History Meets Fantasy: Authenticity, Interpretation, and the Visitor

Experience in St. Augustine, Florida

Richard Shieldhouse, InterVISTAS Consulting Group Catherine Culver, University of Florida

St. Augustine was established in 1565 adjacent to a native site called Seloy.

• Under Spanish control until 1763, when Florida was offered to the British in exchange for Havana, which had been under their control.

• Reverted to Spanish control in 1784.

• Became part of the United States when Florida was sold to the U.S. in 1821.

Plano Particular de la Ciudad de San Agustín de la Florida, Mariano de la Rocque, 1788. Source: University of Florida, Smathers Library.

Situated on its northern frontier, the site was strategically important.

A map exhibiting all the new discoveries in the interior parts of North America / inscribed by permission to the honorable governor and company of adventurers of England trading into Hudsons Bay in testimony of their liberal communications to their most obedient and very humble servant A. Arrowsmith, January 1st 1795. Source: Library of Congress.

St. Augustine is in Northeast Florida, 308 miles (496 km) north of Miami and 181 miles (291 km)

south of Savannah, Georgia.

Source: Library of Congress. http://www.loc.gov/item/98687208

Florida’s modern tourism history began with the extension of railways

in the late 19th century.

The first major wave of tourism development in Florida was between 1885 and 1888, when 900 rooms were constructed in St. Augustine, a city with 2,295 inhabitants in 1880.

As a tourist destination, then (as now) Florida was sold as a land of fantasy.

• The weather. • The wildlife. • Buildings. • The birth of the tourist trap.

Since the 1880s, when St. Augustine was the epicenter of Florida tourism, the city has blended its

real history with a fake commercial version.

• For nearly a century, the Genopoly house from the early 19th C. has been pitched as the “Oldest Wooden Schoolhouse.”

• The 1672 Castillo de San Marcos has been managed by the US National Park Service since 1933.

The real was championed by an unusual municipal effort at preservation and interpretation.

• City ownership and restoration of historic properties. – 34 colonial properties.

• Includes Peña-Peck House, Llambias House, Casa del Hidalgo.

• City Department of Heritage Tourism. • City regulations for sightseeing guides. • Designated seven historic areas and corresponding

planning and zoning regulations.

In contrast, the forces of fake are driven by Florida’s intense and loosely regulated

commercial culture.

• Tourist sites frequently trivialize nature, religion, and culture. • Fairly typical of the US South, which has a longstanding libertarian streak

and preference for private enterprise.

This investigation examines two cultural heritage sites in St. Augustine.

One very real and very old by North American standards, and another with origins extending only to the mid-1960s. – Castillo de San Marco, a stone fortress whose construction

began in 1672. – Spanish “Colonial Quarter,” a living history area,

which was established in 1962. • This site was privatized and reinvented in 2013. • Control was transferred from the City to an entrepreneur, motivational speaker, and operator of a commercial pirate museum.

Castillo de San Marcos is owned and managed by National Park Service.

• Arguably the United States (leader in cultural heritage tourism).

• Controls and manages 17 of the 21 US World Heritage sites (81%).

• An inspiration for the World Heritage concept.

• Employs rigorous standards for interpretation, management plans, etc.

Operation of the Colonial Quarter has been outsourced to a private operator.

• Once managed by the City’s Department of Heritage Tourism, it is now operated by an entrepreneur, under minimal supervision by the University of Florida.

• In the US, municipal governments,

which largely rely on property taxes for funding, have had to cut back on budgets since 2008 -- as property values deflated.

• The victims have often been city

services and programs that contribute to “quality of life.” – This includes cultural heritage

assets.

The two cases are informative about the relationship

between private control and authenticity.

To measure authenticity of the two sites, we identified 19 indicators of authenticity.

• While there is debate, particularly among social scientists, over the meaning of authenticity, we are concerned with practical aspects of authenticity rather than more debatable and elusive theoretical concepts.

• Although work by UNESCO, ICOMOS, and the like tends to consider only physical aspects, the authenticity of experience includes other aspects, which perhaps could be considered “intangible.”

