and local rhe challengesof global (and, ever more, regional) standardisation tourism, \While the managementof heritage is differentiation will take on new dimensions. usually the responsibility of a particular community or custodiangroup, the proof interpretationand (re)presentation the cultural diversity of tecrion, conservation, for any particular place or peopleare important challenges us all.

N otes
1 Since the definirion of herirage has been expandedro include not only material manifesrarions (monumenrs and objeccsthat have been preserved over time) but also living and rhe rraditions rhar groups and communities have inherited from their expressions the previously made distinction between ancesrorsand transmit to their descendanrs, tourism and culcural tourism has becomeredundant. heritage at 2 rJhile rhere is protest against standardisation the global levgl, homogenising policies blocs - which are believed to be more culrurally uniform - are proposed by regional perceivedas lessof a problem. This is panicularly the casein Asia, the continent with the developfasrestgrowrh rate of inrra-regional tourism. APEC, for instance,is successfully Tourism Occurational Skill Standards while ASEAN is working on a i.g its own Framework. for Common ComperencyStandards Tourism Professionals notion dubakua(becoming autoglocalisarionconcepr is modelled on the Japanese 3 The (aboriginal, living on one's own land). This originally chrhonous),derived from docbaku to referredro the agricultural principle of adapting generally acceptedfarming cechniques co local condirions. In rhe 1980s, the term was adopted by Japanesebusinesspeople globat localisationor a global outlook adaptedto local conditions. The marketing express rechniqueof melding rhe global inside the local quickly spread'worldwide. as 4 The culrural heriragesitesare described thosemonuments,groupsof buildings or locales value. scientific,ethnologicalor anthropological aesthetic, wirh historical, archaeological, orgltourism-e.htm Seehttp ://www. international-icomos. 5

Balancing standardisation differenadon 145 and

6 \7irh rhe promorion of sustainabletourism actions and improved tourism practices a concern at many rfHS, the N7orld Heritage Tourism Programme developspolicies and processes site managementand for the statesparties to che Convention to addressthis for increasingly importanr managementconcern. It implements actions to preservesites for developmentand intercultural dialogue. furure generationsand contributes to sustainable Seehtcp://whc.unesco.orglenisustainabletourism/ were common in the \Testern q'odd as wel[. 7 Until the 1970s, such ideasand practices The all-pervasive ideology of modernisation equated traditional societies with underdevelopment and an inferior phaseto full developrnent. 8 The seven ancient wonders included ttre great pyramid of Giza (Egypt), the hanging gardens of Babylon (Iraq), rhe statue of Zeus at Olympia (Greece),the temple of Artemis (Turkey), the Colossus at ar Ephesus(Turkey), rhe mausoleumof Maussollos Halicarnassus (Egypc).The only wonder that stood (Greece) and the lighthouse of Alexandria of Rhodes the rest of time is the Great Pyramid of Giza, which was inscribed as a \7HS in 1979 and is one of Egypt's major tourism attracdons. of 9 The national regulation concerningthe preservation culrural sites and objects(UndangI-Itdang Nomor 5 Tahan 1992, Pemelibaraan Benda Benda dan Situs Benda Cagar Budaya) Staatsbtad1931, N0.238). was basedon Dutch colonial law (Monumenten1rdonantie, 10 Since che disastersalso greatly affected my fieldwork, I wrote a public weblog entided wirh reflectionsas EartbquakeDisastr: An Antbropologist's Repmt fron Yogyakarta,Indonesia, che evencsunfolded: http://www.museum.upenn.edu/new/research/blogs/earthquake-blog. shtml 11 According co local beliefs,rhe statue in the north chamberof the central Shivashrine does for nor represenrthe Hindu goddessDurga but Loro Jonggrang (Javanese sleodervirgin). princesswho agreedto marry a man shedid not love Legend has it rhat shewas a Javanese if he could build her a temple ornamentedwith a thousand statues,between the setting and rising of the sun. \henthe man was about to fulfil her demand, she tried to trick him. He was so furious rhat he peuified her and she becamethe last (and most beautiful) of the thousand statues.

References
'The Asia: Interplaying the local and in politics of hericage Southeast Adams, K.M. (2003) che global', lnd.onuia and the Malay 'Vorld, 3l: 9l-LOl. Tradition, Maufaauring Haitage: Global Nortzs and Al Sayyad, N. (ed.) (2001) Consuming Urban Forrnsin the Age of Tourism,London: Routledge. of Ashworrh, G.J. and Tunbridge, J.E. (2000) Tlte Tourist-HistoricCity: Rrosputand Prospeo Pergamon. Managing the HeritdgeCity, Amsterdam: in 'theGlobal Village',london: Routledge. Boniface,P. and Fowler, P. (199, Haitageand Tourism 'I-ocal in uniqueness the global village: Heritage tourism in Singapore', Chang, T.C. (1999) Professional Geographu, 1: 9l-103. 5 (2001) Tottrisrn, Hritage and National CultureinJaua: Dilenmas rf a Lual Cortrunity, Dahles, H. Richmond: Curzon Press. UNESCO, Vorld Heritage,and Tourisn, Lanham: Di Giovine, M.A. (2008) The Huitage+cape: Lexington Books. 'The need for specialized training in heritage tour Dioko, L.A. and Unakul, M.H. (2001) and opporguiding ar Asia's world heritagesites:Preliminary findings on the challenges tunities', paper presentedat PATA Educator'sForum, Macao, 16 April 2005'Heritage, Annals of local communitiesand economicdevelopment', Hampron, M.P. (2005) Tourisrn Researclt, 7 35-J9. 32:

146 Noel B. Salazar

Tourismand McKercher, B. and Du Cros, H. (2002) Cultural Tourism:Tbe Partnrsbip Between New York: Hawonh Hospitality Press. Cultural Haitage Managemenl, Research,23: Moscardo,G. (1996)'Mindful visitors: Heritage and tourism', Annals of Tourism 376-91. Yogyakarta: Gadjah.Mada UniManagemmt, Nuryanti, W. (ed.) (1997) Toarismand Heritage versity Press. Assistance and of Tourismand Cultural Heritage:A Reaiew Deaelopment N\HO (199il Sustainable Oslo: Nordic \World Heritage Office. Sustainability, its Potentialto Promote Pedersen,A. (2002) Managing Tourisn at Vorld Haitage Sites:A Practical Manual fn World Haitage Site Managus, Paris: UNESCO Norld Heritage Centre. 'National heritage and global tourism in Thailand', Annals of Tourism Peleggi, M. (1996) 43248. Researcb,23: 'The core of heritage tourism', Annals of Tourisn Butler, R. and Airey, D. (2003) Poria, Y., 238-14. Research,30: 'Heritage Tourism, Conflict, and the Public Porcer, B.\7. and Salazar,N.B. (eds) (2001) Studies11(t). Interest', Theme Issue,International Journal of Herilage 'Glocalization: Time-space and homogeneity-heterogeneity', in (I99, Robertson, R. London: Sage. S. M. Feathersrone, Lash and R. Robertson(eds)Global Modernitie, 'Tourism and glocalization:"Local" tour guiding', Annals of Toarisn Salazar,N.B. (2005) Research, 62846. 32: 'Towrds --i2007) a global culrure of heritage interpretation?Evidencefrom Indonesiaand Researcb, T4A. Tanzania',TourismRecrttion 32: 'The -12009) or world's, Asia's, Indonesia's ours?Heritage interprerationand appropriaat Heritage in Asia: Convergingforcesand conrion in times of change, paper presented 8-10 January2009. Singapore, flicting values,National University of Singapore, --{In Press) Enuisioning Edn: Moltilizing lmaginaries in Tourim and Beyond, Oxford: Berghahn. 'F{reriage and Tourism, PIA and Global InterN.B. and Porrer, B.$tr. (eds) (2004) Salazar, in ests',Theme issue,Antbropology Action ll(21r. Shackley, M.L. (ed.) (199S) Visitm Managemmt:Casestadies front Uhrld HeritageSl,Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Timothy, DJ. and Boyd, S.\f. (2003) HeritageTourisn, Harlow: Prentice Hall-{2006)'Heritage rourism in rhe 2lst cencury:Valued traditions and new perspectives', Journal of Huitage Tourism,1: 1-16. Timothy, DJ. and Prideaux, B. (2004)'Issues in heritage and culture in the Asia Pacific 9: region', Asia Paciftt Journal rtf TourisntResearch, 2l)-23. CentralJaua - Yogyakarta:Final report,YogyaUNESCO (1992) Ctltural Tourisn Deuelopnent karta: UNESCOiUNDP/Directorate General of Tourism --{2005) Heritage Tour Guide Training and Cutifcation for UNESCO Y{/orldHuitage Sites, Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok Of6ce. UNSflTO (2008) ToarismHighligbts, 2008 Edition, Madrid: United Nations $7orld Tourism Organization. Urry, J. Q0O2) Tbe TouristGaze,London: SageBelhaven Press. JzzelI, D.L. (ed.) (1989) Heritagelnterpretation,London: \7al[,G. and Black, H. (2004) 'Global heritageand local problems: Some examplesfrom in Indonesia' Currentlssues Tourisrn,l: 436-39. , \lTo (2001) Tourism2020 vision, Madrid: \7orld Tourism organization. and \/TTC (2008) Progress Priorities 2008/09, London: \World Travel and Tourism Council.