Description
The purpose of this paper is to explore the Australian tourist experience at Gallipoli in order
to better understand how tourists approach and engage with battlefield sites and how the experience
may transform them. Specific attention is paid to the role of interpretation in shaping these experiences.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Pilgrims and patriots: Australian tourist experiences at Gallipoli
Felicity Cheal Tony Griffin
Article information:
To cite this document:
Felicity Cheal Tony Griffin, (2013),"Pilgrims and patriots: Australian tourist experiences at Gallipoli", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism
and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 3 pp. 227 - 241
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-05-2012-0040
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:22 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 52 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1042 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Avital Biran, Kenneth F. Hyde, (2013),"New perspectives on dark tourism", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality
Research, Vol. 7 Iss 3 pp. 191-198http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-05-2013-0032
Raynald Harvey Lemelin, Kyle Powys Whyte, Kelsey J ohansen, Freya Higgins Desbiolles, Christopher Wilson, Steve Hemming,
(2013),"Conflicts, battlefields, indigenous peoples and tourism: addressing dissonant heritage in warfare tourism in Australia and North
America in the twenty-first century", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 3 pp. 257-271 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-05-2012-0038
Rachael Raine, (2013),"A dark tourist spectrum", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 3 pp. 242-256http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-05-2012-0037
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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Pilgrims and patriots: Australian tourist
experiences at Gallipoli
Felicity Cheal and Tony Grif?n
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the Australian tourist experience at Gallipoli in order
to better understand how tourists approach and engage with battle?eld sites and how the experience
may transform them. Speci?c attention is paid to the role of interpretation in shaping these experiences.
Design/methodology/approach – A qualitative research method was employed, involving in-depth
interviews with Australians who had visited Gallipoli in a range of circumstances.
Findings – Australians visit Gallipoli for a variety of reasons, including national sentiment and personal
connections. They engage with the site in a range of highly personal ways, with guides playing a crucial
role in helping them to connect with the site physically, intellectually and emotionally.
Research limitations/implications – The study relied on the participants recalling their experiences
from some years past, although other research suggests that this is a minimal problem in the context of
such memorable and moving experiences.
Practical implications – The paper provides valuable insights into how tourists experience battle?eld
sites of great national signi?cance, and consequently how such sites should be managed sensitively
and unobtrusively.
Originality/value – This research provides empirical support to conceptual studies on how tourists
engage with battle?eld tourism sites, and speci?cally explores the role of interpretation in shaping the
overall experience. It further considers the ongoing effects of such experiences.
Keywords Tourism, Heritage, Warfare, Turkey, Battle?eld tourism, Dark tourism, Pilgrimage,
Tourism and national identity, Interpretation, Heritage site management
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Tourism is a complex phenomenon, involving a broad range of people seeking vastly
different experiences for widely variant reasons. While contemporary tourism is most
commonly associated with the pursuit of leisure and pleasure, it often has a far more serious,
even darker side. The coining of the term‘‘dark tourism’’ in the late 1990s (Lennon and Foley,
1999, 2000) re?ects this. Rather than being concerned with feel-good experiences, dark
tourisminvolves tourists travelling to sites associated with death, suffering and disaster. Dark
tourism itself is a broad concept that is characterised by varying shades, and involves
visitation to a diversity of sites, including prisons, themed museums, terrorist event sites,
graves of celebrities, and battle?elds. There is a similarly broad range of motivations for
visiting such sites. It has been suggested that the sequestering of death from the public
arena has led people to visit dark tourism sites to confront and contextualise death (Stone
and Sharpley, 2008). Tourists may also be seeking novelty or nostalgia, or wishing to
celebrate crime or heighten their sense of morality (Stone and Sharpley, 2008). Sharpley
(2009a, b) suggests that dark tourists go in quest of:
B social meaning;
B shared mourning or remembrance;
DOI 10.1108/IJCTHR-05-2012-0040 VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013, pp. 227-241, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 227
Felicity Cheal and Tony
Grif?n are based at the
Management Discipline
Group, UTS Business
School, University of
Technology, Sydney,
Australia.
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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
B status; or
B integration with death to elicit excitement or understanding.
While the dark tourist experience is a spiritual and psychological journey for some, others
are likely to be driven by morbid curiosity, voyeurism and a fascination with death (Sharpley,
2009a, b; Stone, 2006; Lennon and Foley, 2000).
Battle?eld tourism is a form of dark tourism worthy of special consideration due to its
distinctive motivations and experiences (Winter, 2011a). The relationship between war and
tourism is a surprisingly long one, dating back to at least the mid-nineteenth century, when
tourists were reportedly fascinated by evidence of the American Civil War, visiting
battle?elds to view bones and other remnants (Brendon, 1991). While some tourists are
undoubtedly driven by curiosity, visitors to battle?elds may also be inspired by nationalistic
or deeply personal motivations (Hyde and Harman, 2011). People visit battle?elds for
remembrance and commemoration, as well as the discovery of family and national heritage
(Scates, 2006; Winter, 2009, 2011a). Some feel compelled to visit battle?eld sites of national
signi?cance and others are seeking knowledge and understanding in an effort to construct
their identity and reaf?rm national belonging (Winter, 2011b).
For Australians, no battle?eld site is more signi?cant and meaningful than the Gallipoli
peninsula in Turkey. There, on 25 April 1915, Australian and New Zealand soldiers of the
Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) landed as part of a British Imperial force
whose target was to seize the Dardanelles, capture Istanbul and force Turkey out of the First
World War (Bean, 1981). The campaign lasted eight months and claimed the lives of around
70,000 Turkish, 21,000 British, 10,000 French, 8,000 Australian, 2,500 New Zealand and
1,000 Indian soldiers (Department of Veterans’ Affairs, 2010). That day is now
commemorated around Australia and New Zealand as Anzac Day, and the sacred
battle?elds of Gallipoli have come to symbolise Australia’s coming of age and the nation’s
psychological birthplace (Fiske et al., 1987; Ryan and Cave, 2007; Sharpley, 2009b; Slade,
2003). Each year on Anzac Day, thousands of Australians and New Zealanders journey to
Gallipoli to commemorate those who fought and died. Others visit at quieter times, to pay
their respects, to re?ect on the events that occurred there or to search for the grave of a
family member who never returned home. This paper explores the experiences of some
Australian visitors, focusing in particular on:
B their motivations and preconceptions prior to their visit;
B how they engage with the site physically, intellectually and emotionally and the key
factors, such as interpretation, which mediate that engagement; and
B how their experience transforms their subsequent attitudes and behaviour, about
Gallipoli, the Anzac legend, and being Australian.
Literature review
There is a growing body of knowledge around dark tourism and its various sectors. Academic
interest has moved beyond de?nitional debates to consider the supply of dark tourism
products (Stone, 2006) and the motivations of dark tourists (Seaton, 1999; Thurnell-Read,
2009). However, there remains a general lack of research into dark tourist experiences on-site.
Battle?eld tourism has received attention from researchers interested in determining tourist
motivations (Baldwin and Sharpley, 2009; Dunkley et al., 2011; Ryan, 2007). The meaning
associated with visiting a battle?eld of national signi?cance has been explored (Scates,
2006; Slade, 2003; Winter, 2009), and a debate has developed over battle?eld tourist
typologies, speci?cally whether visitors are tourists or pilgrims (Hyde and Harman, 2011;
Sharpley and Sundaram, 2005; Winter, 2011a). Pilgrimages are traditionally associated with
religiously inspired journeys to a sacred place undertaken with the intention of acquiring
spiritual or physical bene?t or transformation (Graburn, 1989; Hyde and Harman, 2011;
Margry, 2008; Morgan et al., 2010; Turner, 1974). However, some authors have recognised
that pilgrimages may also be secular. Secular pilgrimages have been described as deeply
moving experiences which have some cultural or personal value and are relevant to the
PAGE 228
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 3 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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
traveller’s identity (Hyde and Harman, 2011; Morinis, 1992; Singh, 2005). Such experiences,
it is argued, will bring transformation and renewal (Hannaford and Newton, 2008; Hyde and
Harman, 2011; Walter, 1993). Scates’s (1998) common denominators, Hyde and Harman’s
(2011) key signi?ers and Walter’s (1993) stage model highlight core characteristics of
secular pilgrimages. Drawing on these explanations, a secular pilgrimage may be
described as a journey outside of one’s usual environment to a place with great meaning
which leaves the visitor feeling renewed. The site is non-substitutable, often relevant to the
visitor’s core identity, and the experience is generally transformational. Cohen’s (1979) use of
the ‘‘centre’’ to differentiate between tourists and pilgrims is also useful. The centre is the
cultural or spiritual core of an individual’s values and meanings (Cohen, 1979). According to
Cohen (1979), those who travel in search of that core can be considered pilgrims.
While research on battle?eld tourist typologies, motivations and experiences is growing,
conceptual studies require empirical support to provide greater understanding of visitor
experiences at battle?eld sites, particularly qualitative studies that explore those motivations
and experiences in depth (Dunkley et al., 2011). Few studies have considered the impact of
war-related tourism on national identity and pride. Even fewer have addressed how tourists
approach and engage with battle?eld sites.
A number of studies have focused on Australian and New Zealand visitors to Gallipoli,
although the scope has been limited. Most have concentrated on tourist motivations for
visiting Gallipoli on Anzac Day, with contributions by Scates (1998, 2002, 2006) providing
insight into the meaning of the experience. Generally, these studies demonstrate the
importance of the shared experience which allows visitors to connect with other Australians
and New Zealanders on the grounds of their national identity and culture. Interestingly, the
shared sense of loss and sorrow with the Turkish nation is also important. Scates (2006)
detected gender differences in the way visitors engaged with the site, and found that some
backpackers regarded Gallipoli on Anzac Day as a place to meet and party with other
Australians and New Zealanders. Feelings of nationalism and an interest in family history
were common motivations in other studies (Hall and Basarin, 2009; Hyde and Harman, 2011;
Slade, 2003). These more serious motivations led some authors to conclude that Australians
and NewZealanders visiting Gallipoli are more appropriately likened to pilgrims than tourists
(Hyde and Harman, 2011; Scates, 1998; 2006).
A key factor that in?uences the tourist’s engagement with a battle?eld site is interpretation;
however, there is limited research into the use and value of interpretation in such contexts.
Interpretation is a process that tells the story of a place and aims to assist the visitor in
understanding and connecting with the site (Beck and Cable, 2002; Tunbridge and
Ashworth, 1996). It is valued in heritage tourism settings because of its ability to
communicate historic messages and potentially enhance the tourist experience (Ballantyne
et al., 1998; Moscardo, 2003; Uzzell, 1989). However, the need for mediation will depend on
the nature and characteristics of the site and individual tourist’s preferences, perceptions
and knowledge (Biran et al., 2011; Dunkley et al., 2011). As is pointed out by Figgis (1998),
choosing not to interpret certain aspects of a site may be the most effective way of facilitating
a connection between the tourist and site. A potential problem with interpretation in heritage
tourism settings is heritage dissonance, which is de?ned as the difference between the way
the past is presented and the way a particular group or individual perceives the past
(Sharpley, 2009b; Hannam, 2006). Frost (2007) has recognised dissonance as a
problematic feature of interpretation at battle?eld sites, which visitors may ?nd
disconcerting. War-related interpretation is particularly contentious due to competing
perceptions of past events (Moscardo and Ballantyne, 2008; Smith, 2007). Deciding which
messages to communicate and how to do so are especially challenging for battle?eld
tourism managers. Battle?eld interpretation may be planned, such as signs, displays,
brochures and tour guides, or incidental, such as memorials and gravestones.
Understanding how the tourist experience is affected by interpretation may assist
managers in ?nding the right balance of interpretive modes at signi?cant battle?eld sites. No
previous studies of Gallipoli have addressed this issue of interpretation, nor has the meaning
of visiting Gallipoli been explored in relation to on-site interaction and personal connection.
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 229
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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Methodology
The study employed a qualitative method, involving in-depth interviews. Fifteen participants
were recruited using convenience and snowball sampling, with the qualifying criteria that
they were Australian citizens who had visited Gallipoli for non-business purposes. There was
an attempt to construct a sample which represented a broad range of ages and different
visiting circumstances, but a relatively even gender balance. A pro?le of interviewees is
presented in Table I, although pseudonyms have been used in order to preserve
con?dentiality. At the time they were interviewed (2011), most participants (ten) had visited
Gallipoli within the previous ?ve years, and a further three within the last seven years. Two
participants had visited the site 15 years previously. However, other studies into the tourist
experience at battle?eld sites, especially those involving national sentiment, suggest that the
experience is one that is not quickly forgotten (Scates, 2006).
