Description
The purpose of this paper is to examine practices for the presentation of specific sites in
Greece, and in particular the way the Acropolis, Greece, a World Heritage Site, is communicated at
national, local, and international levels, seeking to identify the policy for the presentation of heritage in
the specific venue with its historical and current developments
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Managing the World Heritage Site of the Acropolis, Greece
Androniki Kavoura Evgenia Bitsani
Article information:
To cite this document:
Androniki Kavoura Evgenia Bitsani, (2013),"Managing the World Heritage Site of the Acropolis, Greece", International J ournal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 1 pp. 58 - 67
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181311301363
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:21 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 42 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 478 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Nicole Mitsche, Franziska Vogt, Dan Knox, I. Cooper, Patrizia Lombardi, Daniela Ciaffi, (2013),"Intangibles: enhancing access to cities'
cultural heritage through interpretation", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 1 pp. 68-77 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181311301381
Ana Pereira Roders, Ron van Oers, (2011),"World Heritage cities management", Facilities, Vol. 29 Iss 7/8 pp. 276-285 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/02632771111130898
Tatiana Abankina, (2013),"Regional development models using cultural heritage resources", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 1 pp. 3-10http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181311301318
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Managing the World Heritage Site of the
Acropolis, Greece
Androniki Kavoura and Evgenia Bitsani
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine practices for the presentation of speci?c sites in
Greece, and in particular the way the Acropolis, Greece, a World Heritage Site, is communicated at
national, local, and international levels, seeking to identify the policy for the presentation of heritage in
the speci?c venue with its historical and current developments.
Design/methodology/approach – This study presents data collected from the analysis of archival
documents and interviews with curators who offered the researchers ground to explain the purposes
and reasons for the implementation of decisions related to the management of heritage following a case
study design.
Findings – The paper argues for the need of a critical approach towards the implementation of
communication activities for many sites rather than the world-renowned ones. Issues that associate with
the relationship of heritage with social aspects of the contemporary world receive little attention in the
literature, let alone the masked political and economic implications that state governments often do not
admit. The projection of the perceived distinct characteristics of a country, nationally and internationally,
signi?es the role that these properties may have when states present them at national level while
retaining their international character.
Originality/value – The article makes a theoretical and practical contribution to the way the marketing of
heritage for the Acropolis can consist of a typical recourse for other sites in other areas and is associated
with socio-economic and political implications.
Keywords Greece, Acropolis, Heritage, Curators, Marketing strategy, Marketing communications
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Major historic sites in most countries are under of?cial ownership or stewardship (Johnson
and Thomas, 1995; McManamon and Hatton, 2000). Public agencies and organisations are
mainly in charge of presenting heritage (Johnson and Thomas, 1995). Nonetheless, the
extent of the role of the state differs and strategists organise and market heritage in a
different way from country to country (McCrone et al., 1995, p. 13). Even when the public
sector is in charge of the decisions made for the presentation of heritage, the power of the
central government may differ and the provinces may have a substantial role (Charlton and
Essex, 1996; Hamel et al., 1996).
Heritage marketing is another important issue associating with such impacts that receives
little attention (Hall and Jenkins, 1995). Critical analyses of image representation in tourism
are lacking (Kavoura, 2007; Pritchard and Morgan, 2001). Limited research is available on
the examination of how museums and sites, for example, express social narratives as
authoritative and de?nitive (Coffee, 2006) in texts; archaeologists and curators interpret the
meaning and signi?cance of objects in a museum, an archaeological site or the advertising
lea?et of an educational programme. Nevertheless, hidden socio-political implications of
display practices exist and issues need raising relating to ownership and identity
PAGE 58
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013, pp. 58-67, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/17506181311301363
Androniki Kavoura and
Evgenia Bitsani are based
at the Technological
Educational Institute of
Kalamata, Kalamata,
Greece.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
(Chambers, 2006; Coffee, 2006; Dechow and Leahy, 2006; Kavoura, 2007). The case
studies that these authors present inform what the national narratives tell us what is worth
remembering from the point-of-view of the people in charge of preserving and marketing
heritage.
This article examines the practices for the presentation of speci?c sites in Greece and in
particular the implemented marketing strategies for the Acropolis, Greece, at national, local,
and international levels. The study seeks to identify the policies for the presentation of
heritage.
The Acropolis is a world heritage site, the most well renowned archaeological site in Greece.
The Greek Ministry of Culture (MoC) and the Central Archaeological Council nominated the
Acropolis to the World Heritage List (the List) in 1987. The List inscribes properties of
outstanding universal value according to the Convention concerning the Protection of the
World Cultural and Natural Heritage (Convention). The MoC is the governmental body in
charge of the protection and promotion of cultural heritage in Greece. The Directorates of the
MoC are Departments in charge of decisions related to the protection, conservation and
presentation of heritage and the Antiquities Services (they are called Ephorates) implement
the Directorates’ policy decisions at regional level with regard to cultural heritage.
With regard to Greece, speci?c heritage sites have attracted the attention of national
governments of Greece since the eighteenth century and also of the archaeological schools
that contribute to the excavations in speci?c areas. Infrastructures were developed for many
speci?c heritage sites during the eighteenth century. This activity in turn led to the
iconography of images that de?nes Greece to be limited to speci?c sites capable of
attracting tourist attention. According to Hall (1994), tourism concentrates in speci?c areas
that include the development of adequate infrastructure. Hall further argues that locational
con?icts emerge over the distribution of land use and the location of tourism development,
which is the case for many areas (Bitsani et al., 2008).
These processes raise the following questions:
B Who decides the selection and the marketing of the speci?c heritage sites?
B Why do the people in charge of marketing these heritage sites take into consideration the
socio-political environment and market the sites accordingly?
With regard to museums and archaeological sites, although ‘‘they are not only holders of
history, but also players and makers of history’’ and ‘‘the trend is to look for the impacts of
museumprograms on social consciousness’’ (Yasaitis, 2006, p.455), such examination does
not usually take place. In relation to heritage and tourism, this is due to the unwillingness of
state governments to acknowledge the political dimensions that exist (Kavoura, 2007;
Pritchard and Morgan, 2001, p. 4). Examining such issues in relation to the heritage site of
the Acropolis is worth doing.
2. Managing heritage in Greece
The two legacies imprint Greece relate to the Hellenic period and the Byzantine period. The
Hellenic period extended from the ?fth to the second century BC (including the Hellenistic
period, 3rd-2nd century BC) and the Byzantine period (400-1453) with three centuries of
cultural overlap (284-602 AD) when the Hellenic civilisation was not extinct and the Byzantine
Empire was developing following the Ottoman Empire’s occupation of Christian populations
(Toynbee, 1981).
The formation of Greek identity, in the eighteenth century, is related to the revival of Western
roots in classical civilisation, where Greece had an important role to play since it embraced
ancient philosophy and ideals of democracy on which modern European society is based.
This indicates the basis of Hellenistic nationalism in the European vision of classical Greece.
This idealisation of modern Greece and its dependence on ancient classical Greek ideals
in?uenced the future of Greece before and after its emergence as a modern Greek state and
also in?uenced the way in which residents in other countries view Greece (Toynbee, 1981).
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 59
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Greece is a country associated with classical heritage. Appropriation of the classical
heritage for Greeks in the formation of the Greek state was also determined internally.
European travellers to Greece came to admire the ancient monuments and Athens was
perceived among scholars, artists and antiquarians as a glamorous place to visit for the
ancient civilisation which was well known all over the world and gave rise to a new classical
revival in European culture (Leoussi, 1997, p. 55).
The cultural identity of Greece is simultaneously de?ned by the world and people inside
Greece as heirs to classical antiquity, and the most typical example of such a relation is the
Acropolis. ‘‘So eager were Western allies to restore ancient Hellas that Greeks felt bound to
exalt the classical legacy, the Acropolis coming to symbolize national rebirth’’ (Lowenthal,
1988, p. 244). The way Greek classical heritage is perceived today, internationally, is shown
by Hewison (1989, p. 16) who refers to the Elgin Marbles as an example to show how
different nations can use the same heritage. The Elgin Marbles are the marbles that Lord
Elgin transferred fromthe Parthenon of the Acropolis to the British Archaeological Museumin
the nineteenth century for them to represent the universal and the global, while the Greek
state in the 1980s with Melina Merkouri as the then Minister of Culture requested to bring
them back to Greece with the claim becoming more palpable after June 2009 when the
Museum of the Acropolis, which would host them, was built.
Walsh (1992, p. 30), referring to the Elgin Marbles, mentions that ‘‘[t]he acquisition of the
Elgin Marbles from the British Museum in 1814-1815 gave the museum its international
reputation in relation to classical antiquities’’. The Elgin Marbles have a dual nature as both
signi?ers of national and international signi?cance. The international community perceives
them as heritage of global attachment, while the Greek state perceives the Elgin Marbles to
be a national emblem (Lowenthal, 1988, p. 238).
