67
68
different groups of people have related to it (cf. Chapter Four). Images of contemporary San peoples in the film and anecdotes shared by site guides work to contest stereotypes of San peoples as locked in a primitive state (cf. Chapter Four). This is an example of the principle of provocation at work.
Tilden went on to formulate six fundamental principles of modern heritage interpretation: i) heritage interpretation is an art; ii) its objective is provocation instead of instruction; iii) it is not merely information but revelation upon information; iv) it should present something holistic rather than partial; v) it should attune its approach for different market segments; vi) and following this it should relate that which is on display to something within the personality or experience of the visitor (ibid). Tilden’s work took into consideration the informal educational role of heritage interpretation in tourism consumption and was a significant overture to the protection and conservation of heritage resources (ibid).
Since the 1964 Venice Charter, the first International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) had begun a process of delineating and defining the principles and practices of cultural heritage interpretation and presentation. The Ename Charter of 2004 outlines seven principles for the interpretation of cultural heritage sites, these include: access and understanding; information sources; context and setting;
authenticity; sustainability; inclusivity; and research, evaluation and training (cf. ICOMOS, 2004). The principle of access and understanding involves interpretation effective in providing insight and establishing an emotional connection in the visitor towards a site. The audiences should be assessed demographically and culturally, with interpretive programmes created around these assessments in order to facilitate better understanding and connection with the site. The information sources principle states that a multi-disciplinary and accurately resourced and referenced approach must be taken in the process of designing the interpretation programme. Along with the documentation and archival of sources of information, the difference between hypothesis and scientific proof must be clearly distinguishable. The principle of context and setting affirms the inclusion of all cultural, artistic, spiritual, historic, social and political contexts of the site. The surrounding landscape must also be considered as part of the interpretation, with a respectful account of the contributions of all those associated with the site (ibid).
69
The authenticity principle affirms that the authenticity of a cultural heritage site should be conserved by and its significance described within the interpretation (cf. ICOMOS, 2004).
Cognisance should be paid to the design of a heritage interpretation programme to safeguard and respect the traditional social functions of the site and the cultural practices and dignity of the hosts and associated communities. The sustainability principle involves the development and implementation of the interpretive process as part of the overall planning and management process. The scale, expense and technology of interpretive programmes should be appropriate to the available funds and facilities while also considering the expense of upkeep in relation to projected visitor numbers. The principle of inclusivity acknowledges the interests of all stakeholders in the interpretation process as well as the rights of the host community, property owner and other concerned parties. Interpretive activities must be beneficial to the host community at all levels and must be open to public comment. The research, evaluation and training principle simply acknowledges that the interpretation of cultural heritage is an ongoing process and that explanation and understanding must evolve with continued research, training and evaluation. Taken together these principles aspire to
“encourage a wide public appreciation of the cultural heritage sites as places and sources of learning and reflection about the past as well as valuable resources for sustainable community development and intercultural and intergenerational dialogue” (2004:2).
Following the above, significant progress was made in 2005 at the eighth ICOMOS International Symposium, Heritage Interpretation: Expressing Heritage Sites’ Values to Foster Conservation, Promote Community Development, and Educate the Public. The conference proceedings are known as the Charleston Declaration on Heritage Interpretation (US/ICOMOS, 2005), named so after the city in which it took place. A definition was proposed which recognised heritage interpretation as “the totality of activity, reflection, research, and creativity stimulated by a cultural heritage site” (cf. US/ICOMOS, 2005:2). In addition it was agreed that essential to interpretation is the input from diverse stakeholders (including local communities and visitors) of all ages and educational backgrounds. This stakeholder involvement assists in the transformation of sites “from static monuments into places and sources of learning and reflection about the past, as well as valuable resources for sustainable community development and intercultural and intergenerational dialogue” (ibid)
70
The Charleston Declaration (US/ICOMOS, 2005) recognised the conceptual and operational differences between the presentation and interpretation of cultural heritage sites. The definition put forward regarding interpretation is discussed above. According to the Declaration, presentation “…denotes the carefully planned arrangement of information and physical access to a cultural heritage site, usually by scholars, design firms, and heritage professionals” (2005:2). The primary operational difference is thus that while the input and involvement of different stakeholders is essential for interpretation, presentation is “largely a one-way model of communication” (ibid).
The presentation of cultural heritage is inextricably linked to the interpretation of that heritage in effective visitor communication. Cultural heritage presentation, “encompasses design of the site, the way in which objects are themed, selected and grouped as representative samples of heritage, and includes the means of access to the site” (Ivanovic, 2008:195). The heritage should be displayed in such a manner as to enhance the visitor’s experience which is to be accomplished by enhancing the authenticity and unique attributes of the heritage on offer. The following three requirements are to be fulfilled in the presentation of heritage sites: “[t]he criteria for the selection of exhibits must be based on their authenticity; [e]xhibits must be presented in an attractive way so as to compete with the imaginative presentation of theme parks; [p]resentation must be developed individually with the unique storyline that enhances the authenticity of the particular exhibits and sites”
(2008:196). Because authenticity and uniqueness are different at every site and because these differences are almost impossible to measure and equate unified standards of heritage presentation have not been developed.
South African history is being re-written, aestheticised, commercialised and nationalised in processes of democratisation and economic reform. No less operative has been the politics of indigeneity in effectual modalities and transformation of heritage, its presentation and interpretation in the country. Since 2001 funding was made available from the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) which led to the construction of two rock art centres, Wildebeest Kuil in Kimberley and the Kamberg San Rock Art Interpretive Centre in the uKhahlamba-Drakensberg Park (Ndlovu, 2012). Funded through a variety of contributors, a third centre, Didima Rock Art Centre, was opened on 24 September (Heritage Day) in 2003. Additionally, in 2006, then President Thabo Mbeki opened the South African Museum
71
of Rock Art (SAMORA), situated at the Origins Centre at the University of the Witwatersrand. SAMORA “is the world’s largest rock art museum and is considered to be the welcome centre for visitors preparing to tour rock art sites in the country” (Ndlovu, 2012:284; Mguni 2002). These centres receive few visitors per month, highlighting the fact that rock art tourism has not reached its potential in the country (Ndlovu, 2012). Their very construction, however, affirms a positive transformation in perceptions of rock art as described below.