All but one participant had visited Gallipoli as part of a tour, which re?ects the general nature
of visitation to the site. Some were on Gallipoli day tours from Eceabat (nearest town) or
Istanbul, while others were on broader tours that included Gallipoli on the itinerary. Tourists
visiting on Anzac Day as well as at other times were interviewed to provide a basis for
comparison and contrast.
A schedule of questions was developed to guide the interview process. The interviews
started by asking about the general details of the trip – when they went, who they went with,
how and why. Participants were then asked a series of questions intended to explore:
B their knowledge of and pre-existing emotional attachment to Gallipoli and how this
impacted on their experience;
B how they engaged with the site, physically, emotionally and intellectually;
B the on-site factors that in?uenced their engagement, including their interactions with tour
guides and other tourists, site interpretation and other site features such as the
inscriptions on gravestones;
B how the experience changed their attitudes, perceptions and beliefs about Anzac and
associated events;
B how their subsequent behaviour had changed as a result of their experience; and
B whether the experience had impacted on their sense of national pride and identity.
All interviews were conducted on an individual basis and were 45 minutes to an hour in
duration. The interviews were recorded and then transcribed. Due to the sensitivity of the
Table I Interview participants
Participant
a
Gender Age
b
Year visited Day visited Tour type
Nat Female 26-30 2011 Anzac Day Gallipoli
Penny Female 26-30 2011 Anzac Day Gallipoli
Gabby Female 21-25 2010 Anzac Day Gallipoli
Tim Male 26-30 2009 Anzac Day Turkey
Colin Male 56-60 2008 Other day Turkey and Gallipoli
Kate Female 56-60 2008 Other day Turkey and Gallipoli
Mandy Female 26-30 2008 Other day Multiple countries
James Male 26-30 2007 Anzac Day Gallipoli
Damien Male 26-30 2006 Anzac Day Gallipoli
Liam Male 21-25 2006 Other day No tour
Ed Male 21-25 2005 Anzac Day Gallipoli
Anna Female 51-55 2004 Other day Gallipoli
Brian Male 31-35 2004 Both
c
Gallipoli
Harry Male 61-65 1996 Both
c
Gallipoli
Sarah Female 61-65 1996 Both
c
Gallipoli
Notes:
a
To preserve con?dentiality, participants have been assigned pseudonyms;
b
age of participant at time of interview;
c
participants
visited Gallipoli on Anzac Day as well as another day
PAGE 230
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 3 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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
subject matter and the possibility of interviewees having dif?culty expressing their emotions,
the transcriptions were verbatim to enable accurate interpretation of responses (Jennings,
2005). Transcripts included speech hesitations, such as ‘‘umms’’ and ‘‘ahhs’’ and, where
appropriate, paralinguistic features of speech were also recorded to help to qualify meaning
(Gillham, 2005). The interview transcripts were then coded and analysed thematically using
NVivo 9, a content analysis software program. A hierarchy of categories, called nodes, was
established to assist in the analytical process. Nodes were developed in response to the
research questions and were divided into three key areas:
1. pre-visit;
2. on-site; and
3. post-visit.
Sectioning data chronologically in this way provided insights into how participants
approached the site, engaged with it and were then transformed by the experience. The
?ndings presented below incorporate direct quotations from the interview transcripts, with
the source of the quote identi?ed by the participant’s pseudonym.
The site
Commonwealth war graves are scattered throughout the 33,000 hectares of the Gallipoli
Peninsula Historical National Park (Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism, 2005).
The majority of the ?ghting that involved the Anzacs occurred within ten kilometres of the
troops’ camp at North Beach, as is shown in Figure 1. Tours rarely venture outside this area,
although private tours to other areas may be negotiated with guides. Those visiting the
peninsula for Anzac Day usually camp overnight at North Beach, the site of the dawn
service. After the dawn service they make their way up to Lone Pine Cemetery for the
Australian service and then move on to Chunuk Bair, the site of the New Zealand service.
Some visitors also go to the Turkish 57 Infantry Regiment Cemetery, located between Lone
Pine and Chunuk Bair. Tours conducted outside Anzac Day tend to followa similar route, with
some stopping at smaller cemeteries and memorials along the way. There are restored
trenches located near Chunuk Bair which tourists can walk through. Unrestored trenches
and dug-outs are recognisable and in less frequented areas it is possible to ?nd war relics
such as a piece of bully beef tin or old bullet shell. A museum near the entrance to the park
formally displays material remnants from the war, but there is fairly limited interpretive
signage on the site. On-site audio visual presentations are shown around Anzac Day.
Findings
Motivation
National sentiment played a large part in motivating the tourists to visit Gallipoli, although few
reported it as the primary motivation for their overall trip. Typically they were engaged in a
more broadly based trip to Europe, and their visit to Gallipoli arose opportunistically out of
that. Their motivation to visit, however, was quite strong and frequently described as
something they had ‘‘always wanted to do’’. Gallipoli was recognised, by participants, as the
?rst milestone in Australia’s national war history and was associated with the development of
Australian identity. The campaign was considered important to Australians and New
Zealanders; however, the Turkish perspective was something that participants either had not
considered or had no knowledge of prior to their visit.
Engagement with the site
Participants were questioned about how they engaged with the site on three levels:
1. physically, relating to what they did;
2. intellectually, how they made sense of or interpreted the site; and
3. emotionally, how they felt.
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 231
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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Physically, the site’s location and surrounding infrastructure make it relatively inaccessible to
independent travellers, and hence most participants experienced Gallipoli as part of a
guided tour. Those visiting on Anzac Day arrived by coach and moved around the site on
foot. The physical exertion impacted on some people’s experiences and made them feel as
though they could relate better with the Anzacs. However, participants who visited on Anzac
Day tended to interact less with the site because of temporary infrastructure, limited access
to certain areas and scheduled commemorative events.
Visiting Gallipoli outside Anzac Day was a more physically engaging and personal experience,
which facilitated making a connection to the site, or in Harry’s case, getting a sense of place:
I was keen to almost touch and feel what was happening [. . .] I touched some of the vegetation, I
picked up a bully beef tin [. . .] wanting to get some sort of sense or earthy sense about what went on.
The wide range of reported physical activities re?ected how personal the experience was.
Given the opportunity, visitors constructed their own experience. One female participant
Figure 1 Map of Gallipoli
PAGE 232
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 3 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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
enjoyed exploring the site by walking out into the ocean and following old trenches. Some
interviewees reported gender differences, noticing that males tended to be more
adventurous while females talked more and stayed on set paths. These differences aside,
most walked extensively over the site, although Liam was ‘‘happy to watch and observe and
soak it in’’ in an effort to make sense of what had happened there. He explained:
I remember looking over and like just feeling how futile it was that this was the land that people
were ?ghting so much over [. . .] I just remember being like ‘‘why?’’.
For Liam, the limited physical interaction with the site was in?uenced by his emotional and
intellectual engagement. He was more concerned with learning and understanding, which
are cognitive rather than physical activities.
Intellectual engagement was a key contributor to the visitor experience at Gallipoli, with
participants speaking positively of the impact that learning had on their overall experience.
Knowledge and understanding gained at the site included details about the soldiers,
particulars about the campaign and insights into the Turkish perspective. For many, it was
the ?rst time they had thought about the campaign from the Turkish point of view. Gabby
recalled learning:
. . . a lot that day about what the Turkish people went through during that whole war [. . .] and it was
actually Australians and New Zealanders invading [. . .] invading their land.
Visitors learnt about the camaraderie between the Australian and Turkish troops and were
moved by tales of respect and friendship between the opposing sides.
Some participants recalled there being minimal information available on site, although they
recognised this could be an intentional effort to avoid intrusive communication. Overall,
visitors were satis?ed with the level of information available, but acknowledged that the
guide was crucial to their learning. This ?nding was reinforced by the one independent
traveller who visited outside Anzac Day reporting considerable dif?culty in understanding
the signi?cance of different areas of the site.
Addressing emotional engagement proved to be challenging due to the dif?culty people
had in articulating how they felt. As Mandy explained:
You can’t really describe all the feelings you go through, as an Australian, when you go there.
You’re happy, you’re sad, you’re amazed; there’s so many things going on that you can’t take it all
in, I suppose, or be able to describe it to someone. You have to be there yourself and do it
yourself.
Despite these dif?culties, three major themes emerged which re?ect the emotional
experience at Gallipoli:
1. being moved;
2. being proud; and
3. feeling a sense of loss.
Participants remember the experience at Gallipoli as emotionally moving, confronting and
overwhelming. Mandy recalled being:
. . . so overwhelmed by so many things because you walk in there and you look at it and you go ‘I
can’t believe I’m here’; as an Australian, full stop, you can’t believe you’re there.
Being Australian impacted on how tourists felt at Gallipoli and whether participants had
relatives that served in the campaign became irrelevant to feeling connected to the site.
Visitors were taken aback by the beauty of the site and the stories they heard. They were
comforted by the camaraderie amongst the Anzacs and between the Anzacs and the Turks.
Nat found ‘‘a really nice sense of it wasn’t us verse [sic] them anymore’’. Empathizing with
the troops and personalising the experience made participants engage emotionally with the
site. People spoke about the campaign being ‘‘more real’’, as visiting the site and reading
the gravestones brought the stories to life.
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 233
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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Visiting Gallipoli provided insights into the origin of the Anzac legend and reaf?rmed
qualities underpinning Australian identity. Participants were proud to be associated with
traits such as endurance, bravery and mateship. However, pride felt by visitors stretched
beyond national sentiment to include human endurance and bravery from both sides. Anna
said she:
. . . came away with a pride for both sides; both the Turkish and the Australians. And the English
and the Canadians and all the people that were there [. . .] that they were able to maintain their
humanity [. . .] still have a laugh and share food across those lines [. . .] the fact that they could
keep going.
Participants recalled the sense of loss they felt walking through the cemeteries and seeing
the ages of the soldiers who had died. The experience failed to bring any clarity or
understanding of the campaign with participants remembering the shock and confusion
they felt, and even on re?ection the visitors still ‘‘don’t get it’’. They spoke of the frustration
and anger they felt at the costly mistakes and bad decisions made during the campaign.
They were struck by the futility of war and the sense of loss was felt, not only on an individual
level, but through a shared grief which is understood by Australians and Turks alike. For
Kate:
. . . there was an acknowledgement of their loss and our loss. It’s not my loss; it’s a collective loss.
Visiting Gallipoli was a moving experience for all participants. However, some interviewees
were only emotionally engaged in the cemeteries and recalled being underwhelmed in other
areas of the battle?elds. One participant attributed this feeling to the lack of engagement
and knowledge of his guide. Another participant, who was travelling independently, was
expecting to gain a greater understanding of Australian history and identity, but remembers:
I was pretty underwhelmed. I probably wasn’t overly satis?ed with the maintenance of the sites
and I feel like it was more of a geographical position rather than an area that preserved what had
actually happened (Liam).
Transcending the varying modes and levels of engagement was a very strong sense of
place. Participants described Gallipoli as a sacred place characterised by serenity and
spirituality. The meaning attributed to the site, the impact of other visitors and the onsite
interpretation all contributed to Gallipoli’s sense of place. As Anna described it:
. . . there’s something there, you know, it’s just not like a normal place. People move quietly
around, they’re not really, um, jovial and I think that you’re getting so much information that it’s
intense and I think you can actually start to visualise what was going on there. The empathy of it
just makes you realise this is a serious place, it’s a special place.
The spirituality of the experience does not vary with time of visit, although emotional triggers
facilitating the experience may differ. Those visiting outside Anzac Day were moved by the
serenity of the site, while Anzac Day visitors had an equally moving experience triggered by
the dawn service. The dawn service was described as deeply moving, with an eeriness that
made the experience more spiritual. Penny remembers:
. . . fully expecting that it would be emotional, which it was, but what I wasn’t expecting is that it
would be so eerie [. . .] it gave me goose bumps [. . .] the hairs stand up on the back of your neck,
kind of thing.
The visitors also spoke about feeling a sense of comfort, of being at home. Gallipoli felt like
the other side of Australia, rather than the other side of the world. Harry has:
. . . often said to people that if there’s a place in the world where you feel that there’s a little bit of
Australia it’s there, it’s there at Gallipoli.
Interactions with other tourists
While most participants reported deeply personal experiences, nearly all were shared with
others, and in some cases these interactions had a major impact on the experience. The
degree of desired and actual interaction with other tourists varied amongst participants. For
some, the experience was more personal and they valued time on their own, while others
PAGE 234
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 3 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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
enjoyed the connection, comfort or common values expressed in the company of other
tourists. Some disadvantages of visiting with a crowd of people on Anzac Day were
reported, but overall participants were impressed with the level of respect shown and felt
that the crowd contributed positively to the overall atmosphere.