Policy decisions for the presentation of heritage incorporate a preference towards ancient
over more recent sites. This is a fact that may in?uence the way the MoC decides on the
heritage that they promote. Economic, political and social parameters may contribute to the
presentation of the Acropolis, the research aims to identify and describe for the speci?c
case.
3. Research method
This study is a case study. Case studies provide the possibility of identifying patterns of
concepts that emerge (Yin, 1989, p. 33). This study presents data collected from interviews
held with curators who work in the MoC; the point-of-view of the interviewees about the state
institution’s activities provided insight about their experiences of the advertising of the
national narrative by the MoC and primary sources of documents including the original
of?cial archives of the MoC that speci?ed the programs of actions for the presentation of
Greek cultural heritage. Data collected from the MoC comes from the Department of
Educational Programs for Prehistoric and Classical Monuments, the Department of
Exhibitions for Prehistoric and Classical Monuments, and the Department of Museums. In
order to verify the results from multiple sources of data, the researchers searched a diverse
range of sources employing ‘‘triangulation’’ as Maxwell mentions in order to ‘‘gain a better
assessment of the validity of the explanations’’ (Maxwell, 1996, pp. 75-6).
The researchers used unobtrusive measures for the documents, which were part of the
internal communication within the organisation. An unobtrusive measure of observation is
any indicator that does not in?uence the phenomenon studied and the observer is not
related to the situations being studied (Sapsford and Jupp, 1996, p. 299). The use of
unobtrusive measures is a way of verifying the research.
Interpretive phenomenology is a method that permits the identi?cation of themes – a
statement of meaning that runs through all or most of the pertinent data or one in the minority
that carries heavy emotional or factual impact (Holstein and Gubrium, 1998, p. 150; Murray
and Chamberlain, 1999, p. 220). Issues that repeatedly emerge in the data create patterns
for the research. Then, themes are headed under the umbrella of a superordinate theme, a
theme that incorporates many sub-themes.
PAGE 60
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Themes that emerged in the analysis of the data are:
B the preferential treatment for the World Heritage site of the Acropolis in relation to other
sites;
B the tension between the national and the global about issues of ownership and the site’s
?nancial aid;
B the socio-political implications of display practices; and
B the strengthening of identity among the Greek population with the promotion of the World
Heritage Site of the Acropolis with its special symbolic content.
These themes and sub-themes associate with the superordinate theme of the political
impacts of advertising interpretation.
4. Main results
4.1 Preferential treatment for the World Heritage Site of the Acropolis
Law 5351/32 related to antiquities gives preferential treatment to antiquity sites dated before
1830 as constitutive elements of Greekness. Greek legislation puts emphasis on antiquities
(Antiquities Act, 1932). Antiquities initially attracted the interest of the state. Although
contemporary sites are part of Greek cultural heritage, they are not a priority for presentation.
Choices entail decisions as to what is to be treated. In regard to Greece, the MoC does not
put emphasis on the promotion of contemporary sites while giving priority to the presentation
of glorious periods of antiquity. The curators consider such promotion for granted and they
admit that Greece is more organised in the antiquities sector. ‘‘Many sites have beauty of
outstanding value. Yet, those selected to be promoted are preferable as representative
samples of the history of art. Greece is more organised in the antiquities sector’’ (personal
interview with Ismini Trianti, archaeologist in the A’ Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical
Antiquities, curator of the Acropolis in 2005).
Archaeologists mention that not every single area needs to have its own museum in order to
become a pole of attraction for tourists. Finds have to be ‘‘important’’, not necessarily many,
in order to be presented, which brings out the role of the agents in charge of the MoC in
deciding such presentations. There is a priority for a few large museums in contrast to
smaller museums, which shows how policy decisions determine heritage’s promotion.
Many areas aim at constructing museums to attract visitors. People of different areas have
sent letters requesting the construction of new museums in their areas, showing their
enthusiasm for the opening of the museum. To this enthusiasm for heritage, economic gains
for these areas can be added (Ministry of Culture, 1992). Nevertheless, the archaeologists
mention that not every single area needs to have its own museum in order to become a pole
of attraction for tourists. Finds have to be ‘‘important’’, not necessarily many, in order to be
presented, which brings out the role of the agents in charge of the MoC in deciding such
presentations. The presentation of sites may lead to the economic development of an area.
At the same time, there is a priority for the construction and promotion of a few large
museums in contrast to smaller museums, which shows how policy decisions determine
their priorities. Loukaki (1997, p. 698) refers to the priority to the construction of a few large
museums over smaller local museums, although smaller museums also exist.
4.2 The tension between the national and the global about issues of ownership for the World
Heritage Site of the Acropolis
The fund raising potential is another opportunity that exists for the World Heritage Sites in
relation to applications for ?nancial assistance made in the international community. The
World Heritage Site of Epicurius Apollo at Bassae (Permanent Delegation of Greece in
UNESCO, 1986) and the Acropolis (UNESCO, 1977) provide examples of the willingness of
the international community to support projects for these sites ?nancially in relation to
Greece.
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 61
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
There is interplay of the national and international signi?cance that exists for heritage of
outstanding value, and the site of the Acropolis is a typical example. In the case of the
Acropolis, the MoC has organised worldwide campaigns. The MoC initiated the ?rst
campaign in 1977 with the appeal of the Director General of UNESCOaiming at encouraging
the international community ‘‘to make a common cause in order to save cultural treasures
which, although they belong to the heritage of Greece, are also part of the shared inheritance
of mankind’’ (UNESCO, 1977).
This is a quote that clearly states that Greek heritage is not only Greek signi?cance, but of
international signi?cance. The international community has initiated the fund-raising
potential, collected money and Greece was to inscribe a plaque indicating that the
international community gathered money. However, the Greek state informed the
international community that there already was an annual subsidisation by the Greek state
and therefore it would be no longer necessary for UNESCO to seek additional ?nancial
contributions (Permanent Delegation of Greece in UNESCO, 1992). Although the rati?cation
of the Convention acknowledges that the sites inscribed on the List are World Heritage Sites,
the Greek authorities were not willing to receive the money.
The other side of this disagreement by Greek archaeologists may imply the unwillingness of
the archaeologists to hand over part of their power, related to the management of the sites, to
associations other than that of Greek archaeologists. The maintenance of the power that
archaeologists have with regard to the management of the sites is an issue of concern. In the
mean time, it is a point that shows the dual nature of Greek heritage as a signi?er of national
and international signi?cance and the tension that may be created. Archaeologists aim to
nominate sites to the List but under conditions that archaeologists aim to raise.
Dimitrios Konstantios, Curator and Secretary General of the Central Archaeological Council
of the MoC and Director of the Byzantine Museum, referred to the importance of the
international recognition of the signi?cance of sites through their inscription in the World
Heritage List, where nominated sites may use the World Heritage Emblemof the Convention,
which identi?es properties protected by the Convention. ‘‘In other countries they have
realised the importance of the tourist nature of such sites and bene?t fromthe fact that these
sites exist in their country. The Greek state has not realised that the World Heritage Emblem
of the Convention can be used as a source of income. The local community may also
promote them and the history of the whole area’’ (personal interview with Dimitrios
Konstantios, Curator and Secretary General of the Central Archaeological Council of the
MoC and Director of the Byzantine Museum, 2008).
Marketing strategists use communication activities to present the cultural values of heritage
resources. The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the Convention also
suggest the fund-raising potential of the World Heritage Emblem of the Convention. The
interviewee’s comment with regard to the World Heritage Emblem of the Convention,
although it has a fund-raising potential, may be veri?ed with the example provided from the
nomination of the Acropolis, where the archaeologists did not initially locate the emblem.
They located the emblem in a prominent position near the site three years after the
nomination of the Acropolis to the List and they did not directly associate it with an event for
celebrating the international character of the site. Rather, they used the emblem for political
purposes within the state. In fact, the placing of the World Heritage Emblemon the Acropolis
took place with the Vice-Minister of Culture, and not archaeologists, performing the
ceremony, as was reported in the press. The press attributed the inauguration to the
pre-election period (Rizospastis, 1989, p. 27) and this delay clearly showed that the agents
of the MoC consider the Acropolis to be national and not international heritage.
4.3 Socio-political implications from the promotion of the Acropolis
The MoC, through policy decisions, aims at safeguarding the of?cial ownership of heritage
and its further use as a means to demonstrate a sense of identity. The interview with the
representative of Greece in the meetings of the World Heritage Committee, Yannis Tzedakis,
who is also General Director of the Directorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities,
illustrated that choices for the nominations may entail political choices. ‘‘There is a national,
PAGE 62
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
political base in the proposals from the States’’ (personal interview with Yannis Tzedakis,
representative of Greece in the meetings of the World Heritage Committee, General Director
of the Directorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, 2008). The nomination of speci?c
monuments by the World Heritage Committee may foster political motives.