1. Is the building or asset’s site original? 2. Do the majority of materials appear to be original? 3. Are restorations or reconstructions readily identifiable as such? 4. Has the building or site been modified? 5. Is the historic use still in force? 6. Is the use consistent with surroundings? 7. Does incursion into the setting from surroundings affect the

building or site? 8. Does the site or building articulate national pride or group

identity? 9. Does the building or site have significance beyond that of the

historical or aesthetic value for communities and individuals? 10. Do commercial activities or repetition of themes trivialize the

building or site? 11. Are re-enactors outfitted in a manner appropriate to the stated

date of reference? 12. Are re-enactors speaking the in the original language? 13. Is interpretation consistent with the reference period? 14. Are performers or artisans performing activities consistent with

the reference period? 15. Are performers or artisans using methods or modes consistent

with the reference period? 16. Are products for sale consistent with the reference period? 17. Are products for sale produced locally? 18. Does signage convey site context? 19. Have management principles affected integrity of the cultural

heritage of the site or building?

Sites are graded from two perspectives.

1. The opinion of a tourism/preservation expert. Is it authentic?

2. The likely perception of a casual visitor. Is it what it says it is … or what it is sold as?

The goal was to capture the bi-dimensional continuum from FAKE-FAKE to REAL-REAL.

– Described by numerous authors, including Fjellman, Huxtable, Pine & Gilmore. – The latter employed the concept within the context of general business

management: Consumers in today’s “Experience Economy,” with multiple staged experiences demand authenticity.

– Arguably, authenticity is even more important in the realm of cultural heritage tourism.

• To manage it, one must measure it.

The two sites were visited and graded with respect to the 19 indicators.

• An eight-point scale was used. – Scores ranged from -4 to

+4 for each perspective. • Appraisals were strictly

the judgment of the research team. – Future research could be

enhanced by visitor surveys.

The results were fit into a quadrant analysis.

• Provides ready visualization of the two dimensions for each indicator and each site.

– Inspired by techniques first described by Martilla and James’s “Importance-Performance Analysis.”

FAKE-REAL: An ostensibly real event, based on historical parades in Spain, but celebrating Pedro Menendez’s birthday, not a saint’s day as would have happened in Spain.

The two axes are authenticity as perceived by experts (x) and authenticity as likely perceived by casual visitors (y).

• A strong rating on both real authenticity and perceived authenticity would correspond to the “REAL-REAL” range.

• In contrast, a rating of minimal perceived and actual

authenticity would be equivalent to “FAKE-FAKE.”

Castillo: For most indicators, visitors and experts would agree on its authenticity.

Highlights: – 16 of the 19 indicators

fall squarely into the REAL-REAL quadrant.

– #5 Historic Use: No longer a fort.

– #16: Gift shop products tend toward publications.

– #17: Gift shop items not locally produced.

Colonial Quarter: General disconnect pushes tendency away from REAL-REAL and into REAL-FAKE.

Highlights: – Points predominantly fit

within the FAKE-REAL quadrant.

– Experts would view the attraction as synthetic, while visitors would tend to accept it as authentic.

Real-Real

Castillo de San Marcos: • Occupies original site, • Built of original materials, • Has received minimal

modifications.

Fake-Real

Fake portrait of King George VI in one of Colonial Quarter’s two taverns.

– Described as “Oil on Canvas, 1771.”

Fake-Real

FAKE-REAL: An ostensibly real event, based on historical parades in Spain, but celebrating Pedro Menendez’s birthday, not a saint’s day as would have happened in Spain.

Fake-Real

Fake- Real: The Santo Domingo redoubt was rebuilt on its original site, but constructed from modern materials. Cast-concrete palm trunks replicate the original palm tree trunks. Spanish bayonet plants at base are accurate, but there would have been many more in the original configuration.

Fake-Fake

• Products for sale in Colonial Quarter gift shop are not consistent with the reference period.

• They are also not produced locally.

Real-Fake

Real-Fake: Nobody is going to confuse the phony Statue of Liberty in Las Vegas with the real article in New York Harbor; however, in rare instances, such sites can achieve a kind of hyper-reality when elite observers opt for different standards for measuring their authenticity.

Real-Fake: A cousin to the postmodern aesthetics of pop art, camp, and kitsch.

From Mostly Real to Fake-Real

In 1960, St. George Street -- a commercial area in central St. Augustine -- featured a variety of architectural styles from the 18th century to the mid-20th century. Subsequent modifications have today created a more homogenous mix of real and pseudo-real structures.

Intermingling of fake and real create real problems at real sites.

Further analysis or applications

• Visitor surveys would add integrity to the analysis. • Visual representation incorrectly provides equal

weight to each indicator. • Some indicators, such as authenticity of re-enactors’

uniforms, can be easily improved, while others, such as use of original site, may be impossible to address.

• Some indicators arguably could be combined. • Other indicators perhaps could be added.