While participants recalled being quieter than usual and enjoying moments on their own,
they did like experiencing the site with other Australians. Visiting Gallipoli served to create
and strengthen relationships, and participants spoke of sharing moments with other tourists
they did not know. Temporary bonds were considered important in enhancing the
experience at the site. Talking about other people on her tour, Kate explained that:
We became very close in that moment of time. We’re not close now, never even gotten in contact
since, but in that moment of time, yeah.
Interpretation
A particular concern of this study was to understand how onsite interpretation, both planned
and incidental, impacted on the visitor experience. Planned interpretation at Gallipoli
consists of interpretation panels, audio-visual presentations, tour guides and a museum.
Audio-visual presentations are used on Anzac Day and participants appreciated the
entertainment and the effect these had in setting the mood. The museumwas a key source of
information for the participant travelling independently, although most visitors did not recall
any details from the museum. It was described as something that was expected to be there,
but was not central to the overall experience.
Tour guides, however, played a crucial role in the Gallipoli experience, albeit in different
ways. For some visiting on Anzac Day, the role of the guide was primarily organisational,
concerned with coordinating where and when to meet. More commonly, though, the guide
was seen as the visitor’s main source of information. Guides were valued for their knowledge
and captivating delivery of information. They also facilitated physical and intellectual
interactions which often created a deeper emotional connection to the site for the visitor. The
participants who hired a private guide and driver appreciated the time and effort put into
?nding a speci?c place for them. This was where the grandfather of one of the participants
was believed to have died. Whilst at the site the guide and the driver picked fresh ?gs and
shared them with the visitors and showed them where they could wash their hands nearby.
Colin explained this gesture as:
. . . quite symbolic, you know, that you had eaten something from the ground and then washed
yourself [. . .] I was really satis?ed after that.
For Colin, this made the experience really worthwhile and even impacted on his individual
sense of self. He spoke about always disliking his middle name, which was his grandfather’s
name. After visiting the spot where his grandfather died, the symbolic meaning of the name
changed. As he re?ected:
It’s funny, having gone there now and having found out a bit more about him and sort of trying to
piece together his life a little bit, I’ve become much happier with the name.
The experience these participants had at the site is almost a ritualistic one and had a
powerful effect that they described as spiritual. Without the guide, many such experiences
would not have been possible, demonstrating the value of human rather than passive forms
of interpretation in such settings.
Incidental, or unplanned, interpretation is a non-deliberate form of communicating with
tourists and helping them to understand, make sense of, or connect with the site. Memorials
and gravestones are incidental forms of interpretation because they were not erected, nor
are they managed, as a means of engaging tourists. However, the gravestones served a key
purpose in eliciting an emotional response from tourists. Visitors were captivated by the
gravestones, as Anna explains:
I decided to walk around and read every one of the headstones. ’Cause I just felt then, in that way,
that the people who had put the headstones there and the little memorials, it was sort of their way
of speaking to us [. . .] that sort of paid them honour.
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 235
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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Interviewees spoke about the sense of loss, grief and even anger that they felt whilst reading
the gravestones. Seeing the names and ages of fallen soldiers and inscriptions written by
their loved ones brought the stories to life and allowed visitors to humanise the losses.
Re?ection and transformation
Visiting Gallipoli transformed people’s attitudes, improved their knowledge and, in some
cases, in?uenced their behaviour. Since visiting the site, Anzac Day has become more
important and participants spoke about feeling the need to commemorate more formally by
attending dawn services. Since visiting, one participant who works in a hospital has taken
sprigs of rosemary to work for patients. The sprigs are Gallipoli Rosemary from a plant she
had purchased after returning home. The Gallipoli Rosemary available in Australia was
propagated from a cutting of rosemary taken from Gallipoli. Every Anzac Day she takes ten
sprigs of Gallipoli Rosemary for ex-servicemen and sprigs of ‘‘non-Gallipoli’’ rosemary for
other patients and fellow staff.
Participants’ attitudes to Anzac Day changed, with a greater sense that it was for
commemoration and not just another public holiday. Experiencing Gallipoli impacted on
participants’ sense of national and personal identity, and interpretations of the meaning of
the Anzac legend were transformed. For Penny:
. . . [it] gave me a whole new respect for [. . .] what they did and had to face [. . .] I just think ‘wow,
that’s a huge sacri?ce’’.
The experience changed Penny in a way which she found hard to express. She explained
how learning about the possible outcomes of blindly following orders had impacted on her
approach to certain aspects of her work. As a nurse, she realised that sometimes you need
to question decisions made by authority ?gures.
Visitors came away with a greater understanding of the campaign and insight into the Turkish
perspective, leading to a greater respect and appreciation for the ‘‘other’’ side. The powerful
words on the Ataturk memorial, which are also recited at the Anzac Day dawn service, were
frequently referred to:
Heroes who shed their blood and lost their lives . . .
You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country.
Therefore rest in peace.
There is no difference between the Johnnies
and Mehmets to us where they lie side by side
here in this country of ours . . .
You, the mothers,
who sent their sons from far away countries
wipe away your tears,
your sons are now lying in our bosom
and are in peace.
After having lost their lives on this land they have
become our sons as well (Ataturk, 1934).
For one participant, a primary school teacher, learning about the Turkish perspective had led
her to incorporate the Turkish side into her lessons on the First World War and Anzac Day.
Interestingly, learning about the opposing side did not detract from national sentiments;
rather, participants were comforted by the bond between the Anzacs and the Turks. Mandy
explained that:
With most wars it’s very competitive, us versus them, so you automatically go ‘‘they killed our
soldiers’’, but when you hear the stories that you do you go ‘‘well, they were just like our Australian
guys’’ [. . .] so then you get that empathy and sympathy for them.
The experience is one that participants say will be with them for the rest of their lives, and
there seems to be a tacit understanding of the bond that exists between those who have
visited Gallipoli. One participant, James, was looking forward to spending next Anzac Day
with his sister because she had been to Gallipoli that year, and thus ‘‘she understands it
now’’.
PAGE 236
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 3 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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Discussion and conclusions
This paper has explored a particular case of dark tourism, i.e. the Australian tourist
experience at the battle?elds of Gallipoli. By employing qualitative research methods it has
revealed how tourists approach and engage with Gallipoli and what in?uence the
experience has had on thempost-visit. The impact of the experience on the tourists’ sense of
national identity and the role of onsite interpretation in shaping the overall experience have
also been considered.
What is plainly evident from this study is how profound, memorable and transforming the
experience of visiting a battle?eld can be. Despite the length of time since their visit for some
of those interviewed, the memories of what they did, saw and felt were fresh and vivid.
Battle?eld tourism is clearly distinctive from other forms of dark tourism, especially where it
involves tourists with a national or personal connection to the site. Certainly there is little
evidence from this study that tourists have been motivated by a morbid curiosity with death
or any sense of voyeurism, but there is much to suggest that themes such as the search for
meaning, shared mourning and remembrance are powerful in this context (Sharpley, 2009a,
b). In some cases the most profound outcomes of the experience did not re?ect the original
motivations of the tourists interviewed. They went to Gallipoli because it was convenient to
do so, or out of a nationalistic sentiment that is was the right thing to do, but they emerged
with a newunderstanding of the events that occurred there. There was a sense of pilgrimage
about the journey, with the site being clearly and widely regarded as sacred, and notions of
duty and paying one’s respects being evident in many participants’ comments. This was a
place that, while distant geographically, was symbolically at the core of the Australian
identity and therefore part of the nation. It was also a place where one could feel patriotic and
proud about being Australian, to reaf?rm that the national character was worthy and noble,
as re?ected in those who had fought and died or endured the hardships. Pilgrims and
patriots were both well served.
Generally, this research has strongly reaf?rmed the ?ndings of other studies that visitation to
battle?elds represents a form of secular pilgrimage. The sense of personal connection to the
site and the moving nature of the experience paralleled the ?ndings of Dunkley et al. (2011),
even though the context of the studies differed. Participants in this study also demonstrated
Scates’s (1998) characteristics of secular pilgrims through the sense of achievement and/or
ful?lment which they felt on arrival, and the depth that the experience added to their sense of
self, through national or personal identity. Australian visitation to Gallipoli also conforms to Hyde
and Harman’s (2011) criteria as the site is non-substitutable, deeply meaningful and a source of
core identity, with the experience being able to invoke transformation in some visitors. Applying
Cohen’s (1979) notion that the quest for the centre is the key characteristic distinguishing
pilgrims from tourists also suggests Australians visiting Gallipoli are partaking in a pilgrimage.
Gallipoli is a key element of Australia’s cultural centre which is based, psychologically, in
Australia but supported by events which occurred outside the nation’s geographic boundaries.
While the centre exists in Australia, it is epitomised and reinforced in Turkey.
The onsite experience at Gallipoli varied depending on the circumstances of the visit. Those
visiting on Anzac Day had more of a shared experience, whilst visitors at other times of the
year had more of a personal experience. The experience was generally deeply moving
regardless of the time of visit, although the emotional triggers and methods of interpretation
differed. The commemorative services were the most emotionally moving experiences for
Anzac Day visitors and visitors felt nationalistic bonds with the site and other tourists.
Outside Anzac Day, the serenity of the site and the re?ective nature of the experience were
among the most moving aspects of the visit.
The tour guide, gravestones and Ataturk’s dedication were the most powerful and valued
means of making sense of the site. The tour guide was particularly important for visitors
outside Anzac Day. The ability of the guide to connect the tourist with the site in highly personal
ways and provide powerful memories is exempli?ed by the experience of sharing the ?g at the
place where a grandfather had fallen. This is further con?rmed by the independent visitor’s
experience at Gallipoli which lacked information, connection and emotion.
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 237
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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Signi?cantly, interpretation at Gallipoli is poly-vocal and presents both Turkish and Anzac
narratives. Visitors approached Gallipoli with very little knowledge of the Turkish perspective
and generally glori?ed understandings of Australia’s involvement in the campaign. Visitors
were shocked to learn about the devastation endured by the Turks and realised, often for the
?rst time, that Australia was the enemy invading someone else’s country. Surprisingly,
learning the Turkish perspective and the dissonance experienced at the site enhanced the
Australian visitor experience. This is inconsistent with expected or assumed reactions to
heritage dissonance. Rather than being disconcerting (Frost, 2007) the dissonance at
Gallipoli appears to have enriched the experience. In this instance the visitors felt they were
learning about both sides and thus gaining a holistic understanding of the campaign. The
sensitivity with which the narratives were presented also allowed the Anzac stories and
sentiments to be maintained, while the camaraderie between the Anzacs and Turkish
soldiers and the enduring bonds between the two peoples were stressed. Visitors could
comfortably re-interpret the situation while still maintaining their sense of national pride.
Allowing visitors the freedom to interpret the site in their own way proved important to the
overall tourist experience at Gallipoli. Visitors sought quiet time by themselves, to re?ect on
what they had learnt and experience the sense of place, and the guides generally afforded
these opportunities. More structured and regimented interpretation programs would not
have permitted this to the same extent. The sense of place was considered to be enhanced
by the lack of interpretative signage, demonstrating the importance of not over-interpreting
such sites. The deeply moving and personal nature of the experience and the relatively
natural state of Gallipoli does not lend itself to permanent, potentially intrusive, interpretive
methods. Such methods may diminish the authenticity, serenity and spiritual nature of the
site and thereby interfere with the tourist’s emotional engagement. Site managers need to
strike a balance between the need to convey information and preserve the special qualities
of a place which are so important to the tourist experience. As Seaton (1999) suggests, a
hands-off approach to battle?eld interpretation can be best.
The strongest theme identi?ed throughout the research was the desire to stay connected.
The onsite experience elicited powerful connections to the site that visitors wanted to
remember. Some people remained connected to Gallipoli through their relationships with
others, which were strengthened as a result of their visit. Regardless of when other people
visited, it was considered that they understood the emotional attachment experienced at the
site and by talking about the experience, or sharing Anzac Day (in Australia) with them, they
were able to remain connected. Attending Anzac Day services reminded visitors what it felt
like to be at Gallipoli and visitors perceived a deeper meaning in these services since
returning home. Watching documentaries was another reminder of experiences at Gallipoli
and provided a means of further contextualising and re?ecting on the experience. The
desires to remain connected to Gallipoli and remember how the experience made them feel
is materialised in the souvenirs and that which visitors brought back fromthe site. Touching a
pebble retrieved from the beach at Anzac Cove or sharing a sprig of rosemary can be a
powerful way for a tourist to recall a treasured experience.
In summary, this examination of Australian tourist experiences at Gallipoli has af?rmed the
highly distinctive nature of battle?eld tourism, particularly when there are questions of
national identity and pride involved. The experiences are memorable and transformative and
portray most of the de?ning characteristics of a secular pilgrimage. Perhaps the most
distinctive feature of these experiences is that they are simultaneously both deeply personal
and communal. Each visitor engaged with the site in a different way, emotionally, physically
and intellectually. This individuality was facilitated by the guides, who could help the visitor
construct their experience, depending on their connection to the site and the way in which
they wished to interact with it. Passive interpretation, through signage and the like, would not
have allowed for this variability, nor enabled for the humanity of the place to dominate the
stories told about it. But having experienced the site in this individualistic way the visitor was
now part of a community that had shared this experience. For some, the sense of sharing at
the Anzac Day ceremony was immediate, but for others it meant connecting with people
back home at a different level, especially with those who had similarly journeyed to the place
PAGE 238
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 3 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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
at the heart of the Australian identity. For all visitors, the battle?eld reaf?rmed their sense of
national pride, but for many that involved a re-interpretation of the meaning of Gallipoli for
Australians.
References
Baldwin, F. and Sharpley, R. (2009), ‘‘Battle?eld tourism: bringing organised violence back to life’’,
in Sharpley, R. and Stone, P. (Eds), The Darker Side of Travel: The Theory and Practice of Dark Tourism,
Channel View Publications, Bristol, pp. 186-206.
Ballantyne, R., Packer, J. and Beckmann, E. (1998), ‘‘Targeted interpretation: exploring relationships
among visitors’ motivations, activities, attitudes, information needs and preferences’’, Journal of Tourism
Studies, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 14-25.
Bean, C. (1981), The Of?cial History of Australia in the War of 1914-1918, Volume 1, The Story of Anzac,
University of Queensland Press, St Lucia.
Beck, L. and Cable, T. (2002), Interpretation for the 21st Century: Fifteen Guiding Principles for
Interpreting Nature and Culture, Sagamore Publishing, Champaign, IL.
Biran, A., Poria, Y. and Oren, G. (2011), ‘‘Sought experiences at (dark) heritage sites’’, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 820-841.
Brendon, P. (1991), Thomas Cook: 150 Years of Popular Tourism, Secker & Warburg, London.
Cohen, E. (1979), ‘‘A phenomenology of tourist experiences’’, Sociology, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 179-201.
Department of Veterans’ Affairs (2010), Investigating Gallipoli, Australian Government, Canberra.
Department of Veterans’ Affairs (2011), ‘‘Detailed viewof the Anzac area’’, available at: www.dva.gov.au/
commems_oawg/commemorations/commemorative_events/anzac_day/gallipoli/PublishingImages/
gallipoli_peninsula.gif (accessed 6 June 2011).
Dunkley, R., Morgan, N. and Westwood, S. (2011), ‘‘Visiting the trenches: exploring meanings and
motivations in battle?eld tourism’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 860-868.
Figgis, P. (1998), ‘‘Can interpretation survive potato wedges and cappuccino?’’, paper presented at the
5th World Congress Heritage Interpretation International, Sydney, 31 August-4 September.
Fiske, J., Hodge, B. and Turner, G. (1987), Myths of Oz. Reading Australian Popular Culture, Allen
& Unwin, Sydney.
Frost, W. (2007), ‘‘Re?ghting the Eureka Stockade: managing a dissonant battle?eld’’, in Ryan, C. (Ed.),
Battle?eld Tourism: History, Place and Interpretation, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 187-194.
Gillham, B. (2005), Research Interviewing, Open University Press, Maidenhead.
Graburn, N. (1989), ‘‘Tourism: the sacred journey’’, in Smith, V. (Ed.), Hosts and Guest: The Anthropology
of Tourism, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 21-36.
Hall, J. and Basarin, J. (2009), ‘‘Anzac Day commemorations at Gallipoli and the economic effects of
attendance’’, in Carlsen, J., Hughes, M., Holmes, K. and Jones, R. (Eds), CAUTHE 2009: Sea Change:
Tourism & Hospitality in a Dynamic World, CD-ROM, Curtin University of Technology, Fremantle.
Hannaford, J. and Newton, J. (2008), ‘‘Sacri?ce, grief and the sacred at the contemporary ‘secular’
pilgrimage to Gallipoli’’, Borderlands e-Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, available at: www.borderlands.net.au/
vol7no1_2008/hannafordnewton_gallipoli.htm
Hannam, K. (2006), ‘‘Contested representations of war and heritage at the Residency, Lucknow, India’’,
International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 199-212.
Hyde, K. and Harman, S. (2011), ‘‘Motives for a secular pilgrimage to the Gallipoli battle?elds’’, Tourism
Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 1343-1351.
Jennings, G. (2005), ‘‘Interviewing: a focus on qualitative techniques’’, in Ritchie, B. and Burns, P. (Eds),
Tourism Research Methods: Integrating Theory with Practice, CABI, Cambridge, pp. 99-118.
Lennon, J. and Foley, M. (1999), ‘‘Interpretation of the unimaginable: the US Holocaust Memorial
Museum, Washington DC, and ‘dark tourism’’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 46-57.
Lennon, J. and Foley, M. (2000), Dark Tourism, Continuum, London.
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 239
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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Margry, P.J. (2008), ‘‘Secular pilgrimage: a contradiction in terms?’’, in Margry, P.J. (Ed.), Shrines and
Pilgrimage in the Modern World: New Itineraries into the Sacred, Amsterdam University Press,
Amsterdam, pp. 13-46.
Morgan, M., Lugosi, P. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (2010), The Tourism and Leisure Experience: Consumer and
Managerial Perspectives, Channel View Publications, Bristol.
Morinis, A. (1992), ‘‘Introduction: the territory of the anthropology of pilgrimage’’, in Morinis, A. (Ed.),
Sacred Journeys: The Anthropology of Pilgrimage, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT, pp. 1-28.
Moscardo, G. (2003), ‘‘Interpretation and sustainable tourism: functions, examples and principles’’,
Journal of Tourism Studies, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 112-123.
Moscardo, G. and Ballantyne, R. (2008), ‘‘Interpretation and attractions’’, in Fyall, A., Garrod, B., Leask, A.
and Wanhill, S. (Eds), Managing Visitor Attractions: New Directions, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford,
pp. 237-252.
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism (2005), ‘‘Cannakale: Gelibolu Peninsula Historical
Park’’, Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism, available at: www.kultur.gov.tr/EN/belge/2-
20671/canakkale–-gelibolu-peninsula-historical-park.html (accessed 5 April 2011).
Ryan, C. (2007), ‘‘Introduction’’, in Ryan, C. (Ed.), Battle?eld Tourism, History, Place and Interpretation,
Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 1-10.
Ryan, C. and Cave, J. (2007), ‘‘Cambridge Armistice Day celebrations: making a carnival of war and the
reality of play’’, in Ryan, C. (Ed.), Battle?eld Tourism, History, Place and Interpretation, Elsevier, Oxford,
pp. 177-186.
Scates, B. (1998), ‘‘‘From a brown land far away’: Australian pilgrimages to Great War cemeteries’’,
Locality, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 6-13.
Scates, B. (2002), ‘‘In Gallipoli’s shadow: pilgrimage, memory, mourning and the Great War’’, Australian
Historical Studies, Vol. 33 No. 119, pp. 1-21.
Scates, B. (2006), Return to Gallipoli: Walking the Battle?elds of the Great War, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Seaton, A. (1999), ‘‘War and thanatourism: Waterloo 1815-1914’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 26
No. 1, pp. 130-158.
Sharpley, R. (2009a), ‘‘Shedding light on dark tourism: an introduction’’, in Sharpley, R. and Stone, P.
(Eds), The Darker Side of Travel: The Theory and Practice of Dark Tourism, Channel View Publications,
Bristol, pp. 3-22.
Sharpley, R. (2009b), ‘‘Dark tourism and political ideology: towards a governance model’’, in Sharpley, R.
and Stone, P. (Eds), The Darker Side of Travel: The Theory and Practice of Dark Tourism, Channel View
Publications, Bristol, pp. 145-166.
Sharpley, R. and Sundaram, P. (2005), ‘‘Tourism: a sacred journey? The case of ashram tourism, India’’,
International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 161-171.
Singh, S. (2005), ‘‘Secular pilgrimages and sacred tourismin the Indian Himalayas’’, GeoJournal, Vol. 64
No. 3, pp. 215-223.
Slade, P. (2003), ‘‘Gallipoli thanatourism: the meaning of ANZAC’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 30
No. 4, pp. 779-794.
Smith, H. (2007), ‘‘Seventy years of waiting: a turning point for interpreting the Spanish Civil War’’,
in Ryan, C. (Ed.), Battle?eld Tourism: History, Place and Interpretation, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 99-110.
Stone, P. (2006), ‘‘A dark tourism spectrum: towards a typology of death and macabre related tourist
sites, attractions and exhibitions’’, Tourism: An Interdisciplinary International Journal, Vol. 54 No. 2,
pp. 145-160.
Stone, P. and Sharpley, R. (2008), ‘‘Consuming dark tourism: a thanatalogical perspective’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 574-595.
Thurnell-Read, T. (2009), ‘‘Engaging Auschwitz: an analysis of young travellers’ experiences of
holocaust tourism’’, Journal of Tourism Consumption and Practice, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 26-52.
PAGE 240
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 3 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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Tunbridge, J. and Ashworth, G. (1996), Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as a Resource
in Con?ict, Wiley, Chichester.
Turner, V. (1974), ‘‘Pilgrimages as social processes’’, in Turner, V. (Ed.), Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors:
Symbolic Action in Human Society, Cornell University Press, New York, NY, pp. 231-271.
Uzzell, D.L. (1989), ‘‘Introduction: the visitor experience’’, in Uzzell, D.L. (Ed.), Heritage Interpretation.
Volume 2: The Visitor Experience, Belhaven Press, London, pp. 1-15.
Walter, T. (1993), ‘‘War grave pilgrimage’’, in Reader, I. and Walter, T. (Eds), Pilgrimage in Popular
Culture, Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 63-91.
Winter, C. (2009), ‘‘Tourism, social memory and the Great War’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 36
No. 4, pp. 607-626.
Winter, C. (2011a), ‘‘Battle?eld visitor motivations: explorations in the Great War town of Ieper, Belgium’’,
International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 164-176.
Winter, C. (2011b), ‘‘Battle?eld tourism and Australian national identity: Gallipoli and the Western Front’’,
in Frew, E. and White, L. (Eds), Tourismand National Identities: An International Perspective, Routledge,
London, pp. 176-189.
Further reading
Hall, J., Basarin, J. and Lockstone-Binney, L. (2010), ‘‘An empirical analysis of attendance at a
commemorative event: Anzac Day at Gallipoli’’, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 29
No. 2, pp. 245-253.
McKenna, M. and Ward, S. (2007), ‘‘‘It was really moving, mate’: the Gallipoli pilgrimage and sentimental
nationalism in Australia’’, Australian Historical Studies, Vol. 38 No. 129, pp. 141-151.
About the authors
Felicity Cheal is a Tutor in Tourism and Events at the UTS Business School. She holds a
?rst-class honours degree in Tourism Management, with her research experience based in
the tourist experience, battle?eld tourism and interpretation.
Tony Grif?n is a Senior Lecturer in Tourism Management at the UTS Business School. He has
researched and published extensively on visitor experiences in a range of tourism settings,
including cities, national parks and wine regions. Tony Grif?n is the corresponding author
and can be contacted at: [email protected]
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 241
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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Bing-Jin Yan, Jie Zhang, Hong-Lei Zhang, Shao-Jing Lu, Yong-Rui Guo. 2016. Investigating the motivation–experience
relationship in a dark tourism space: A case study of the Beichuan earthquake relics, China. Tourism Management 53,
108-121. [CrossRef]
2. Ralf Buckley, Ulrike Gretzel, Daniel Scott, David Weaver, Susanne Becken. 2015. Tourism megatrends. Tourism Recreation
Research 40, 59-70. [CrossRef]
3. Joanne Mackellar, Sharen Nisbet. 2014. Sport events and integrated destination development. Current Issues in Tourism 1-16.