The presentation of the World Heritage Site of the Acropolis was found to be related to
political priorities of the Greek state acting as a vault from which the Greek state makes
claims at the national and international levels about Greek identity. These claims include
explicit appeals for the return of the Elgin Marbles through the nomination of the
archaeological site of Acropolis and the references made to the transfer of its frieze to the
British Museum. These highlight the importance that the MoC attributes to the sites, which
abandon their neutral role and indicate the political values of the sites, which may coincide
with the political priorities of the state.
In order to safeguard the political claims, the MoC allocates money for the museum of the
Acropolis. The question we raise is that the MoC seems to be willing to present and allocate
?nancial assistance to speci?c sites since it guarantees political aims while this is not the
case for all sites. Financial assistance also illustrates the priority over the protection of sites
of antiquity. The MoC satis?es speci?c aims through the presentation of speci?c sites. The
state decides on the use of monuments for the service of different purposes, whether
cultural, religious, educational, or archaeological, for museum purposes or entertainment
according to the nature of the monument and the activities that can be held there. In the
speci?c case of the Acropolis museum, the Greek state spent more than e6m euros on the
construction of the Acropolis Museum with the further aim of bringing the marbles of the
Parthenon back from the British Museum, and thus they illustrated who has the power over
heritage, the political claims attached to sites, and also issues of ownership and identity
(Kavoura, 2007; Rakic and Chambers, 2007).
On the one hand, state action is dif?cult because many contemporary sites (dating fromafter
1830) are privately owned. On the other hand, the MoC decides the allocation of money for
those sites associated with antiquity, and priorities emerge over sites from antiquity. Choices
take place, and as Hewison argues, ‘‘choice is practically demonstrated by the decision to
spend money on something’’ (Hewison, 1989, p. 16).
Although the Presidential Decree on 15 January 1980 reinforced competencies of the
Antiquities Services, the directors of the administrative units follow an Operational Plan
formed at central level (Loukaki, 1997; Presidential Decree No. 16, 1980; Psycharis and
Garezou, 2000). Loukaki (1997) examined the operation of the Central Archaeological
Council (CAC), which functions within the MoC and the way decision-making takes place
in relation to issues of architecture, planning and protection and found that the CAC
arranges the order of the agenda within the central service (Loukaki, 1997, p. 687;
Psycharis and Garezou, 2000). This, though, has implications for the way the MoC
manages heritage at central and national levels and where the agents of the MoC give
priority (Kavoura, 2001).
Key of?cials in the MoC may exert in?uence on the way sites are presented. The Greek state
reinforced competencies with Presidential Decree No. 16 (1980) for Antiquities Services, but
these are not fully implemented (Loukaki, 1997; Psycharis and Garezou, 2000). The
centralist approach according to which Antiquities Services operate for the implementation
of activities has resulted in the rigidity that exists between the different Departments of the
same organisation, i.e. the MoC.
4.4 The strengthening of identity among the Greek population with the promotion of the World
Heritage Site of the Acropolis
The other signi?cant ?nding is that a lot of the visitors to the archaeological site of the
Acropolis are foreign while the Greek population does not generally visit sites. There is a
small attendance of Greek people while many foreign tourists visit the site (Kavoura, 2001;
Rakic and Chambers, 2007). Effort is put into encouraging the citizens of Greece to visit the
Acropolis, which may show that it is not a ?rst priority for the Greek population. The new
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 63
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
museum of the Acropolis opened in June 2009. People from 269 countries have already
visited it, which shows that it is an international pole of attraction. Still, the curators of the MoC
consider it to be national heritage, ‘‘a national emblem for Greece’’, irrespective of the fact
that the MoC has inscribed the Acropolis on the List and thus, it has gained international
character.
‘‘The Acropolis is a national emblem for Greece, the aim is to raise the number of visits by
the Greek population. Foreign visitors will visit it anyway; we just want to keep the ?ow of
foreign visitors at a steady number and raise the number of Greek visitors’’ (personal
interview with Ismini Trianti, archaeologist in the A’ Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical
Antiquities, Curator of the Acropolis, 2005). The Acropolis’s role as a national symbol is an
example that the agents of the MoC promote to foster a sense of national unity and pride,
a symbolic landscape that is part of the iconography of nationhood. In that way, the state
uses the process by which popular memories attach to speci?c territories, which are often
associated with sacred sites (Smith, 1996, pp. 453-4), as a way to reinforce connections
with the past.
The MoC aims at making Greek people take pride in their culture through the presentation of
sites like the Acropolis, which are considered to be ‘‘national emblems’’. The aim is to raise
the number of visits by the Greek population and not to be promoted internationally.
Therefore, there is a priority for promotional activities to be targeted at the Greek population
and also at students. The Department of Educational Programs of the MoC, an institution that
plans and operates educational archaeological programs and exhibitions in Greece for
Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, speci?es that the activities are concentrated on the
student population. Educational programs for the Acropolis started for the ?rst time in 1986
when Melina Mercouri initiated the institution of the European City of Culture and Athens was
the City of Culture that year. The MoC organizes many educational programs for different
parts of the site of the Acropolis and the programs aim at different classes of primary and
secondary school. The educational programs for the Acropolis outweigh in number the
programs for the other sites. Also, the policy for the educational programs illustrates the
centralist approach according to which the Greek state allocates money and initiates
activities (Psycharis and Garezou, 2000), a similar case to decisions being made for the
creation of museums in big urban centres. The Acropolis is situated in the region of Attica
where the majority of schools exist.
Thus, the programs cater for a larger number of people. Nonetheless, this should not provide
the argument by the MoC for the justi?cation of the con?nement of activities to speci?c sites
since there are many sites in the region of Greece that have not been promoted. The
emphasis put upon the promotion of heritage to younger generations is to ensure that the
students cherish and admire the past related to national identity with emphasis on the
familiarity of the students with the sites; thus the MoC perpetuates the social construction of
identity, and also the state promotes the politics of heritage tourism.
The MoC takes into consideration that the preservation of the sites is a higher priority than
promoting them, and archaeologists do not seem to agree with the use of sites for tourist
development. ‘‘The fact that the sites may be developed towards a tourist approach is an
issue of secondary importance, the protection is the primary aim, and we do not just see
monuments as tourist attractions with a purely utilitarian basis’’ (personal interview with
Niki Tselenti, representative of Greece in the meetings of the World Heritage Committee,
Archaeologist in the 2nd Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities, 2005). ‘‘The Acropolis already
has millions of visitors per day. If advertising took place, then problems of preservation
and capacity would be created for the site’’ (personal interview with Ismini Trianti,
Archaeologist in the A’ Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, Curator of the
Acropolis, 2005).
Advertising the Acropolis may not be a necessity. The Acropolis is a famous site of Greece
that does not need advertisement. The MoC makes choices for the presentation of sites of
antiquity. The psychological attachment of the site should be made with the Greek
population rather than the international tourists as the actions of the MoC imply.
PAGE 64
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
5. Concluding remarks: implications for implementing an integrated advertising
communication programme for event management and heritage tourism
The MoC initiates communication activities for the Acropolis. Heritage is an integral part of
the concept of nation-building and ‘‘treasured heritage can become an instrument to create
a sense of belonging to a common place’’, as Herbert (1995, p. 13) argues. Culture
in?uences people but they also construct it, build it, and elaborate it with different strategies
according to their needs and circumstances (Kiriakidis, 2008).
Activities for the presentation of the sites to the Greek population are not great in number.
The presentation and the use of specialised vocabulary in Greek museums for the
description of exhibits does not provide many opportunities to the visitors who are not
experts in the ?eld of archaeology to understand the exhibits (Kiosse, 1999). There are
shortcomings in the manner of exhibiting and presenting ?nds in museums, a way that does
not allow for many opportunities for organised participation by visitors.
Heritage tourismserves to preserve artefacts for promotion (Hall, 1994, p. 180) but also uses
features of myth as collective symbols for establishing identity (Hall, 1994; Palmer, 2003).
There are differences of opinion within the MoC related to the fund-raising potential of the
sites. The MoCselectively markets the sites, while the case can be how‘‘a heritage industry’’
utilises the sites, as a study of England identi?ed (Palmer, 2003).
Communication strategies for domestic tourism seem to be the Cinderella of communication
campaigns. The of?cials have the power to decide where priorities lie for the presentation of
Greece following a centralist approach and not allowing ?exibility for the regions to initiate
their own heritage tourism programs. In 1998 the Greek National Tourism Organisation
(GNTO) carried out the ?rst market study at the national and international levels since 1951
when GNTO was founded, and the study illustrated that ‘‘there is a de?cient connection with
the cultural heritage (shortcomings in the manner of exhibition and presentation in museums,
lack of provision for organised participation and transmission of experience, poor
information material)’’ (Greek National TourismOrganisation, 1998, p. 1). Market studies with
regard to the attitudes of people towards tourism and the tendency of their tourist interests
are also useful to be initiated and repeated so that evaluation programs can occur on the
presentation of the areas and the identi?cation of tourists’ points-of-view. Areas should be
free to construct museums. To this enthusiasm for heritage, economic gains for these areas
can be added and the allocation of money by the state should take into consideration that all
heritage is signi?cant. The state uses tourism as a justi?cation for the preservation of
heritage. Meanwhile, tourism serves to preserve artefacts for promotion in place marketing
(Hall, 1994, p. 180), but also uses features of myth as collective symbols for establishing
identity (Hall, 1994).
To these issues, World Heritage Sites belong to the international community and tensions
need not exist over who has the power of ownership, otherwise there is no point in the
nominations to the List taking place. Each national committee initially decides the sites that
may merit nomination to the List (Stovel, 1992, p. 34). In other words, each national
committee may choose on different grounds. Nevertheless, the state should promote the
international character of this heritage by all means.
References
Antiquities Act (1932), ‘‘Article 52, Concerning the Protection of Antiquities’’, Antiquities Act, 5351/1932
(unof?cial translation prepared by UNESCO).
Bitsani, E., Kavoura, A. and Kalomenidis, P. (2008), ‘‘A ?eld study of the exploration of the factors
in?uencing visitors’ preferences in the mountainous area of Nafpaktia, Greece. Implications for an
advertising communication programme’’, Proceedings of the International Conference on Marketing
and Management, Athens, Greece, 2008, Imperial College Press, London, pp. 296-301.
Chambers, M. (2006), ‘‘The bride stripped bare: art museums and the power of placement’’, Curator:
The Museum Journal, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 398-409.
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 65
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Charlton, C. and Essex, S. (1996), ‘‘The involvement of district councils in tourism in England and
Wales’’, Geoforum, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 175-92.
Coffee, K. (2006), ‘‘Museums and the agency of ideology: three recent examples’’, Curator: The Museum
Journal, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 435-48.
Dechow, R.D. and Leahy, A. (2006), ‘‘Not just the hangars of World War II: American aviation museums
and the role of memorial’’, Curator: The Museum Journal, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 419-34.
Greek National Tourism Organisation (1998), ‘‘Market study for Greek tourism’’, European Committee,
Greek National Tourism Organisation, Second European Regional Development Fund, Tourism-Culture,
Market Analysis EPE, Athens.
Hall, M. (1994), Tourism and Politics, Policy, Power and Place, Wiley, Chichester.
Hall, M.C. and Jenkins, J.M. (1995), Tourism and Public Policy, Routledge, London.
Hamel, P., Pelletier, M. and Poitras, C. (1996), ‘‘Urban heritage in Puebla and Montreal: assessment of
strategies and interpretative elements’’, Canadian Journal of Urban Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 18-50.
Herbert, D. (1995), Heritage, Tourism and Society, Mansell, London.
Hewison, R. (1989), ‘‘Heritage: an interpretation’’, in Uzzell, D. (Ed.), Heritage Interpretation, Vol. I. The
Natural and Built Environment, Bellhaven Press, London, pp. 15-23.
Holstein, J. and Gubrium, J. (1998), ‘‘Phenomenology, ethnomethodology, and interpretive practice’’,
in Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (Eds), Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
CA, pp. 137-57.
Johnson, P. and Thomas, B. (1995), ‘‘Heritage as business’’, in Herbert, D. (Ed.), Heritage, Tourism and
Society, Mansell, London, pp. 170-90.
Kavoura, A. (2007), ‘‘Advertising of national identity and tourism bureaucracy’’, Current Issues in
Tourism, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 399-414.
Kavoura, A. (2001), ‘‘State policy for the presentation of Greek national heritage: the case of the Cultural
World Heritage Sites’’, PhD thesis. University of Stirling, Stirling.
Kiosse, C. (1999), ‘‘The problem of the museums’’, To Vima, 7 April, pp. B6-B8.
Kiriakidis, S. (2008), ‘‘Application of the theory of planned behaviour to recidivism: the role of personal
norm in predicting behavioural intentions of re-offending’’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 38
No. 9, pp. 2210-21.
Leoussi, S.A. (1997), ‘‘Nationalism and racial Hellenism in nineteenth-century England and France’’,
Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 42-68.
Loukaki, A. (1997), ‘‘Aesthetics, bureaucracy, and the politics of patrimony: the case of the Greek
Central Archaelogical Council’’, Environment and Planning, Society and Space, Vol. 15 No. 6,
pp. 679-705.
Lowenthal, D. (1988), ‘‘Classical antiquities as national and global heritage’’, Antiquity, Vol. 62,
pp. 726-35.
McCrone, D., Morris, A. and Kiely, R. (1995), Scotland – the Brand. The Making of Scottish Heritage,
Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
McManamon, P.F. and Hatton, A. (2000), Cultural Resource Management in Contemporary Society:
Perspectives on Managing and Presenting the Past, Routledge, London.
Maxwell, J. (1996), Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach, Sage Publications, London.
Ministry of Culture (1992), ‘‘Opinion of the people of the region of Imathia for the construction of the
museum in Vergina’’, unpublished document, F91/19148/1072, Ministry of Culture, Athens, 26 March.
Murray, M. and Chamberlain, K. (1999), Qualitative Health Psychology: Theories and Methods, Sage
Publications, London.
Palmer, C. (2003), ‘‘Touring Churchill’s England: rituals of kinship and belonging’’, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 30, pp. 426-45.
Permanent Delegation of Greece in UNESCO (1986), ‘ ‘Epicurius’ ’, unpublished document,
3330.1/AS1124, Ministry of Culture, Athens, 7 July.
PAGE 66
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Permanent Delegation of Greece in UNESCO (1992), unpublished document, No. 200/8.2.3, 27 October,
Ministry of Culture, Athens.
Presidential Decree No. 16 (1980), ‘‘Presidential Decree No. 16’’, FEK 8 A’, 15 January, Government of
Greece, Athens.
Pritchard, A. and Morgan, N. (2001), ‘‘Culture, identity and tourism representation: marketing Cymru or
Wales?’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 167-79.
Psycharis, Y. and Garezou, M. (2000), ‘‘The economics of heritage, paper presented at the International
Conference of the ECPR Standing Group on Regionalism’’, 28-30 September, University of Thessaly,
Volos.
Rakic, T. and Chambers, D. (2007), ‘‘World heritage: exploring the tension between the national and the
universal’’, Journal of Heritage Tourism, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 1-11.
Rizospastis (1989), ‘‘Inauguration with unveiling’’, Rizospastis, 15 March, p. 27.
Sapsford, R. and Jupp, V. (1996), Data Collection and Analysis, Sage Publications and The Open
University, London.
Smith, A. (1996), ‘‘Culture, community and territory: the politics of ethnicity and nationalism’’,
International Affairs, Vol. 72 No. 3, pp. 445-58.
Stovel, H. (1992), ‘‘The evaluation of cultural properties for the World Heritage List’’, Nature & Resources,
Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 30-6.
Toynbee, A. (1981), The Greeks and their Heritages, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
UNESCO (1977), ‘‘For the safeguarding of the Acropolis’’, UNESCO document, 10 January.
Walsh, K. (1992), The Representation of the Past: Museums and Heritage in the Post-modern World,
Routledge, London.
Yasaitis, K.E. (2006), ‘‘Collecting culture and the British Museum’’, Curator: The MuseumJournal, Vol. 49
No. 4, pp. 449-62.
