Karen Hughes, Barbara J. Little, and Roy Ballantyne

Integrating Education and Entertainment in Archaeological Tourism:Complementary Concepts or Opposite Ends of the Spectrum?

Karen Hughes, Barbara J. Little, and Roy Ballantyne

(ext)There is the challenge! To put your visitor in possession of at least one disturbing idea that may grow into a fruitful interest (Tilden 1977:91). (end ext)

The editors of this volume raise the question of how far can entertainment go and still be educational. In examining how education and entertainment are compatible within the context of archaeological tourism, it is argued that they are indeed compatible and that entertaining experiences can be designed to have maximum educational impact.“Education” is often thought of as formal classroom teaching of children, but we also use the term more broadly to include adult free-choice learning and all types of opportunities to learn for any age group. “Entertainment” is often thought of as enjoyable and voluntary. However, experiences designed to be entertaining can also be vacant and boring if a viewer can find no content or learning opportunity in them. The learning can be quite variable from new interpretive technology (the gee whiz factor), to new facts (I didn’t know people back then did that), provocative inquiries, and new conceptual questions (e.g., I never thought about it that way before). There will be differing perspectives on the meeting grounds of tourism, archaeology, and education, and for this reason, the definitions for education and entertainment are left loose and flexible.

Archaeological tourism includes a variety of possible experiences, including physically passive viewing of a museum display to active participation in an archaeological investigation. Tourists might make a destination out of an archaeological region such as the island of Crete, the Yucatán, or the Four Corners area of the US Southwest to visit spectacular archaeological ruins. An archaeological attraction might be a side trip, such as visiting Tulum while on a beach trip to Cancun in Mexico. Travelers may find themselves unexpectedly in a position to visit an archaeological investigation in progress. Such opportunities can occur in the field in settings as varied as national parks and city centers, particularly as more cultural heritage management firms open their excavations for public education. “Accidental” visits may also involve laboratory investigations.For example, tourists on a trip to Washington DC visiting the shops and studios in the renovated Old Torpedo Factory in Alexandria, Virginia will find themselves viewing artifact analyses through the window of Alexandria Archaeology’s city-managed archaeology laboratory. Whether on recreational or cultural trips, whether by design or by accident, travelers can find themselves being archaeological tourists.

The Concept of Learning from the Tourism Scholars’ Perspective

(ext) Now, what I want is, Facts.Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, sir! (Dickens 1995:9). (end ext)

Ask people to describe their concept of learning and many will automatically reflect upon their school days – the tedium of listening to teachers drone on; the challenge of converting facts, figures, and dates into something useful; themind-numbing drudgery of revising for exams and so on. Do their recollections include descriptors such as “fun,”“entertaining,” or “interesting?”Very rarely! Why not? Are learning and entertainment mutually exclusive terms? Is it not possible to have fun and learn at the same time? Learning and entertainment can, and probably should, occur simultaneously if archaeological sites are to attract and educate a broad range of visitors.

Free-Choice Learning Environments

While learning is traditionally associated with schools and tertiary institutions, almost all our adult learning experiences take place outside these formal learning environments. Such non-formal learning environments include places such as libraries, museums, parks, wildlife centers, aquariums, heritage sites, and art galleries. The learning that occurs in such settings is known as “free-choice learning” because people are free to choose what, where, when, and with whom they learn (Falk 2001; Packer 2006). In other words, learning is voluntary and is often guided by the motives and interests of the individual. The type of learning experience also varies – some visitors have specific learning goals in mind (to discover more about the Inca civilization, to view a particular style of art, or to identify a historical artifact), while others have more general interests such as being out with family or friends. For many, the key attraction of free-choice learning environments is that they offer opportunities for discovery, exploration, adventure, and enjoyment (Packer 2006).

As highlighted in the introduction to this book, heritage experiences are attracting increasing numbers of visitors worldwide. This phenomenon has been attributed to a range of factors, including a growing public awareness of heritage; more flexibility in terms of leisure, mobility, and disposable income; the desire to escape from “everyday” routines; and the psychological fulfillment of learning about personal family history (Waitt 2000). The popularity of television programs such as the BBC’s Time Team, which documents a three-day archaeological dig, is further testament to the popularity of such experiences. What implications does this growing public interest in archaeology have for the type of educational experiences offered at heritage and archaeological sites?