[CrossRef]
4. R. H. Lemelin, Kelsey Johansen. 2014. The Canadian National Vimy Memorial: remembrance, dissonance and resonance.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 8:2, 203-218. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Avital Biran, Kenneth F. Hyde. 2013. New perspectives on dark tourism. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research 7:3, 191-198. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_188956636.pdf
The purpose of this paper is to explore the Australian tourist experience at Gallipoli in order
to better understand how tourists approach and engage with battlefield sites and how the experience
may transform them. Specific attention is paid to the role of interpretation in shaping these experiences.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Pilgrims and patriots: Australian tourist experiences at Gallipoli
Felicity Cheal Tony Griffin
Article information:
To cite this document:
Felicity Cheal Tony Griffin, (2013),"Pilgrims and patriots: Australian tourist experiences at Gallipoli", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism
and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 3 pp. 227 - 241
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-05-2012-0040
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:22 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 52 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1042 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Avital Biran, Kenneth F. Hyde, (2013),"New perspectives on dark tourism", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality
Research, Vol. 7 Iss 3 pp. 191-198http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-05-2013-0032
Raynald Harvey Lemelin, Kyle Powys Whyte, Kelsey J ohansen, Freya Higgins Desbiolles, Christopher Wilson, Steve Hemming,
(2013),"Conflicts, battlefields, indigenous peoples and tourism: addressing dissonant heritage in warfare tourism in Australia and North
America in the twenty-first century", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 3 pp. 257-271 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-05-2012-0038
Rachael Raine, (2013),"A dark tourist spectrum", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 3 pp. 242-256http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-05-2012-0037
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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Pilgrims and patriots: Australian tourist
experiences at Gallipoli
Felicity Cheal and Tony Grif?n
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the Australian tourist experience at Gallipoli in order
to better understand how tourists approach and engage with battle?eld sites and how the experience
may transform them. Speci?c attention is paid to the role of interpretation in shaping these experiences.
Design/methodology/approach – A qualitative research method was employed, involving in-depth
interviews with Australians who had visited Gallipoli in a range of circumstances.
Findings – Australians visit Gallipoli for a variety of reasons, including national sentiment and personal
connections. They engage with the site in a range of highly personal ways, with guides playing a crucial
role in helping them to connect with the site physically, intellectually and emotionally.
Research limitations/implications – The study relied on the participants recalling their experiences
from some years past, although other research suggests that this is a minimal problem in the context of
such memorable and moving experiences.
Practical implications – The paper provides valuable insights into how tourists experience battle?eld
sites of great national signi?cance, and consequently how such sites should be managed sensitively
and unobtrusively.
Originality/value – This research provides empirical support to conceptual studies on how tourists
engage with battle?eld tourism sites, and speci?cally explores the role of interpretation in shaping the
overall experience. It further considers the ongoing effects of such experiences.
Keywords Tourism, Heritage, Warfare, Turkey, Battle?eld tourism, Dark tourism, Pilgrimage,
Tourism and national identity, Interpretation, Heritage site management
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Tourism is a complex phenomenon, involving a broad range of people seeking vastly
different experiences for widely variant reasons. While contemporary tourism is most
commonly associated with the pursuit of leisure and pleasure, it often has a far more serious,
even darker side. The coining of the term‘‘dark tourism’’ in the late 1990s (Lennon and Foley,
1999, 2000) re?ects this. Rather than being concerned with feel-good experiences, dark
tourisminvolves tourists travelling to sites associated with death, suffering and disaster. Dark
tourism itself is a broad concept that is characterised by varying shades, and involves
visitation to a diversity of sites, including prisons, themed museums, terrorist event sites,
graves of celebrities, and battle?elds. There is a similarly broad range of motivations for
visiting such sites. It has been suggested that the sequestering of death from the public
arena has led people to visit dark tourism sites to confront and contextualise death (Stone
and Sharpley, 2008). Tourists may also be seeking novelty or nostalgia, or wishing to
celebrate crime or heighten their sense of morality (Stone and Sharpley, 2008). Sharpley
(2009a, b) suggests that dark tourists go in quest of:
B social meaning;
B shared mourning or remembrance;
DOI 10.1108/IJCTHR-05-2012-0040 VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013, pp. 227-241, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 227
Felicity Cheal and Tony
Grif?n are based at the
Management Discipline
Group, UTS Business
School, University of
Technology, Sydney,
Australia.
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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
B status; or
B integration with death to elicit excitement or understanding.
While the dark tourist experience is a spiritual and psychological journey for some, others
are likely to be driven by morbid curiosity, voyeurism and a fascination with death (Sharpley,
2009a, b; Stone, 2006; Lennon and Foley, 2000).
Battle?eld tourism is a form of dark tourism worthy of special consideration due to its
distinctive motivations and experiences (Winter, 2011a). The relationship between war and
tourism is a surprisingly long one, dating back to at least the mid-nineteenth century, when
tourists were reportedly fascinated by evidence of the American Civil War, visiting
battle?elds to view bones and other remnants (Brendon, 1991). While some tourists are
undoubtedly driven by curiosity, visitors to battle?elds may also be inspired by nationalistic
or deeply personal motivations (Hyde and Harman, 2011). People visit battle?elds for
remembrance and commemoration, as well as the discovery of family and national heritage
(Scates, 2006; Winter, 2009, 2011a). Some feel compelled to visit battle?eld sites of national
signi?cance and others are seeking knowledge and understanding in an effort to construct
their identity and reaf?rm national belonging (Winter, 2011b).
For Australians, no battle?eld site is more signi?cant and meaningful than the Gallipoli
peninsula in Turkey. There, on 25 April 1915, Australian and New Zealand soldiers of the
Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) landed as part of a British Imperial force
whose target was to seize the Dardanelles, capture Istanbul and force Turkey out of the First
World War (Bean, 1981). The campaign lasted eight months and claimed the lives of around
70,000 Turkish, 21,000 British, 10,000 French, 8,000 Australian, 2,500 New Zealand and
1,000 Indian soldiers (Department of Veterans’ Affairs, 2010). That day is now
commemorated around Australia and New Zealand as Anzac Day, and the sacred
battle?elds of Gallipoli have come to symbolise Australia’s coming of age and the nation’s
psychological birthplace (Fiske et al., 1987; Ryan and Cave, 2007; Sharpley, 2009b; Slade,
2003). Each year on Anzac Day, thousands of Australians and New Zealanders journey to
Gallipoli to commemorate those who fought and died. Others visit at quieter times, to pay
their respects, to re?ect on the events that occurred there or to search for the grave of a
family member who never returned home. This paper explores the experiences of some
Australian visitors, focusing in particular on:
B their motivations and preconceptions prior to their visit;
B how they engage with the site physically, intellectually and emotionally and the key
factors, such as interpretation, which mediate that engagement; and
B how their experience transforms their subsequent attitudes and behaviour, about
Gallipoli, the Anzac legend, and being Australian.
Literature review
There is a growing body of knowledge around dark tourism and its various sectors. Academic
interest has moved beyond de?nitional debates to consider the supply of dark tourism
products (Stone, 2006) and the motivations of dark tourists (Seaton, 1999; Thurnell-Read,
2009). However, there remains a general lack of research into dark tourist experiences on-site.
Battle?eld tourism has received attention from researchers interested in determining tourist
motivations (Baldwin and Sharpley, 2009; Dunkley et al., 2011; Ryan, 2007). The meaning
associated with visiting a battle?eld of national signi?cance has been explored (Scates,
2006; Slade, 2003; Winter, 2009), and a debate has developed over battle?eld tourist
typologies, speci?cally whether visitors are tourists or pilgrims (Hyde and Harman, 2011;
Sharpley and Sundaram, 2005; Winter, 2011a). Pilgrimages are traditionally associated with
religiously inspired journeys to a sacred place undertaken with the intention of acquiring
spiritual or physical bene?t or transformation (Graburn, 1989; Hyde and Harman, 2011;
Margry, 2008; Morgan et al., 2010; Turner, 1974). However, some authors have recognised
that pilgrimages may also be secular. Secular pilgrimages have been described as deeply
moving experiences which have some cultural or personal value and are relevant to the
PAGE 228
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 3 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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
traveller’s identity (Hyde and Harman, 2011; Morinis, 1992; Singh, 2005). Such experiences,
it is argued, will bring transformation and renewal (Hannaford and Newton, 2008; Hyde and
Harman, 2011; Walter, 1993). Scates’s (1998) common denominators, Hyde and Harman’s
(2011) key signi?ers and Walter’s (1993) stage model highlight core characteristics of
secular pilgrimages. Drawing on these explanations, a secular pilgrimage may be
described as a journey outside of one’s usual environment to a place with great meaning
which leaves the visitor feeling renewed. The site is non-substitutable, often relevant to the
visitor’s core identity, and the experience is generally transformational. Cohen’s (1979) use of
the ‘‘centre’’ to differentiate between tourists and pilgrims is also useful. The centre is the
cultural or spiritual core of an individual’s values and meanings (Cohen, 1979). According to
Cohen (1979), those who travel in search of that core can be considered pilgrims.
While research on battle?eld tourist typologies, motivations and experiences is growing,
conceptual studies require empirical support to provide greater understanding of visitor
experiences at battle?eld sites, particularly qualitative studies that explore those motivations
and experiences in depth (Dunkley et al., 2011). Few studies have considered the impact of
war-related tourism on national identity and pride. Even fewer have addressed how tourists
approach and engage with battle?eld sites.
A number of studies have focused on Australian and New Zealand visitors to Gallipoli,
although the scope has been limited. Most have concentrated on tourist motivations for
visiting Gallipoli on Anzac Day, with contributions by Scates (1998, 2002, 2006) providing
insight into the meaning of the experience. Generally, these studies demonstrate the
importance of the shared experience which allows visitors to connect with other Australians
and New Zealanders on the grounds of their national identity and culture. Interestingly, the
shared sense of loss and sorrow with the Turkish nation is also important. Scates (2006)
detected gender differences in the way visitors engaged with the site, and found that some
backpackers regarded Gallipoli on Anzac Day as a place to meet and party with other
Australians and New Zealanders. Feelings of nationalism and an interest in family history
were common motivations in other studies (Hall and Basarin, 2009; Hyde and Harman, 2011;
Slade, 2003). These more serious motivations led some authors to conclude that Australians
and NewZealanders visiting Gallipoli are more appropriately likened to pilgrims than tourists
(Hyde and Harman, 2011; Scates, 1998; 2006).
A key factor that in?uences the tourist’s engagement with a battle?eld site is interpretation;
however, there is limited research into the use and value of interpretation in such contexts.
Interpretation is a process that tells the story of a place and aims to assist the visitor in
understanding and connecting with the site (Beck and Cable, 2002; Tunbridge and
Ashworth, 1996). It is valued in heritage tourism settings because of its ability to
communicate historic messages and potentially enhance the tourist experience (Ballantyne
et al., 1998; Moscardo, 2003; Uzzell, 1989). However, the need for mediation will depend on
the nature and characteristics of the site and individual tourist’s preferences, perceptions
and knowledge (Biran et al., 2011; Dunkley et al., 2011). As is pointed out by Figgis (1998),
choosing not to interpret certain aspects of a site may be the most effective way of facilitating
a connection between the tourist and site. A potential problem with interpretation in heritage
tourism settings is heritage dissonance, which is de?ned as the difference between the way
the past is presented and the way a particular group or individual perceives the past
(Sharpley, 2009b; Hannam, 2006). Frost (2007) has recognised dissonance as a
problematic feature of interpretation at battle?eld sites, which visitors may ?nd
disconcerting. War-related interpretation is particularly contentious due to competing
perceptions of past events (Moscardo and Ballantyne, 2008; Smith, 2007). Deciding which
messages to communicate and how to do so are especially challenging for battle?eld
tourism managers. Battle?eld interpretation may be planned, such as signs, displays,
brochures and tour guides, or incidental, such as memorials and gravestones.
Understanding how the tourist experience is affected by interpretation may assist
managers in ?nding the right balance of interpretive modes at signi?cant battle?eld sites. No
previous studies of Gallipoli have addressed this issue of interpretation, nor has the meaning
of visiting Gallipoli been explored in relation to on-site interaction and personal connection.
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 229
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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Methodology
The study employed a qualitative method, involving in-depth interviews. Fifteen participants
were recruited using convenience and snowball sampling, with the qualifying criteria that
they were Australian citizens who had visited Gallipoli for non-business purposes. There was
an attempt to construct a sample which represented a broad range of ages and different
visiting circumstances, but a relatively even gender balance. A pro?le of interviewees is
presented in Table I, although pseudonyms have been used in order to preserve
con?dentiality. At the time they were interviewed (2011), most participants (ten) had visited
Gallipoli within the previous ?ve years, and a further three within the last seven years. Two
participants had visited the site 15 years previously. However, other studies into the tourist
experience at battle?eld sites, especially those involving national sentiment, suggest that the
experience is one that is not quickly forgotten (Scates, 2006).
All but one participant had visited Gallipoli as part of a tour, which re?ects the general nature
of visitation to the site. Some were on Gallipoli day tours from Eceabat (nearest town) or
Istanbul, while others were on broader tours that included Gallipoli on the itinerary. Tourists
visiting on Anzac Day as well as at other times were interviewed to provide a basis for
comparison and contrast.
A schedule of questions was developed to guide the interview process. The interviews
started by asking about the general details of the trip – when they went, who they went with,
how and why. Participants were then asked a series of questions intended to explore:
B their knowledge of and pre-existing emotional attachment to Gallipoli and how this
impacted on their experience;
B how they engaged with the site, physically, emotionally and intellectually;
B the on-site factors that in?uenced their engagement, including their interactions with tour
guides and other tourists, site interpretation and other site features such as the
inscriptions on gravestones;
B how the experience changed their attitudes, perceptions and beliefs about Anzac and
associated events;
B how their subsequent behaviour had changed as a result of their experience; and
B whether the experience had impacted on their sense of national pride and identity.
All interviews were conducted on an individual basis and were 45 minutes to an hour in
duration. The interviews were recorded and then transcribed. Due to the sensitivity of the
Table I Interview participants
Participant
a
Gender Age
b
Year visited Day visited Tour type
Nat Female 26-30 2011 Anzac Day Gallipoli
Penny Female 26-30 2011 Anzac Day Gallipoli
Gabby Female 21-25 2010 Anzac Day Gallipoli
Tim Male 26-30 2009 Anzac Day Turkey
Colin Male 56-60 2008 Other day Turkey and Gallipoli
Kate Female 56-60 2008 Other day Turkey and Gallipoli
Mandy Female 26-30 2008 Other day Multiple countries
James Male 26-30 2007 Anzac Day Gallipoli
Damien Male 26-30 2006 Anzac Day Gallipoli
Liam Male 21-25 2006 Other day No tour
Ed Male 21-25 2005 Anzac Day Gallipoli
Anna Female 51-55 2004 Other day Gallipoli
Brian Male 31-35 2004 Both
c
Gallipoli
Harry Male 61-65 1996 Both
c
Gallipoli
Sarah Female 61-65 1996 Both
c
Gallipoli
Notes:
a
To preserve con?dentiality, participants have been assigned pseudonyms;
b
age of participant at time of interview;
c
participants
visited Gallipoli on Anzac Day as well as another day
PAGE 230
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 3 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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
subject matter and the possibility of interviewees having dif?culty expressing their emotions,
the transcriptions were verbatim to enable accurate interpretation of responses (Jennings,
2005). Transcripts included speech hesitations, such as ‘‘umms’’ and ‘‘ahhs’’ and, where
appropriate, paralinguistic features of speech were also recorded to help to qualify meaning
(Gillham, 2005). The interview transcripts were then coded and analysed thematically using
NVivo 9, a content analysis software program. A hierarchy of categories, called nodes, was
established to assist in the analytical process. Nodes were developed in response to the
research questions and were divided into three key areas:
1. pre-visit;
2. on-site; and
3. post-visit.
Sectioning data chronologically in this way provided insights into how participants
approached the site, engaged with it and were then transformed by the experience. The
?ndings presented below incorporate direct quotations from the interview transcripts, with
the source of the quote identi?ed by the participant’s pseudonym.
The site
Commonwealth war graves are scattered throughout the 33,000 hectares of the Gallipoli
Peninsula Historical National Park (Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism, 2005).
The majority of the ?ghting that involved the Anzacs occurred within ten kilometres of the
troops’ camp at North Beach, as is shown in Figure 1. Tours rarely venture outside this area,
although private tours to other areas may be negotiated with guides. Those visiting the
peninsula for Anzac Day usually camp overnight at North Beach, the site of the dawn
service. After the dawn service they make their way up to Lone Pine Cemetery for the
Australian service and then move on to Chunuk Bair, the site of the New Zealand service.
Some visitors also go to the Turkish 57 Infantry Regiment Cemetery, located between Lone
Pine and Chunuk Bair. Tours conducted outside Anzac Day tend to followa similar route, with
some stopping at smaller cemeteries and memorials along the way. There are restored
trenches located near Chunuk Bair which tourists can walk through. Unrestored trenches
and dug-outs are recognisable and in less frequented areas it is possible to ?nd war relics
such as a piece of bully beef tin or old bullet shell. A museum near the entrance to the park
formally displays material remnants from the war, but there is fairly limited interpretive
signage on the site. On-site audio visual presentations are shown around Anzac Day.
Findings
Motivation
National sentiment played a large part in motivating the tourists to visit Gallipoli, although few
reported it as the primary motivation for their overall trip. Typically they were engaged in a
more broadly based trip to Europe, and their visit to Gallipoli arose opportunistically out of
that. Their motivation to visit, however, was quite strong and frequently described as
something they had ‘‘always wanted to do’’. Gallipoli was recognised, by participants, as the
?rst milestone in Australia’s national war history and was associated with the development of
Australian identity. The campaign was considered important to Australians and New
Zealanders; however, the Turkish perspective was something that participants either had not
considered or had no knowledge of prior to their visit.
Engagement with the site
Participants were questioned about how they engaged with the site on three levels:
1. physically, relating to what they did;
2. intellectually, how they made sense of or interpreted the site; and
3. emotionally, how they felt.
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 231
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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Physically, the site’s location and surrounding infrastructure make it relatively inaccessible to
independent travellers, and hence most participants experienced Gallipoli as part of a
guided tour. Those visiting on Anzac Day arrived by coach and moved around the site on
foot. The physical exertion impacted on some people’s experiences and made them feel as
though they could relate better with the Anzacs. However, participants who visited on Anzac
Day tended to interact less with the site because of temporary infrastructure, limited access
to certain areas and scheduled commemorative events.
Visiting Gallipoli outside Anzac Day was a more physically engaging and personal experience,
which facilitated making a connection to the site, or in Harry’s case, getting a sense of place:
I was keen to almost touch and feel what was happening [. . .] I touched some of the vegetation, I
picked up a bully beef tin [. . .] wanting to get some sort of sense or earthy sense about what went on.
The wide range of reported physical activities re?ected how personal the experience was.
Given the opportunity, visitors constructed their own experience. One female participant
Figure 1 Map of Gallipoli
PAGE 232
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 3 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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
enjoyed exploring the site by walking out into the ocean and following old trenches. Some
interviewees reported gender differences, noticing that males tended to be more
adventurous while females talked more and stayed on set paths. These differences aside,
most walked extensively over the site, although Liam was ‘‘happy to watch and observe and
soak it in’’ in an effort to make sense of what had happened there. He explained:
I remember looking over and like just feeling how futile it was that this was the land that people
were ?ghting so much over [. . .] I just remember being like ‘‘why?’’.
For Liam, the limited physical interaction with the site was in?uenced by his emotional and
intellectual engagement. He was more concerned with learning and understanding, which
are cognitive rather than physical activities.
Intellectual engagement was a key contributor to the visitor experience at Gallipoli, with
participants speaking positively of the impact that learning had on their overall experience.
Knowledge and understanding gained at the site included details about the soldiers,
particulars about the campaign and insights into the Turkish perspective. For many, it was
the ?rst time they had thought about the campaign from the Turkish point of view. Gabby
recalled learning:
. . . a lot that day about what the Turkish people went through during that whole war [. . .] and it was
actually Australians and New Zealanders invading [. . .] invading their land.
Visitors learnt about the camaraderie between the Australian and Turkish troops and were
moved by tales of respect and friendship between the opposing sides.
Some participants recalled there being minimal information available on site, although they
recognised this could be an intentional effort to avoid intrusive communication. Overall,
visitors were satis?ed with the level of information available, but acknowledged that the
guide was crucial to their learning. This ?nding was reinforced by the one independent
traveller who visited outside Anzac Day reporting considerable dif?culty in understanding
the signi?cance of different areas of the site.
Addressing emotional engagement proved to be challenging due to the dif?culty people
had in articulating how they felt. As Mandy explained:
You can’t really describe all the feelings you go through, as an Australian, when you go there.
You’re happy, you’re sad, you’re amazed; there’s so many things going on that you can’t take it all
in, I suppose, or be able to describe it to someone. You have to be there yourself and do it
yourself.
Despite these dif?culties, three major themes emerged which re?ect the emotional
experience at Gallipoli:
1. being moved;
2. being proud; and
3. feeling a sense of loss.
Participants remember the experience at Gallipoli as emotionally moving, confronting and
overwhelming. Mandy recalled being:
. . . so overwhelmed by so many things because you walk in there and you look at it and you go ‘I
can’t believe I’m here’; as an Australian, full stop, you can’t believe you’re there.
Being Australian impacted on how tourists felt at Gallipoli and whether participants had
relatives that served in the campaign became irrelevant to feeling connected to the site.
Visitors were taken aback by the beauty of the site and the stories they heard. They were
comforted by the camaraderie amongst the Anzacs and between the Anzacs and the Turks.
Nat found ‘‘a really nice sense of it wasn’t us verse [sic] them anymore’’. Empathizing with
the troops and personalising the experience made participants engage emotionally with the
site. People spoke about the campaign being ‘‘more real’’, as visiting the site and reading
the gravestones brought the stories to life.
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 233
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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Visiting Gallipoli provided insights into the origin of the Anzac legend and reaf?rmed
qualities underpinning Australian identity. Participants were proud to be associated with
traits such as endurance, bravery and mateship. However, pride felt by visitors stretched
beyond national sentiment to include human endurance and bravery from both sides. Anna
said she:
. . . came away with a pride for both sides; both the Turkish and the Australians. And the English
and the Canadians and all the people that were there [. . .] that they were able to maintain their
humanity [. . .] still have a laugh and share food across those lines [. . .] the fact that they could
keep going.
Participants recalled the sense of loss they felt walking through the cemeteries and seeing
the ages of the soldiers who had died. The experience failed to bring any clarity or
understanding of the campaign with participants remembering the shock and confusion
they felt, and even on re?ection the visitors still ‘‘don’t get it’’. They spoke of the frustration
and anger they felt at the costly mistakes and bad decisions made during the campaign.
They were struck by the futility of war and the sense of loss was felt, not only on an individual
level, but through a shared grief which is understood by Australians and Turks alike. For
Kate:
. . . there was an acknowledgement of their loss and our loss. It’s not my loss; it’s a collective loss.
Visiting Gallipoli was a moving experience for all participants. However, some interviewees
were only emotionally engaged in the cemeteries and recalled being underwhelmed in other
areas of the battle?elds. One participant attributed this feeling to the lack of engagement
and knowledge of his guide. Another participant, who was travelling independently, was
expecting to gain a greater understanding of Australian history and identity, but remembers:
I was pretty underwhelmed. I probably wasn’t overly satis?ed with the maintenance of the sites
and I feel like it was more of a geographical position rather than an area that preserved what had
actually happened (Liam).
Transcending the varying modes and levels of engagement was a very strong sense of
place. Participants described Gallipoli as a sacred place characterised by serenity and
spirituality. The meaning attributed to the site, the impact of other visitors and the onsite
interpretation all contributed to Gallipoli’s sense of place. As Anna described it:
. . . there’s something there, you know, it’s just not like a normal place. People move quietly
around, they’re not really, um, jovial and I think that you’re getting so much information that it’s
intense and I think you can actually start to visualise what was going on there. The empathy of it
just makes you realise this is a serious place, it’s a special place.
The spirituality of the experience does not vary with time of visit, although emotional triggers
facilitating the experience may differ. Those visiting outside Anzac Day were moved by the
serenity of the site, while Anzac Day visitors had an equally moving experience triggered by
the dawn service. The dawn service was described as deeply moving, with an eeriness that
made the experience more spiritual. Penny remembers:
. . . fully expecting that it would be emotional, which it was, but what I wasn’t expecting is that it
would be so eerie [. . .] it gave me goose bumps [. . .] the hairs stand up on the back of your neck,
kind of thing.
The visitors also spoke about feeling a sense of comfort, of being at home. Gallipoli felt like
the other side of Australia, rather than the other side of the world. Harry has:
. . . often said to people that if there’s a place in the world where you feel that there’s a little bit of
Australia it’s there, it’s there at Gallipoli.
Interactions with other tourists
While most participants reported deeply personal experiences, nearly all were shared with
others, and in some cases these interactions had a major impact on the experience. The
degree of desired and actual interaction with other tourists varied amongst participants. For
some, the experience was more personal and they valued time on their own, while others
PAGE 234
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 3 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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
enjoyed the connection, comfort or common values expressed in the company of other
tourists. Some disadvantages of visiting with a crowd of people on Anzac Day were
reported, but overall participants were impressed with the level of respect shown and felt
that the crowd contributed positively to the overall atmosphere.