Yin, R. (1989), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Corresponding author
Androniki Kavoura can be contacted at: [email protected]
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 67
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Maria Teresa Pinheiro Melo Borges Tiago, João Pedro de Almeida Couto, Flávio Gomes Borges Tiago, Sandra Micaela Costa
Dias Faria. 2016. Baby boomers turning grey: European profiles. Tourism Management 54, 13-22. [CrossRef]
2. George Stalidis, Dimitrios Karapistolis, Athanasios Vafeiadis. 2015. Marketing Decision Support Using Artificial Intelligence
and Knowledge Modeling: Application to Tourist Destination Management. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 175,
106-113. [CrossRef]
3. Charalampia Agaliotou. 2015. Reutilization of Industrial Buildings and Sites in Greece can Act as a Lever for the Development
of Special Interest/Alternative Tourism. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 175, 291-298. [CrossRef]
4. Loukia Martha, Amalia Kotsaki. 2015. The Museum Culture as a Means of Conjunction of the Urban and Rural Environment.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 175, 601-606. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_132715053.pdf
The purpose of this paper is to examine practices for the presentation of specific sites in
Greece, and in particular the way the Acropolis, Greece, a World Heritage Site, is communicated at
national, local, and international levels, seeking to identify the policy for the presentation of heritage in
the specific venue with its historical and current developments
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Managing the World Heritage Site of the Acropolis, Greece
Androniki Kavoura Evgenia Bitsani
Article information:
To cite this document:
Androniki Kavoura Evgenia Bitsani, (2013),"Managing the World Heritage Site of the Acropolis, Greece", International J ournal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 1 pp. 58 - 67
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181311301363
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:21 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 42 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 478 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Nicole Mitsche, Franziska Vogt, Dan Knox, I. Cooper, Patrizia Lombardi, Daniela Ciaffi, (2013),"Intangibles: enhancing access to cities'
cultural heritage through interpretation", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 1 pp. 68-77 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181311301381
Ana Pereira Roders, Ron van Oers, (2011),"World Heritage cities management", Facilities, Vol. 29 Iss 7/8 pp. 276-285 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/02632771111130898
Tatiana Abankina, (2013),"Regional development models using cultural heritage resources", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 1 pp. 3-10http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181311301318
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Managing the World Heritage Site of the
Acropolis, Greece
Androniki Kavoura and Evgenia Bitsani
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine practices for the presentation of speci?c sites in
Greece, and in particular the way the Acropolis, Greece, a World Heritage Site, is communicated at
national, local, and international levels, seeking to identify the policy for the presentation of heritage in
the speci?c venue with its historical and current developments.
Design/methodology/approach – This study presents data collected from the analysis of archival
documents and interviews with curators who offered the researchers ground to explain the purposes
and reasons for the implementation of decisions related to the management of heritage following a case
study design.
Findings – The paper argues for the need of a critical approach towards the implementation of
communication activities for many sites rather than the world-renowned ones. Issues that associate with
the relationship of heritage with social aspects of the contemporary world receive little attention in the
literature, let alone the masked political and economic implications that state governments often do not
admit. The projection of the perceived distinct characteristics of a country, nationally and internationally,
signi?es the role that these properties may have when states present them at national level while
retaining their international character.
Originality/value – The article makes a theoretical and practical contribution to the way the marketing of
heritage for the Acropolis can consist of a typical recourse for other sites in other areas and is associated
with socio-economic and political implications.
Keywords Greece, Acropolis, Heritage, Curators, Marketing strategy, Marketing communications
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Major historic sites in most countries are under of?cial ownership or stewardship (Johnson
and Thomas, 1995; McManamon and Hatton, 2000). Public agencies and organisations are
mainly in charge of presenting heritage (Johnson and Thomas, 1995). Nonetheless, the
extent of the role of the state differs and strategists organise and market heritage in a
different way from country to country (McCrone et al., 1995, p. 13). Even when the public
sector is in charge of the decisions made for the presentation of heritage, the power of the
central government may differ and the provinces may have a substantial role (Charlton and
Essex, 1996; Hamel et al., 1996).
Heritage marketing is another important issue associating with such impacts that receives
little attention (Hall and Jenkins, 1995). Critical analyses of image representation in tourism
are lacking (Kavoura, 2007; Pritchard and Morgan, 2001). Limited research is available on
the examination of how museums and sites, for example, express social narratives as
authoritative and de?nitive (Coffee, 2006) in texts; archaeologists and curators interpret the
meaning and signi?cance of objects in a museum, an archaeological site or the advertising
lea?et of an educational programme. Nevertheless, hidden socio-political implications of
display practices exist and issues need raising relating to ownership and identity
PAGE 58
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013, pp. 58-67, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/17506181311301363
Androniki Kavoura and
Evgenia Bitsani are based
at the Technological
Educational Institute of
Kalamata, Kalamata,
Greece.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
(Chambers, 2006; Coffee, 2006; Dechow and Leahy, 2006; Kavoura, 2007). The case
studies that these authors present inform what the national narratives tell us what is worth
remembering from the point-of-view of the people in charge of preserving and marketing
heritage.
This article examines the practices for the presentation of speci?c sites in Greece and in
particular the implemented marketing strategies for the Acropolis, Greece, at national, local,
and international levels. The study seeks to identify the policies for the presentation of
heritage.
The Acropolis is a world heritage site, the most well renowned archaeological site in Greece.
The Greek Ministry of Culture (MoC) and the Central Archaeological Council nominated the
Acropolis to the World Heritage List (the List) in 1987. The List inscribes properties of
outstanding universal value according to the Convention concerning the Protection of the
World Cultural and Natural Heritage (Convention). The MoC is the governmental body in
charge of the protection and promotion of cultural heritage in Greece. The Directorates of the
MoC are Departments in charge of decisions related to the protection, conservation and
presentation of heritage and the Antiquities Services (they are called Ephorates) implement
the Directorates’ policy decisions at regional level with regard to cultural heritage.
With regard to Greece, speci?c heritage sites have attracted the attention of national
governments of Greece since the eighteenth century and also of the archaeological schools
that contribute to the excavations in speci?c areas. Infrastructures were developed for many
speci?c heritage sites during the eighteenth century. This activity in turn led to the
iconography of images that de?nes Greece to be limited to speci?c sites capable of
attracting tourist attention. According to Hall (1994), tourism concentrates in speci?c areas
that include the development of adequate infrastructure. Hall further argues that locational
con?icts emerge over the distribution of land use and the location of tourism development,
which is the case for many areas (Bitsani et al., 2008).
These processes raise the following questions:
B Who decides the selection and the marketing of the speci?c heritage sites?
B Why do the people in charge of marketing these heritage sites take into consideration the
socio-political environment and market the sites accordingly?
With regard to museums and archaeological sites, although ‘‘they are not only holders of
history, but also players and makers of history’’ and ‘‘the trend is to look for the impacts of
museumprograms on social consciousness’’ (Yasaitis, 2006, p.455), such examination does
not usually take place. In relation to heritage and tourism, this is due to the unwillingness of
state governments to acknowledge the political dimensions that exist (Kavoura, 2007;
Pritchard and Morgan, 2001, p. 4). Examining such issues in relation to the heritage site of
the Acropolis is worth doing.
2. Managing heritage in Greece
The two legacies imprint Greece relate to the Hellenic period and the Byzantine period. The
Hellenic period extended from the ?fth to the second century BC (including the Hellenistic
period, 3rd-2nd century BC) and the Byzantine period (400-1453) with three centuries of
cultural overlap (284-602 AD) when the Hellenic civilisation was not extinct and the Byzantine
Empire was developing following the Ottoman Empire’s occupation of Christian populations
(Toynbee, 1981).
The formation of Greek identity, in the eighteenth century, is related to the revival of Western
roots in classical civilisation, where Greece had an important role to play since it embraced
ancient philosophy and ideals of democracy on which modern European society is based.
This indicates the basis of Hellenistic nationalism in the European vision of classical Greece.
This idealisation of modern Greece and its dependence on ancient classical Greek ideals
in?uenced the future of Greece before and after its emergence as a modern Greek state and
also in?uenced the way in which residents in other countries view Greece (Toynbee, 1981).
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 59
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Greece is a country associated with classical heritage. Appropriation of the classical
heritage for Greeks in the formation of the Greek state was also determined internally.
European travellers to Greece came to admire the ancient monuments and Athens was
perceived among scholars, artists and antiquarians as a glamorous place to visit for the
ancient civilisation which was well known all over the world and gave rise to a new classical
revival in European culture (Leoussi, 1997, p. 55).
The cultural identity of Greece is simultaneously de?ned by the world and people inside
Greece as heirs to classical antiquity, and the most typical example of such a relation is the
Acropolis. ‘‘So eager were Western allies to restore ancient Hellas that Greeks felt bound to
exalt the classical legacy, the Acropolis coming to symbolize national rebirth’’ (Lowenthal,
1988, p. 244). The way Greek classical heritage is perceived today, internationally, is shown
by Hewison (1989, p. 16) who refers to the Elgin Marbles as an example to show how
different nations can use the same heritage. The Elgin Marbles are the marbles that Lord
Elgin transferred fromthe Parthenon of the Acropolis to the British Archaeological Museumin
the nineteenth century for them to represent the universal and the global, while the Greek
state in the 1980s with Melina Merkouri as the then Minister of Culture requested to bring
them back to Greece with the claim becoming more palpable after June 2009 when the
Museum of the Acropolis, which would host them, was built.
Walsh (1992, p. 30), referring to the Elgin Marbles, mentions that ‘‘[t]he acquisition of the
Elgin Marbles from the British Museum in 1814-1815 gave the museum its international
reputation in relation to classical antiquities’’. The Elgin Marbles have a dual nature as both
signi?ers of national and international signi?cance. The international community perceives
them as heritage of global attachment, while the Greek state perceives the Elgin Marbles to
be a national emblem (Lowenthal, 1988, p. 238).
Policy decisions for the presentation of heritage incorporate a preference towards ancient
over more recent sites. This is a fact that may in?uence the way the MoC decides on the
heritage that they promote. Economic, political and social parameters may contribute to the
presentation of the Acropolis, the research aims to identify and describe for the speci?c
case.
3. Research method
This study is a case study. Case studies provide the possibility of identifying patterns of
concepts that emerge (Yin, 1989, p. 33). This study presents data collected from interviews
held with curators who work in the MoC; the point-of-view of the interviewees about the state
institution’s activities provided insight about their experiences of the advertising of the
national narrative by the MoC and primary sources of documents including the original
of?cial archives of the MoC that speci?ed the programs of actions for the presentation of
Greek cultural heritage. Data collected from the MoC comes from the Department of
Educational Programs for Prehistoric and Classical Monuments, the Department of
Exhibitions for Prehistoric and Classical Monuments, and the Department of Museums. In
order to verify the results from multiple sources of data, the researchers searched a diverse
range of sources employing ‘‘triangulation’’ as Maxwell mentions in order to ‘‘gain a better
assessment of the validity of the explanations’’ (Maxwell, 1996, pp. 75-6).
The researchers used unobtrusive measures for the documents, which were part of the
internal communication within the organisation. An unobtrusive measure of observation is
any indicator that does not in?uence the phenomenon studied and the observer is not
related to the situations being studied (Sapsford and Jupp, 1996, p. 299). The use of
unobtrusive measures is a way of verifying the research.
Interpretive phenomenology is a method that permits the identi?cation of themes – a
statement of meaning that runs through all or most of the pertinent data or one in the minority
that carries heavy emotional or factual impact (Holstein and Gubrium, 1998, p. 150; Murray
and Chamberlain, 1999, p. 220). Issues that repeatedly emerge in the data create patterns
for the research. Then, themes are headed under the umbrella of a superordinate theme, a
theme that incorporates many sub-themes.
PAGE 60
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Themes that emerged in the analysis of the data are:
B the preferential treatment for the World Heritage site of the Acropolis in relation to other
sites;
B the tension between the national and the global about issues of ownership and the site’s
?nancial aid;
B the socio-political implications of display practices; and
B the strengthening of identity among the Greek population with the promotion of the World
Heritage Site of the Acropolis with its special symbolic content.
These themes and sub-themes associate with the superordinate theme of the political
impacts of advertising interpretation.
4. Main results
4.1 Preferential treatment for the World Heritage Site of the Acropolis
Law 5351/32 related to antiquities gives preferential treatment to antiquity sites dated before
1830 as constitutive elements of Greekness. Greek legislation puts emphasis on antiquities
(Antiquities Act, 1932). Antiquities initially attracted the interest of the state. Although
contemporary sites are part of Greek cultural heritage, they are not a priority for presentation.
Choices entail decisions as to what is to be treated. In regard to Greece, the MoC does not
put emphasis on the promotion of contemporary sites while giving priority to the presentation
of glorious periods of antiquity. The curators consider such promotion for granted and they
admit that Greece is more organised in the antiquities sector. ‘‘Many sites have beauty of
outstanding value. Yet, those selected to be promoted are preferable as representative
samples of the history of art. Greece is more organised in the antiquities sector’’ (personal
interview with Ismini Trianti, archaeologist in the A’ Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical
Antiquities, curator of the Acropolis in 2005).
Archaeologists mention that not every single area needs to have its own museum in order to
become a pole of attraction for tourists. Finds have to be ‘‘important’’, not necessarily many,
in order to be presented, which brings out the role of the agents in charge of the MoC in
deciding such presentations. There is a priority for a few large museums in contrast to
smaller museums, which shows how policy decisions determine heritage’s promotion.
Many areas aim at constructing museums to attract visitors. People of different areas have
sent letters requesting the construction of new museums in their areas, showing their
enthusiasm for the opening of the museum. To this enthusiasm for heritage, economic gains
for these areas can be added (Ministry of Culture, 1992). Nevertheless, the archaeologists
mention that not every single area needs to have its own museum in order to become a pole
of attraction for tourists. Finds have to be ‘‘important’’, not necessarily many, in order to be
presented, which brings out the role of the agents in charge of the MoC in deciding such
presentations. The presentation of sites may lead to the economic development of an area.
At the same time, there is a priority for the construction and promotion of a few large
museums in contrast to smaller museums, which shows how policy decisions determine
their priorities. Loukaki (1997, p. 698) refers to the priority to the construction of a few large
museums over smaller local museums, although smaller museums also exist.
4.2 The tension between the national and the global about issues of ownership for the World
Heritage Site of the Acropolis
The fund raising potential is another opportunity that exists for the World Heritage Sites in
relation to applications for ?nancial assistance made in the international community. The
World Heritage Site of Epicurius Apollo at Bassae (Permanent Delegation of Greece in
UNESCO, 1986) and the Acropolis (UNESCO, 1977) provide examples of the willingness of
the international community to support projects for these sites ?nancially in relation to
Greece.
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 61
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
There is interplay of the national and international signi?cance that exists for heritage of
outstanding value, and the site of the Acropolis is a typical example. In the case of the
Acropolis, the MoC has organised worldwide campaigns. The MoC initiated the ?rst
campaign in 1977 with the appeal of the Director General of UNESCOaiming at encouraging
the international community ‘‘to make a common cause in order to save cultural treasures
which, although they belong to the heritage of Greece, are also part of the shared inheritance
of mankind’’ (UNESCO, 1977).
This is a quote that clearly states that Greek heritage is not only Greek signi?cance, but of
international signi?cance. The international community has initiated the fund-raising
potential, collected money and Greece was to inscribe a plaque indicating that the
international community gathered money. However, the Greek state informed the
international community that there already was an annual subsidisation by the Greek state
and therefore it would be no longer necessary for UNESCO to seek additional ?nancial
contributions (Permanent Delegation of Greece in UNESCO, 1992). Although the rati?cation
of the Convention acknowledges that the sites inscribed on the List are World Heritage Sites,
the Greek authorities were not willing to receive the money.
The other side of this disagreement by Greek archaeologists may imply the unwillingness of
the archaeologists to hand over part of their power, related to the management of the sites, to
associations other than that of Greek archaeologists. The maintenance of the power that
archaeologists have with regard to the management of the sites is an issue of concern. In the
mean time, it is a point that shows the dual nature of Greek heritage as a signi?er of national
and international signi?cance and the tension that may be created. Archaeologists aim to
nominate sites to the List but under conditions that archaeologists aim to raise.
Dimitrios Konstantios, Curator and Secretary General of the Central Archaeological Council
of the MoC and Director of the Byzantine Museum, referred to the importance of the
international recognition of the signi?cance of sites through their inscription in the World
Heritage List, where nominated sites may use the World Heritage Emblemof the Convention,
which identi?es properties protected by the Convention. ‘‘In other countries they have
realised the importance of the tourist nature of such sites and bene?t fromthe fact that these
sites exist in their country. The Greek state has not realised that the World Heritage Emblem
of the Convention can be used as a source of income. The local community may also
promote them and the history of the whole area’’ (personal interview with Dimitrios
Konstantios, Curator and Secretary General of the Central Archaeological Council of the
MoC and Director of the Byzantine Museum, 2008).
Marketing strategists use communication activities to present the cultural values of heritage
resources. The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the Convention also
suggest the fund-raising potential of the World Heritage Emblem of the Convention. The
interviewee’s comment with regard to the World Heritage Emblem of the Convention,
although it has a fund-raising potential, may be veri?ed with the example provided from the
nomination of the Acropolis, where the archaeologists did not initially locate the emblem.
They located the emblem in a prominent position near the site three years after the
nomination of the Acropolis to the List and they did not directly associate it with an event for
celebrating the international character of the site. Rather, they used the emblem for political
purposes within the state. In fact, the placing of the World Heritage Emblemon the Acropolis
took place with the Vice-Minister of Culture, and not archaeologists, performing the
ceremony, as was reported in the press. The press attributed the inauguration to the
pre-election period (Rizospastis, 1989, p. 27) and this delay clearly showed that the agents
of the MoC consider the Acropolis to be national and not international heritage.
4.3 Socio-political implications from the promotion of the Acropolis
The MoC, through policy decisions, aims at safeguarding the of?cial ownership of heritage
and its further use as a means to demonstrate a sense of identity. The interview with the
representative of Greece in the meetings of the World Heritage Committee, Yannis Tzedakis,
who is also General Director of the Directorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities,
illustrated that choices for the nominations may entail political choices. ‘‘There is a national,
PAGE 62
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
political base in the proposals from the States’’ (personal interview with Yannis Tzedakis,
representative of Greece in the meetings of the World Heritage Committee, General Director
of the Directorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, 2008). The nomination of speci?c
monuments by the World Heritage Committee may foster political motives.
The presentation of the World Heritage Site of the Acropolis was found to be related to
political priorities of the Greek state acting as a vault from which the Greek state makes
claims at the national and international levels about Greek identity. These claims include
explicit appeals for the return of the Elgin Marbles through the nomination of the
archaeological site of Acropolis and the references made to the transfer of its frieze to the
British Museum. These highlight the importance that the MoC attributes to the sites, which
abandon their neutral role and indicate the political values of the sites, which may coincide
with the political priorities of the state.
In order to safeguard the political claims, the MoC allocates money for the museum of the
Acropolis. The question we raise is that the MoC seems to be willing to present and allocate
?nancial assistance to speci?c sites since it guarantees political aims while this is not the
case for all sites. Financial assistance also illustrates the priority over the protection of sites
of antiquity. The MoC satis?es speci?c aims through the presentation of speci?c sites. The
state decides on the use of monuments for the service of different purposes, whether
cultural, religious, educational, or archaeological, for museum purposes or entertainment
according to the nature of the monument and the activities that can be held there. In the
speci?c case of the Acropolis museum, the Greek state spent more than e6m euros on the
construction of the Acropolis Museum with the further aim of bringing the marbles of the
Parthenon back from the British Museum, and thus they illustrated who has the power over
heritage, the political claims attached to sites, and also issues of ownership and identity
(Kavoura, 2007; Rakic and Chambers, 2007).
On the one hand, state action is dif?cult because many contemporary sites (dating fromafter
1830) are privately owned. On the other hand, the MoC decides the allocation of money for
those sites associated with antiquity, and priorities emerge over sites from antiquity. Choices
take place, and as Hewison argues, ‘‘choice is practically demonstrated by the decision to
spend money on something’’ (Hewison, 1989, p. 16).
Although the Presidential Decree on 15 January 1980 reinforced competencies of the
Antiquities Services, the directors of the administrative units follow an Operational Plan
formed at central level (Loukaki, 1997; Presidential Decree No. 16, 1980; Psycharis and
Garezou, 2000). Loukaki (1997) examined the operation of the Central Archaeological
Council (CAC), which functions within the MoC and the way decision-making takes place
in relation to issues of architecture, planning and protection and found that the CAC
arranges the order of the agenda within the central service (Loukaki, 1997, p. 687;
Psycharis and Garezou, 2000). This, though, has implications for the way the MoC
manages heritage at central and national levels and where the agents of the MoC give
priority (Kavoura, 2001).
Key of?cials in the MoC may exert in?uence on the way sites are presented. The Greek state
reinforced competencies with Presidential Decree No. 16 (1980) for Antiquities Services, but
these are not fully implemented (Loukaki, 1997; Psycharis and Garezou, 2000). The
centralist approach according to which Antiquities Services operate for the implementation
of activities has resulted in the rigidity that exists between the different Departments of the
same organisation, i.e. the MoC.
4.4 The strengthening of identity among the Greek population with the promotion of the World
Heritage Site of the Acropolis
The other signi?cant ?nding is that a lot of the visitors to the archaeological site of the
Acropolis are foreign while the Greek population does not generally visit sites. There is a
small attendance of Greek people while many foreign tourists visit the site (Kavoura, 2001;
Rakic and Chambers, 2007). Effort is put into encouraging the citizens of Greece to visit the
Acropolis, which may show that it is not a ?rst priority for the Greek population. The new
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 63
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
museum of the Acropolis opened in June 2009. People from 269 countries have already
visited it, which shows that it is an international pole of attraction. Still, the curators of the MoC
consider it to be national heritage, ‘‘a national emblem for Greece’’, irrespective of the fact
that the MoC has inscribed the Acropolis on the List and thus, it has gained international
character.
‘‘The Acropolis is a national emblem for Greece, the aim is to raise the number of visits by
the Greek population. Foreign visitors will visit it anyway; we just want to keep the ?ow of
foreign visitors at a steady number and raise the number of Greek visitors’’ (personal
interview with Ismini Trianti, archaeologist in the A’ Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical
Antiquities, Curator of the Acropolis, 2005). The Acropolis’s role as a national symbol is an
example that the agents of the MoC promote to foster a sense of national unity and pride,
a symbolic landscape that is part of the iconography of nationhood. In that way, the state
uses the process by which popular memories attach to speci?c territories, which are often
associated with sacred sites (Smith, 1996, pp. 453-4), as a way to reinforce connections
with the past.
The MoC aims at making Greek people take pride in their culture through the presentation of
sites like the Acropolis, which are considered to be ‘‘national emblems’’. The aim is to raise
the number of visits by the Greek population and not to be promoted internationally.
Therefore, there is a priority for promotional activities to be targeted at the Greek population
and also at students. The Department of Educational Programs of the MoC, an institution that
plans and operates educational archaeological programs and exhibitions in Greece for
Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, speci?es that the activities are concentrated on the
student population. Educational programs for the Acropolis started for the ?rst time in 1986
when Melina Mercouri initiated the institution of the European City of Culture and Athens was
the City of Culture that year. The MoC organizes many educational programs for different
parts of the site of the Acropolis and the programs aim at different classes of primary and
secondary school. The educational programs for the Acropolis outweigh in number the
programs for the other sites. Also, the policy for the educational programs illustrates the
centralist approach according to which the Greek state allocates money and initiates
activities (Psycharis and Garezou, 2000), a similar case to decisions being made for the
creation of museums in big urban centres. The Acropolis is situated in the region of Attica
where the majority of schools exist.
Thus, the programs cater for a larger number of people. Nonetheless, this should not provide
the argument by the MoC for the justi?cation of the con?nement of activities to speci?c sites
since there are many sites in the region of Greece that have not been promoted. The
emphasis put upon the promotion of heritage to younger generations is to ensure that the
students cherish and admire the past related to national identity with emphasis on the
familiarity of the students with the sites; thus the MoC perpetuates the social construction of
identity, and also the state promotes the politics of heritage tourism.
The MoC takes into consideration that the preservation of the sites is a higher priority than
promoting them, and archaeologists do not seem to agree with the use of sites for tourist
development. ‘‘The fact that the sites may be developed towards a tourist approach is an
issue of secondary importance, the protection is the primary aim, and we do not just see
monuments as tourist attractions with a purely utilitarian basis’’ (personal interview with
Niki Tselenti, representative of Greece in the meetings of the World Heritage Committee,
Archaeologist in the 2nd Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities, 2005). ‘‘The Acropolis already
has millions of visitors per day. If advertising took place, then problems of preservation
and capacity would be created for the site’’ (personal interview with Ismini Trianti,
Archaeologist in the A’ Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, Curator of the
Acropolis, 2005).
Advertising the Acropolis may not be a necessity. The Acropolis is a famous site of Greece
that does not need advertisement. The MoC makes choices for the presentation of sites of
antiquity. The psychological attachment of the site should be made with the Greek
population rather than the international tourists as the actions of the MoC imply.
PAGE 64
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
5. Concluding remarks: implications for implementing an integrated advertising
communication programme for event management and heritage tourism
The MoC initiates communication activities for the Acropolis. Heritage is an integral part of
the concept of nation-building and ‘‘treasured heritage can become an instrument to create
a sense of belonging to a common place’’, as Herbert (1995, p. 13) argues. Culture
in?uences people but they also construct it, build it, and elaborate it with different strategies
according to their needs and circumstances (Kiriakidis, 2008).
Activities for the presentation of the sites to the Greek population are not great in number.
The presentation and the use of specialised vocabulary in Greek museums for the
description of exhibits does not provide many opportunities to the visitors who are not
experts in the ?eld of archaeology to understand the exhibits (Kiosse, 1999). There are
shortcomings in the manner of exhibiting and presenting ?nds in museums, a way that does
not allow for many opportunities for organised participation by visitors.
Heritage tourismserves to preserve artefacts for promotion (Hall, 1994, p. 180) but also uses
features of myth as collective symbols for establishing identity (Hall, 1994; Palmer, 2003).
There are differences of opinion within the MoC related to the fund-raising potential of the
sites. The MoCselectively markets the sites, while the case can be how‘‘a heritage industry’’
utilises the sites, as a study of England identi?ed (Palmer, 2003).
Communication strategies for domestic tourism seem to be the Cinderella of communication
campaigns. The of?cials have the power to decide where priorities lie for the presentation of
Greece following a centralist approach and not allowing ?exibility for the regions to initiate
their own heritage tourism programs. In 1998 the Greek National Tourism Organisation
(GNTO) carried out the ?rst market study at the national and international levels since 1951
when GNTO was founded, and the study illustrated that ‘‘there is a de?cient connection with
the cultural heritage (shortcomings in the manner of exhibition and presentation in museums,
lack of provision for organised participation and transmission of experience, poor
information material)’’ (Greek National TourismOrganisation, 1998, p. 1). Market studies with
regard to the attitudes of people towards tourism and the tendency of their tourist interests
are also useful to be initiated and repeated so that evaluation programs can occur on the
presentation of the areas and the identi?cation of tourists’ points-of-view. Areas should be
free to construct museums. To this enthusiasm for heritage, economic gains for these areas
can be added and the allocation of money by the state should take into consideration that all
heritage is signi?cant. The state uses tourism as a justi?cation for the preservation of
heritage. Meanwhile, tourism serves to preserve artefacts for promotion in place marketing
(Hall, 1994, p. 180), but also uses features of myth as collective symbols for establishing
identity (Hall, 1994).
To these issues, World Heritage Sites belong to the international community and tensions
need not exist over who has the power of ownership, otherwise there is no point in the
nominations to the List taking place. Each national committee initially decides the sites that
may merit nomination to the List (Stovel, 1992, p. 34). In other words, each national
committee may choose on different grounds. Nevertheless, the state should promote the
international character of this heritage by all means.
References
Antiquities Act (1932), ‘‘Article 52, Concerning the Protection of Antiquities’’, Antiquities Act, 5351/1932
(unof?cial translation prepared by UNESCO).
Bitsani, E., Kavoura, A. and Kalomenidis, P. (2008), ‘‘A ?eld study of the exploration of the factors
in?uencing visitors’ preferences in the mountainous area of Nafpaktia, Greece. Implications for an
advertising communication programme’’, Proceedings of the International Conference on Marketing
and Management, Athens, Greece, 2008, Imperial College Press, London, pp. 296-301.
Chambers, M. (2006), ‘‘The bride stripped bare: art museums and the power of placement’’, Curator:
The Museum Journal, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 398-409.
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 65
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Charlton, C. and Essex, S. (1996), ‘‘The involvement of district councils in tourism in England and
Wales’’, Geoforum, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 175-92.
Coffee, K. (2006), ‘‘Museums and the agency of ideology: three recent examples’’, Curator: The Museum
Journal, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 435-48.
Dechow, R.D. and Leahy, A. (2006), ‘‘Not just the hangars of World War II: American aviation museums
and the role of memorial’’, Curator: The Museum Journal, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 419-34.
Greek National Tourism Organisation (1998), ‘‘Market study for Greek tourism’’, European Committee,
Greek National Tourism Organisation, Second European Regional Development Fund, Tourism-Culture,
Market Analysis EPE, Athens.
Hall, M. (1994), Tourism and Politics, Policy, Power and Place, Wiley, Chichester.
Hall, M.C. and Jenkins, J.M. (1995), Tourism and Public Policy, Routledge, London.
Hamel, P., Pelletier, M. and Poitras, C. (1996), ‘‘Urban heritage in Puebla and Montreal: assessment of
strategies and interpretative elements’’, Canadian Journal of Urban Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 18-50.
Herbert, D. (1995), Heritage, Tourism and Society, Mansell, London.
Hewison, R. (1989), ‘‘Heritage: an interpretation’’, in Uzzell, D. (Ed.), Heritage Interpretation, Vol. I. The
Natural and Built Environment, Bellhaven Press, London, pp. 15-23.
Holstein, J. and Gubrium, J. (1998), ‘‘Phenomenology, ethnomethodology, and interpretive practice’’,
in Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (Eds), Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
CA, pp. 137-57.
Johnson, P. and Thomas, B. (1995), ‘‘Heritage as business’’, in Herbert, D. (Ed.), Heritage, Tourism and
Society, Mansell, London, pp. 170-90.
Kavoura, A. (2007), ‘‘Advertising of national identity and tourism bureaucracy’’, Current Issues in
Tourism, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 399-414.
Kavoura, A. (2001), ‘‘State policy for the presentation of Greek national heritage: the case of the Cultural
World Heritage Sites’’, PhD thesis. University of Stirling, Stirling.
Kiosse, C. (1999), ‘‘The problem of the museums’’, To Vima, 7 April, pp. B6-B8.
Kiriakidis, S. (2008), ‘‘Application of the theory of planned behaviour to recidivism: the role of personal
norm in predicting behavioural intentions of re-offending’’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 38
No. 9, pp. 2210-21.
Leoussi, S.A. (1997), ‘‘Nationalism and racial Hellenism in nineteenth-century England and France’’,
Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 42-68.
Loukaki, A. (1997), ‘‘Aesthetics, bureaucracy, and the politics of patrimony: the case of the Greek
Central Archaelogical Council’’, Environment and Planning, Society and Space, Vol. 15 No. 6,
pp. 679-705.
Lowenthal, D. (1988), ‘‘Classical antiquities as national and global heritage’’, Antiquity, Vol. 62,
pp. 726-35.
McCrone, D., Morris, A. and Kiely, R. (1995), Scotland – the Brand. The Making of Scottish Heritage,
Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
McManamon, P.F. and Hatton, A. (2000), Cultural Resource Management in Contemporary Society:
Perspectives on Managing and Presenting the Past, Routledge, London.
Maxwell, J. (1996), Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach, Sage Publications, London.
Ministry of Culture (1992), ‘‘Opinion of the people of the region of Imathia for the construction of the
museum in Vergina’’, unpublished document, F91/19148/1072, Ministry of Culture, Athens, 26 March.
Murray, M. and Chamberlain, K. (1999), Qualitative Health Psychology: Theories and Methods, Sage
Publications, London.
Palmer, C. (2003), ‘‘Touring Churchill’s England: rituals of kinship and belonging’’, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 30, pp. 426-45.
Permanent Delegation of Greece in UNESCO (1986), ‘ ‘Epicurius’ ’, unpublished document,
3330.1/AS1124, Ministry of Culture, Athens, 7 July.
PAGE 66
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Permanent Delegation of Greece in UNESCO (1992), unpublished document, No. 200/8.2.3, 27 October,
Ministry of Culture, Athens.
Presidential Decree No. 16 (1980), ‘‘Presidential Decree No. 16’’, FEK 8 A’, 15 January, Government of
Greece, Athens.
Pritchard, A. and Morgan, N. (2001), ‘‘Culture, identity and tourism representation: marketing Cymru or
Wales?’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 167-79.
Psycharis, Y. and Garezou, M. (2000), ‘‘The economics of heritage, paper presented at the International
Conference of the ECPR Standing Group on Regionalism’’, 28-30 September, University of Thessaly,
Volos.
Rakic, T. and Chambers, D. (2007), ‘‘World heritage: exploring the tension between the national and the
universal’’, Journal of Heritage Tourism, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 1-11.
Rizospastis (1989), ‘‘Inauguration with unveiling’’, Rizospastis, 15 March, p. 27.
Sapsford, R. and Jupp, V. (1996), Data Collection and Analysis, Sage Publications and The Open
University, London.
Smith, A. (1996), ‘‘Culture, community and territory: the politics of ethnicity and nationalism’’,
International Affairs, Vol. 72 No. 3, pp. 445-58.
Stovel, H. (1992), ‘‘The evaluation of cultural properties for the World Heritage List’’, Nature & Resources,
Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 30-6.
Toynbee, A. (1981), The Greeks and their Heritages, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
UNESCO (1977), ‘‘For the safeguarding of the Acropolis’’, UNESCO document, 10 January.
Walsh, K. (1992), The Representation of the Past: Museums and Heritage in the Post-modern World,
Routledge, London.
Yasaitis, K.E. (2006), ‘‘Collecting culture and the British Museum’’, Curator: The MuseumJournal, Vol. 49
No. 4, pp. 449-62.
Yin, R. (1989), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Corresponding author
Androniki Kavoura can be contacted at: [email protected]
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 67
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Maria Teresa Pinheiro Melo Borges Tiago, João Pedro de Almeida Couto, Flávio Gomes Borges Tiago, Sandra Micaela Costa
Dias Faria. 2016. Baby boomers turning grey: European profiles. Tourism Management 54, 13-22. [CrossRef]
2. George Stalidis, Dimitrios Karapistolis, Athanasios Vafeiadis. 2015. Marketing Decision Support Using Artificial Intelligence
and Knowledge Modeling: Application to Tourist Destination Management. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 175,
106-113. [CrossRef]
3. Charalampia Agaliotou. 2015. Reutilization of Industrial Buildings and Sites in Greece can Act as a Lever for the Development
of Special Interest/Alternative Tourism. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 175, 291-298. [CrossRef]
4. Loukia Martha, Amalia Kotsaki. 2015. The Museum Culture as a Means of Conjunction of the Urban and Rural Environment.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 175, 601-606. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_132715053.pdf