Perhaps most importantly, the widespread popularity of heritage sites and attractions suggests that visitors are no longer likely to be people with specialist knowledge of, or interest in, history or archaeology. Indeed, it is widely documented and accepted that visitors to tourism attractions (including heritage and archaeological sites) are heterogeneous, comprising tour groups, independent travelers, grey nomads, backpackers, historians, archaeologists, families with young children, community groups, and school groups with a wide range of interests, experiences, needs, and expectations (Falk and Dierking 2000; Ham 1996; Moscardo 1999; Orams 1994). Thus, any discussion of what should and should not be offered to visitors must first consider who actually visits archaeological sites and why. As Beeho and Prentice (1997) caution, tourist attractions that fail to understand, anticipate and satisfy their visitors’ motives and needs are unlikely to flourish in the current competitive marketplace. This is important, as to remain economically viable, historic and archaeological sites are under considerable pressure to develop experiences and attractions that appeal to wider audiences, both physically and intellectually (Malcolm-Davies 2004).

Visitor Motivation

Common motives identified in studies of heritage and archaeological sites include viewing works of art, learning about architecture, worshiping, visiting attractive settings, absorbing the site’s “atmosphere,” experiencing a pleasant day out, connecting to one’s ancestors and paying homage (Poria et al. 2005). Gaining educational and nostalgic insights into past cultures and civilizations has also been identified as a motive for visitation (Chhabra 2007). These motives are relatively general in nature and rarely reflect a specific interest in history or archaeology. Studies of ancient monuments in Wales conducted in the mid-1980s revealed that although the majority of visitors were interested in learning about the site, the emphasis was on informal rather than formal learning – visitors wanted to be informed, but few wanted to be “educated” per se (Light 1995). A more recent study of 12 historic sites variously located Sweden, UK, Canada, and the US found that visitors’ top three priorities were to learn, to gain a sense of the past,and to have fun (Light 1995). Beeho and Prentice (1997) also found that fun was an important motive for heritage visitation. They interviewed 40 visitors to New Lanark World Conservation Village in Wales, a restored industrial village that was historically significant during the British industrial revolution. Respondents’ motives for visitation generally related to the desire to spend the day with family and/or friends. The researchers noted that respondents did not cite a specific interest in history, further supporting the notion that visitors are searching for general rather than specific historical experiences.

These general “pleasant day out” motives are not unique to heritage sites. A recent comparative study by Ballantyne et al. (2008) compared motives of visitors who attended nine types of tourism sites in Australia (museum, art gallery, wildlife center, aquarium, heritage site, national park, marine park, botanic garden, and whale watching). Analysis revealed that museum and art gallery visitors were predominantly motivated by goals related to “learning and discovery” and “enjoyment.” For all the other sites (including the heritage site), enjoyment was the most important motive. Similar research in wildlife tourism settings, such as zoos and aquariums, also indicates that visitors are largely motivated by non-educational goals, and that these attractions are often regarded as places of entertainment and recreation rather than sites for serious learning.To illustrate, Reade and Waran (1996) found that the most common reasons for visiting Edinburgh Zoo were: somewhere to go with friends and relatives; for fun; and entertainment. Only 4% of the sample claimed their visit was based on the desire to learn about animals. Likewise, Shackley (1996) found that in 1992, 48% of visitors to UK zoos came “for a day out” and a further 40% visited “to entertain their children.” Again, only a small proportion (6%) stated their visit was motivated by a desire to learn more about animals and conservation. Similar findings have been reported by researchers in New Zealand (Coll et al. 2003; Ryan andSaward 2004) and the US (Dunlap andKellert 1989; Holzer et al. 1998). In such cases, learning is likely to be regarded as an optional extra rather than the raison d’etre of the visit.

These studies all suggest that visitors are largely motivated by the desire to have an interesting, pleasant, and/or entertaining experience. Learning appears to be secondary, but does that actually matter?If visitors only learn one or two interesting things, is that not better than nothing at all?As Lowenthal states, is it not better to have “a lighthearted dalliance with the past than a wholesale rejection of it?” (1981:232). The tourism perspective in this chapter argues in the affirmative, presenting research and examples for support.

Most heritage attractions regard their primary purpose as one of education (Malcolm-Davies 2004). The provision of entertainment is often seen as detracting from this goal, and indeed, the role and suitability of entertainment at such sites is a hotly debated topic. Fundamental to these arguments is the notion that education and entertainment are mutually exclusive constructs.Experiences that are perceived and marketed as strictly educational may have limited appeal and are unlikely to attract the visitor numbers needed to ensure the ongoing viability of the site. For most visitors, the promise of entertainment, fun, and engagement are essential to attract customers. This argument will be explored further in the sections below.