While participants recalled being quieter than usual and enjoying moments on their own,
they did like experiencing the site with other Australians. Visiting Gallipoli served to create
and strengthen relationships, and participants spoke of sharing moments with other tourists
they did not know. Temporary bonds were considered important in enhancing the
experience at the site. Talking about other people on her tour, Kate explained that:
We became very close in that moment of time. We’re not close now, never even gotten in contact
since, but in that moment of time, yeah.
Interpretation
A particular concern of this study was to understand how onsite interpretation, both planned
and incidental, impacted on the visitor experience. Planned interpretation at Gallipoli
consists of interpretation panels, audio-visual presentations, tour guides and a museum.
Audio-visual presentations are used on Anzac Day and participants appreciated the
entertainment and the effect these had in setting the mood. The museumwas a key source of
information for the participant travelling independently, although most visitors did not recall
any details from the museum. It was described as something that was expected to be there,
but was not central to the overall experience.
Tour guides, however, played a crucial role in the Gallipoli experience, albeit in different
ways. For some visiting on Anzac Day, the role of the guide was primarily organisational,
concerned with coordinating where and when to meet. More commonly, though, the guide
was seen as the visitor’s main source of information. Guides were valued for their knowledge
and captivating delivery of information. They also facilitated physical and intellectual
interactions which often created a deeper emotional connection to the site for the visitor. The
participants who hired a private guide and driver appreciated the time and effort put into
?nding a speci?c place for them. This was where the grandfather of one of the participants
was believed to have died. Whilst at the site the guide and the driver picked fresh ?gs and
shared them with the visitors and showed them where they could wash their hands nearby.
Colin explained this gesture as:
. . . quite symbolic, you know, that you had eaten something from the ground and then washed
yourself [. . .] I was really satis?ed after that.
For Colin, this made the experience really worthwhile and even impacted on his individual
sense of self. He spoke about always disliking his middle name, which was his grandfather’s
name. After visiting the spot where his grandfather died, the symbolic meaning of the name
changed. As he re?ected:
It’s funny, having gone there now and having found out a bit more about him and sort of trying to
piece together his life a little bit, I’ve become much happier with the name.
The experience these participants had at the site is almost a ritualistic one and had a
powerful effect that they described as spiritual. Without the guide, many such experiences
would not have been possible, demonstrating the value of human rather than passive forms
of interpretation in such settings.
Incidental, or unplanned, interpretation is a non-deliberate form of communicating with
tourists and helping them to understand, make sense of, or connect with the site. Memorials
and gravestones are incidental forms of interpretation because they were not erected, nor
are they managed, as a means of engaging tourists. However, the gravestones served a key
purpose in eliciting an emotional response from tourists. Visitors were captivated by the
gravestones, as Anna explains:
I decided to walk around and read every one of the headstones. ’Cause I just felt then, in that way,
that the people who had put the headstones there and the little memorials, it was sort of their way
of speaking to us [. . .] that sort of paid them honour.
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 235
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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Interviewees spoke about the sense of loss, grief and even anger that they felt whilst reading
the gravestones. Seeing the names and ages of fallen soldiers and inscriptions written by
their loved ones brought the stories to life and allowed visitors to humanise the losses.
Re?ection and transformation
Visiting Gallipoli transformed people’s attitudes, improved their knowledge and, in some
cases, in?uenced their behaviour. Since visiting the site, Anzac Day has become more
important and participants spoke about feeling the need to commemorate more formally by
attending dawn services. Since visiting, one participant who works in a hospital has taken
sprigs of rosemary to work for patients. The sprigs are Gallipoli Rosemary from a plant she
had purchased after returning home. The Gallipoli Rosemary available in Australia was
propagated from a cutting of rosemary taken from Gallipoli. Every Anzac Day she takes ten
sprigs of Gallipoli Rosemary for ex-servicemen and sprigs of ‘‘non-Gallipoli’’ rosemary for
other patients and fellow staff.
Participants’ attitudes to Anzac Day changed, with a greater sense that it was for
commemoration and not just another public holiday. Experiencing Gallipoli impacted on
participants’ sense of national and personal identity, and interpretations of the meaning of
the Anzac legend were transformed. For Penny:
. . . [it] gave me a whole new respect for [. . .] what they did and had to face [. . .] I just think ‘wow,
that’s a huge sacri?ce’’.
The experience changed Penny in a way which she found hard to express. She explained
how learning about the possible outcomes of blindly following orders had impacted on her
approach to certain aspects of her work. As a nurse, she realised that sometimes you need
to question decisions made by authority ?gures.
Visitors came away with a greater understanding of the campaign and insight into the Turkish
perspective, leading to a greater respect and appreciation for the ‘‘other’’ side. The powerful
words on the Ataturk memorial, which are also recited at the Anzac Day dawn service, were
frequently referred to:
Heroes who shed their blood and lost their lives . . .
You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country.
Therefore rest in peace.
There is no difference between the Johnnies
and Mehmets to us where they lie side by side
here in this country of ours . . .
You, the mothers,
who sent their sons from far away countries
wipe away your tears,
your sons are now lying in our bosom
and are in peace.
After having lost their lives on this land they have
become our sons as well (Ataturk, 1934).
For one participant, a primary school teacher, learning about the Turkish perspective had led
her to incorporate the Turkish side into her lessons on the First World War and Anzac Day.
Interestingly, learning about the opposing side did not detract from national sentiments;
rather, participants were comforted by the bond between the Anzacs and the Turks. Mandy
explained that:
With most wars it’s very competitive, us versus them, so you automatically go ‘‘they killed our
soldiers’’, but when you hear the stories that you do you go ‘‘well, they were just like our Australian
guys’’ [. . .] so then you get that empathy and sympathy for them.
The experience is one that participants say will be with them for the rest of their lives, and
there seems to be a tacit understanding of the bond that exists between those who have
visited Gallipoli. One participant, James, was looking forward to spending next Anzac Day
with his sister because she had been to Gallipoli that year, and thus ‘‘she understands it
now’’.
PAGE 236
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 3 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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Discussion and conclusions
This paper has explored a particular case of dark tourism, i.e. the Australian tourist
experience at the battle?elds of Gallipoli. By employing qualitative research methods it has
revealed how tourists approach and engage with Gallipoli and what in?uence the
experience has had on thempost-visit. The impact of the experience on the tourists’ sense of
national identity and the role of onsite interpretation in shaping the overall experience have
also been considered.
What is plainly evident from this study is how profound, memorable and transforming the
experience of visiting a battle?eld can be. Despite the length of time since their visit for some
of those interviewed, the memories of what they did, saw and felt were fresh and vivid.
Battle?eld tourism is clearly distinctive from other forms of dark tourism, especially where it
involves tourists with a national or personal connection to the site. Certainly there is little
evidence from this study that tourists have been motivated by a morbid curiosity with death
or any sense of voyeurism, but there is much to suggest that themes such as the search for
meaning, shared mourning and remembrance are powerful in this context (Sharpley, 2009a,
b). In some cases the most profound outcomes of the experience did not re?ect the original
motivations of the tourists interviewed. They went to Gallipoli because it was convenient to
do so, or out of a nationalistic sentiment that is was the right thing to do, but they emerged
with a newunderstanding of the events that occurred there. There was a sense of pilgrimage
about the journey, with the site being clearly and widely regarded as sacred, and notions of
duty and paying one’s respects being evident in many participants’ comments. This was a
place that, while distant geographically, was symbolically at the core of the Australian
identity and therefore part of the nation. It was also a place where one could feel patriotic and
proud about being Australian, to reaf?rm that the national character was worthy and noble,
as re?ected in those who had fought and died or endured the hardships. Pilgrims and
patriots were both well served.
Generally, this research has strongly reaf?rmed the ?ndings of other studies that visitation to
battle?elds represents a form of secular pilgrimage. The sense of personal connection to the
site and the moving nature of the experience paralleled the ?ndings of Dunkley et al. (2011),
even though the context of the studies differed. Participants in this study also demonstrated
Scates’s (1998) characteristics of secular pilgrims through the sense of achievement and/or
ful?lment which they felt on arrival, and the depth that the experience added to their sense of
self, through national or personal identity. Australian visitation to Gallipoli also conforms to Hyde
and Harman’s (2011) criteria as the site is non-substitutable, deeply meaningful and a source of
core identity, with the experience being able to invoke transformation in some visitors. Applying
Cohen’s (1979) notion that the quest for the centre is the key characteristic distinguishing
pilgrims from tourists also suggests Australians visiting Gallipoli are partaking in a pilgrimage.
Gallipoli is a key element of Australia’s cultural centre which is based, psychologically, in
Australia but supported by events which occurred outside the nation’s geographic boundaries.
While the centre exists in Australia, it is epitomised and reinforced in Turkey.
The onsite experience at Gallipoli varied depending on the circumstances of the visit. Those
visiting on Anzac Day had more of a shared experience, whilst visitors at other times of the
year had more of a personal experience. The experience was generally deeply moving
regardless of the time of visit, although the emotional triggers and methods of interpretation
differed. The commemorative services were the most emotionally moving experiences for
Anzac Day visitors and visitors felt nationalistic bonds with the site and other tourists.
Outside Anzac Day, the serenity of the site and the re?ective nature of the experience were
among the most moving aspects of the visit.
The tour guide, gravestones and Ataturk’s dedication were the most powerful and valued
means of making sense of the site. The tour guide was particularly important for visitors
outside Anzac Day. The ability of the guide to connect the tourist with the site in highly personal
ways and provide powerful memories is exempli?ed by the experience of sharing the ?g at the
place where a grandfather had fallen. This is further con?rmed by the independent visitor’s
experience at Gallipoli which lacked information, connection and emotion.
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 237
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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Signi?cantly, interpretation at Gallipoli is poly-vocal and presents both Turkish and Anzac
narratives. Visitors approached Gallipoli with very little knowledge of the Turkish perspective
and generally glori?ed understandings of Australia’s involvement in the campaign. Visitors
were shocked to learn about the devastation endured by the Turks and realised, often for the
?rst time, that Australia was the enemy invading someone else’s country. Surprisingly,
learning the Turkish perspective and the dissonance experienced at the site enhanced the
Australian visitor experience. This is inconsistent with expected or assumed reactions to
heritage dissonance. Rather than being disconcerting (Frost, 2007) the dissonance at
Gallipoli appears to have enriched the experience. In this instance the visitors felt they were
learning about both sides and thus gaining a holistic understanding of the campaign. The
sensitivity with which the narratives were presented also allowed the Anzac stories and
sentiments to be maintained, while the camaraderie between the Anzacs and Turkish
soldiers and the enduring bonds between the two peoples were stressed. Visitors could
comfortably re-interpret the situation while still maintaining their sense of national pride.
Allowing visitors the freedom to interpret the site in their own way proved important to the
overall tourist experience at Gallipoli. Visitors sought quiet time by themselves, to re?ect on
what they had learnt and experience the sense of place, and the guides generally afforded
these opportunities. More structured and regimented interpretation programs would not
have permitted this to the same extent. The sense of place was considered to be enhanced
by the lack of interpretative signage, demonstrating the importance of not over-interpreting
such sites. The deeply moving and personal nature of the experience and the relatively
natural state of Gallipoli does not lend itself to permanent, potentially intrusive, interpretive
methods. Such methods may diminish the authenticity, serenity and spiritual nature of the
site and thereby interfere with the tourist’s emotional engagement. Site managers need to
strike a balance between the need to convey information and preserve the special qualities
of a place which are so important to the tourist experience. As Seaton (1999) suggests, a
hands-off approach to battle?eld interpretation can be best.
The strongest theme identi?ed throughout the research was the desire to stay connected.
The onsite experience elicited powerful connections to the site that visitors wanted to
remember. Some people remained connected to Gallipoli through their relationships with
others, which were strengthened as a result of their visit. Regardless of when other people
visited, it was considered that they understood the emotional attachment experienced at the
site and by talking about the experience, or sharing Anzac Day (in Australia) with them, they
were able to remain connected. Attending Anzac Day services reminded visitors what it felt
like to be at Gallipoli and visitors perceived a deeper meaning in these services since
returning home. Watching documentaries was another reminder of experiences at Gallipoli
and provided a means of further contextualising and re?ecting on the experience. The
desires to remain connected to Gallipoli and remember how the experience made them feel
is materialised in the souvenirs and that which visitors brought back fromthe site. Touching a
pebble retrieved from the beach at Anzac Cove or sharing a sprig of rosemary can be a
powerful way for a tourist to recall a treasured experience.
In summary, this examination of Australian tourist experiences at Gallipoli has af?rmed the
highly distinctive nature of battle?eld tourism, particularly when there are questions of
national identity and pride involved. The experiences are memorable and transformative and
portray most of the de?ning characteristics of a secular pilgrimage. Perhaps the most
distinctive feature of these experiences is that they are simultaneously both deeply personal
and communal. Each visitor engaged with the site in a different way, emotionally, physically
and intellectually. This individuality was facilitated by the guides, who could help the visitor
construct their experience, depending on their connection to the site and the way in which
they wished to interact with it. Passive interpretation, through signage and the like, would not
have allowed for this variability, nor enabled for the humanity of the place to dominate the
stories told about it. But having experienced the site in this individualistic way the visitor was
now part of a community that had shared this experience. For some, the sense of sharing at
the Anzac Day ceremony was immediate, but for others it meant connecting with people
back home at a different level, especially with those who had similarly journeyed to the place
PAGE 238
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 3 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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
at the heart of the Australian identity. For all visitors, the battle?eld reaf?rmed their sense of
national pride, but for many that involved a re-interpretation of the meaning of Gallipoli for
Australians.
References
Baldwin, F. and Sharpley, R. (2009), ‘‘Battle?eld tourism: bringing organised violence back to life’’,
in Sharpley, R. and Stone, P. (Eds), The Darker Side of Travel: The Theory and Practice of Dark Tourism,
Channel View Publications, Bristol, pp. 186-206.
Ballantyne, R., Packer, J. and Beckmann, E. (1998), ‘‘Targeted interpretation: exploring relationships
among visitors’ motivations, activities, attitudes, information needs and preferences’’, Journal of Tourism
Studies, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 14-25.
Bean, C. (1981), The Of?cial History of Australia in the War of 1914-1918, Volume 1, The Story of Anzac,
University of Queensland Press, St Lucia.
Beck, L. and Cable, T. (2002), Interpretation for the 21st Century: Fifteen Guiding Principles for
Interpreting Nature and Culture, Sagamore Publishing, Champaign, IL.
Biran, A., Poria, Y. and Oren, G. (2011), ‘‘Sought experiences at (dark) heritage sites’’, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 820-841.
Brendon, P. (1991), Thomas Cook: 150 Years of Popular Tourism, Secker & Warburg, London.
Cohen, E. (1979), ‘‘A phenomenology of tourist experiences’’, Sociology, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 179-201.
Department of Veterans’ Affairs (2010), Investigating Gallipoli, Australian Government, Canberra.
Department of Veterans’ Affairs (2011), ‘‘Detailed viewof the Anzac area’’, available at: www.dva.gov.au/
commems_oawg/commemorations/commemorative_events/anzac_day/gallipoli/PublishingImages/
gallipoli_peninsula.gif (accessed 6 June 2011).
Dunkley, R., Morgan, N. and Westwood, S. (2011), ‘‘Visiting the trenches: exploring meanings and
motivations in battle?eld tourism’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 860-868.
Figgis, P. (1998), ‘‘Can interpretation survive potato wedges and cappuccino?’’, paper presented at the
5th World Congress Heritage Interpretation International, Sydney, 31 August-4 September.
Fiske, J., Hodge, B. and Turner, G. (1987), Myths of Oz. Reading Australian Popular Culture, Allen
& Unwin, Sydney.
Frost, W. (2007), ‘‘Re?ghting the Eureka Stockade: managing a dissonant battle?eld’’, in Ryan, C. (Ed.),
Battle?eld Tourism: History, Place and Interpretation, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 187-194.
Gillham, B. (2005), Research Interviewing, Open University Press, Maidenhead.
Graburn, N. (1989), ‘‘Tourism: the sacred journey’’, in Smith, V. (Ed.), Hosts and Guest: The Anthropology
of Tourism, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 21-36.
Hall, J. and Basarin, J. (2009), ‘‘Anzac Day commemorations at Gallipoli and the economic effects of
attendance’’, in Carlsen, J., Hughes, M., Holmes, K. and Jones, R. (Eds), CAUTHE 2009: Sea Change:
Tourism & Hospitality in a Dynamic World, CD-ROM, Curtin University of Technology, Fremantle.
Hannaford, J. and Newton, J. (2008), ‘‘Sacri?ce, grief and the sacred at the contemporary ‘secular’
pilgrimage to Gallipoli’’, Borderlands e-Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, available at: www.borderlands.net.au/
vol7no1_2008/hannafordnewton_gallipoli.htm
Hannam, K. (2006), ‘‘Contested representations of war and heritage at the Residency, Lucknow, India’’,
International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 199-212.
Hyde, K. and Harman, S. (2011), ‘‘Motives for a secular pilgrimage to the Gallipoli battle?elds’’, Tourism
Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 1343-1351.
Jennings, G. (2005), ‘‘Interviewing: a focus on qualitative techniques’’, in Ritchie, B. and Burns, P. (Eds),
Tourism Research Methods: Integrating Theory with Practice, CABI, Cambridge, pp. 99-118.
Lennon, J. and Foley, M. (1999), ‘‘Interpretation of the unimaginable: the US Holocaust Memorial
Museum, Washington DC, and ‘dark tourism’’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 46-57.
Lennon, J. and Foley, M. (2000), Dark Tourism, Continuum, London.
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 239
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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Margry, P.J. (2008), ‘‘Secular pilgrimage: a contradiction in terms?’’, in Margry, P.J. (Ed.), Shrines and
Pilgrimage in the Modern World: New Itineraries into the Sacred, Amsterdam University Press,
Amsterdam, pp. 13-46.
Morgan, M., Lugosi, P. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (2010), The Tourism and Leisure Experience: Consumer and
Managerial Perspectives, Channel View Publications, Bristol.
Morinis, A. (1992), ‘‘Introduction: the territory of the anthropology of pilgrimage’’, in Morinis, A. (Ed.),
Sacred Journeys: The Anthropology of Pilgrimage, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT, pp. 1-28.
Moscardo, G. (2003), ‘‘Interpretation and sustainable tourism: functions, examples and principles’’,
Journal of Tourism Studies, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 112-123.
Moscardo, G. and Ballantyne, R. (2008), ‘‘Interpretation and attractions’’, in Fyall, A., Garrod, B., Leask, A.
and Wanhill, S. (Eds), Managing Visitor Attractions: New Directions, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford,
pp. 237-252.
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism (2005), ‘‘Cannakale: Gelibolu Peninsula Historical
Park’’, Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism, available at: www.kultur.gov.tr/EN/belge/2-
20671/canakkale–-gelibolu-peninsula-historical-park.html (accessed 5 April 2011).
Ryan, C. (2007), ‘‘Introduction’’, in Ryan, C. (Ed.), Battle?eld Tourism, History, Place and Interpretation,
Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 1-10.
Ryan, C. and Cave, J. (2007), ‘‘Cambridge Armistice Day celebrations: making a carnival of war and the
reality of play’’, in Ryan, C. (Ed.), Battle?eld Tourism, History, Place and Interpretation, Elsevier, Oxford,
pp. 177-186.
Scates, B. (1998), ‘‘‘From a brown land far away’: Australian pilgrimages to Great War cemeteries’’,
Locality, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 6-13.
Scates, B. (2002), ‘‘In Gallipoli’s shadow: pilgrimage, memory, mourning and the Great War’’, Australian
Historical Studies, Vol. 33 No. 119, pp. 1-21.
Scates, B. (2006), Return to Gallipoli: Walking the Battle?elds of the Great War, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Seaton, A. (1999), ‘‘War and thanatourism: Waterloo 1815-1914’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 26
No. 1, pp. 130-158.
Sharpley, R. (2009a), ‘‘Shedding light on dark tourism: an introduction’’, in Sharpley, R. and Stone, P.
(Eds), The Darker Side of Travel: The Theory and Practice of Dark Tourism, Channel View Publications,
Bristol, pp. 3-22.
Sharpley, R. (2009b), ‘‘Dark tourism and political ideology: towards a governance model’’, in Sharpley, R.
and Stone, P. (Eds), The Darker Side of Travel: The Theory and Practice of Dark Tourism, Channel View
Publications, Bristol, pp. 145-166.
Sharpley, R. and Sundaram, P. (2005), ‘‘Tourism: a sacred journey? The case of ashram tourism, India’’,
International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 161-171.
Singh, S. (2005), ‘‘Secular pilgrimages and sacred tourismin the Indian Himalayas’’, GeoJournal, Vol. 64
No. 3, pp. 215-223.
Slade, P. (2003), ‘‘Gallipoli thanatourism: the meaning of ANZAC’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 30
No. 4, pp. 779-794.
Smith, H. (2007), ‘‘Seventy years of waiting: a turning point for interpreting the Spanish Civil War’’,
in Ryan, C. (Ed.), Battle?eld Tourism: History, Place and Interpretation, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 99-110.
Stone, P. (2006), ‘‘A dark tourism spectrum: towards a typology of death and macabre related tourist
sites, attractions and exhibitions’’, Tourism: An Interdisciplinary International Journal, Vol. 54 No. 2,
pp. 145-160.
Stone, P. and Sharpley, R. (2008), ‘‘Consuming dark tourism: a thanatalogical perspective’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 574-595.
Thurnell-Read, T. (2009), ‘‘Engaging Auschwitz: an analysis of young travellers’ experiences of
holocaust tourism’’, Journal of Tourism Consumption and Practice, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 26-52.
PAGE 240
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 3 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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Tunbridge, J. and Ashworth, G. (1996), Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as a Resource
in Con?ict, Wiley, Chichester.
Turner, V. (1974), ‘‘Pilgrimages as social processes’’, in Turner, V. (Ed.), Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors:
Symbolic Action in Human Society, Cornell University Press, New York, NY, pp. 231-271.
Uzzell, D.L. (1989), ‘‘Introduction: the visitor experience’’, in Uzzell, D.L. (Ed.), Heritage Interpretation.
Volume 2: The Visitor Experience, Belhaven Press, London, pp. 1-15.
Walter, T. (1993), ‘‘War grave pilgrimage’’, in Reader, I. and Walter, T. (Eds), Pilgrimage in Popular
Culture, Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 63-91.
Winter, C. (2009), ‘‘Tourism, social memory and the Great War’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 36
No. 4, pp. 607-626.
Winter, C. (2011a), ‘‘Battle?eld visitor motivations: explorations in the Great War town of Ieper, Belgium’’,
International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 164-176.
Winter, C. (2011b), ‘‘Battle?eld tourism and Australian national identity: Gallipoli and the Western Front’’,
in Frew, E. and White, L. (Eds), Tourismand National Identities: An International Perspective, Routledge,
London, pp. 176-189.
Further reading
Hall, J., Basarin, J. and Lockstone-Binney, L. (2010), ‘‘An empirical analysis of attendance at a
commemorative event: Anzac Day at Gallipoli’’, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 29
No. 2, pp. 245-253.
McKenna, M. and Ward, S. (2007), ‘‘‘It was really moving, mate’: the Gallipoli pilgrimage and sentimental
nationalism in Australia’’, Australian Historical Studies, Vol. 38 No. 129, pp. 141-151.
About the authors
Felicity Cheal is a Tutor in Tourism and Events at the UTS Business School. She holds a
?rst-class honours degree in Tourism Management, with her research experience based in
the tourist experience, battle?eld tourism and interpretation.
Tony Grif?n is a Senior Lecturer in Tourism Management at the UTS Business School. He has
researched and published extensively on visitor experiences in a range of tourism settings,
including cities, national parks and wine regions. Tony Grif?n is the corresponding author
and can be contacted at: [email protected]
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 241
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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Bing-Jin Yan, Jie Zhang, Hong-Lei Zhang, Shao-Jing Lu, Yong-Rui Guo. 2016. Investigating the motivation–experience
relationship in a dark tourism space: A case study of the Beichuan earthquake relics, China. Tourism Management 53,
108-121. [CrossRef]
2. Ralf Buckley, Ulrike Gretzel, Daniel Scott, David Weaver, Susanne Becken. 2015. Tourism megatrends. Tourism Recreation
Research 40, 59-70. [CrossRef]
3. Joanne Mackellar, Sharen Nisbet. 2014. Sport events and integrated destination development. Current Issues in Tourism 1-16.
[CrossRef]
4. R. H. Lemelin, Kelsey Johansen. 2014. The Canadian National Vimy Memorial: remembrance, dissonance and resonance.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 8:2, 203-218. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Avital Biran, Kenneth F. Hyde. 2013. New perspectives on dark tourism. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research 7:3, 191-198. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
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
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_188956636.pdf