Heritage tourism is in direct competition with a wide range of other leisure and tourism activities and experiences. Modern society is accustomed to accessing information from a wide variety of sources: television, Internet, and pod casts are commonplace, and information is delivered and absorbed in bite-size chunks. The challenge for visitor attractions, therefore, is to design products and experiences that complement or “fit in” with what consumers are accustomed to. It is granted that the development of high-tech presentation techniques is unlikely to sit comfortably in many heritage and archaeological sites, but there needs to be some element of entertainment to appeal to the mass audiences that are visiting these sites in increasing numbers.

Visitor Experiences

Visits to tourist attractions are often regarded as experiences, ones that involve and evoke emotional reactions, feelings, expressive behaviors, and activities. Gilmore and Pine (2007) posit that rather than simply focusing on goods and services, modern consumers (tourists, travelers, and visitors) also search for memorable experiences that are engaging and personal. Thus when making purchasing decisions, visitors consider what benefits will accrue from the experience. It is, therefore, important to stimulate interest, to appeal to visitors’ emotions, and to offer benefits or rewards for participation or visitation.

As an example, Beeho and Prentice’s (1997) survey of visitors to New Lanark World Heritage Village found that the most satisfying aspect of the attraction was the Annie McLeod Experience, a simulated ride through a recreated village complete with the sounds and smells of 1820s. The narration is provided by the “ghost” of Annie, a ten-year-old mill girl who is portrayed via a hologram. Visitors reported that they particularly enjoyed this experience because it brought history to life and presented information in a different and interesting way. They also found it emotive and engaging, and they were prompted to reflect on how different their lives are from the ones portrayed. Thus, although the narration and models are based on facts, the method of presentation taps into visitors’ emotions and helps them to view the site from the perspective of one of its past inhabitants. In this way, visitors learn through experiential insight into history rather than from facts and figures (Beeho and Prentice 1997).

Another popular tourist attraction that has made full use of this approach is Jorvik Viking Center in York, England. One of the UK’s most popular tourism attractions outside London (Jones 1999), the center allows visitors to travel in “time cars” through a reconstruction of the actual Viking-Age streets that once stood on this site. The houses and shops are laid out in exactly the same pattern as they were at 5.30pm, October 25th, AD975 and are presented complete with the sounds and smells of the time. The faces of the models have also been reconstructed from Viking skulls, further adding to the sense of realness. The experience includes an activity area where visitors are allowed to handle and sort replicas of actual finds from the archaeological dig.

Researchers argue that experiences that envelop visitors in the sounds, smells, textures, and tastes of a place or event are particularly popular as they give visitors a feel for belonging in another time/place (Falk and Dierking 2000; Knudson et al. 1995). Indeed, if carefully designed, multi-sensory exhibits can give visitors a reasonably realistic impression of what it must have been like to be a slave in ancient Egypt, a Crusader in the Holy Land, a farm laborer in the Middle Ages, a priestess in the Inca civilization, and so on. This approach is both entertaining and educational. However, there is a view among some tourism and educational scholars (Jordanova 1989; Sorensen 1989) that these experiences tend to ignore the less pleasant aspects of history. It is true that the “seedier”side of heritage sites (e.g., poverty, disease, crime, or human suffering) are often “glossed over” to make the experience more palatable for tourists (Waitt 2000). From the interpreter’s point of view, selective interpretation is often necessary as some aspects of history are difficult or impossible for visitors to visualize or experience. This primarily occurs because visitors have different knowledge, attitudes and beliefs to their ancestors, and may be unable (or unwilling) to fully transport themselves back to a time when hardship, extreme poverty, disease, and brutality were an accepted part of life (Moscardo et al. 2007). (Also see the case study for western Canada in which Hamilton discusses tensions between telling tourists the often-grim realities of colonialism for Aboriginal peoples vs. the more celebratory story of Canada’s origins as a nation).

Although interpretive experiences enable us to illustrate aspects of other times and locations, they rarely provide total simulation (Robertshaw n.d.). Nevertheless, with careful planning and attention to detail, these experiences can provide visitors with an unparalleled insight into the topic, site, or event being interpreted. Whether these experiences are authentic is a related and hotly-debated issue.

Messages in Archaeological Tourism from the Archaeological Perspective

Archaeologists are familiar with the ways in which the past is constructed to support certain contemporary understandings, particularly those deeply embedded in a sense of how the world works (e.g., Kehoe 1998; Shackel 2003; Shanks and Tilley 1987). It continues to be important for archaeologists and descendant communities to research and critique how cultural assumptions about such concepts as race, gender, and social hierarchies are reified in archaeological interpretations in museums and tourism sites.

The American Southwest has hosted archaeological tourism for generations. A combination of adventure travel and reassuring (to colonizers) messages about the place of Native peoples in the United States fueled this tourism. Thompson (1989:222) observes that: