This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham]On: 11 October 2014, At: 09:17Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Landscape ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/clar20

Using ecomuseum indicators toevaluate the Robben Island Museumand World Heritage SiteGerard Corsane aa International Centre for Cultural and Heritage Studies, School ofArts and Cultures , Newcastle University , UKPublished online: 23 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Gerard Corsane (2006) Using ecomuseum indicators to evaluate theRobben Island Museum and World Heritage Site, Landscape Research, 31:4, 399-418, DOI:10.1080/01426390601004400

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426390601004400

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Using Ecomuseum Indicators to Evaluatethe Robben Island Museum and WorldHeritage Site

GERARD CORSANEInternational Centre for Cultural and Heritage Studies, School of Arts and Cultures,

Newcastle University, UK

ABSTRACT Robben Island has a number of significant overlapping physical, social, cultural, andpolitical landscapes. The island has been invested with iconic status due to the fact that it was usedas the notorious political prison by the apartheid regime in South Africa. After the first democraticelections, the island was officially opened as a national museum in 1997 and in 1999 it was listed as aWorld Heritage Site. This paper evaluates the initial phase of the Robben Island project using theidentified key indicators of the ecomuseum ideal, which has its origins in France in the early 1970s.The ecomuseum movement has challenged many traditional approaches to museum and heritagemanagement internationally, as the new Robben Island Museum has done in South Africa.

KEY WORDS: Ecomuseum, ecomuseology, integrated heritage management, Robben IslandMuseum, South African heritage, heritage tourism

Introduction

Robben Island is a complex place with a multiple layering of significant physical,social, cultural and political landscapes. Probably known most widely for the role itplayed as a place of incarceration for black male political prisoners involved in theresistance against the oppression and political injustice of apartheid South Africaand in the liberation of Namibia, the island has been ‘‘described as one of the mostpotent symbols of freedom’’ (Robben Island Museum, n.d., p. 5). Robben Island hasnow become a prime National Museum in post-apartheid South Africa and has beenplaced on the World Heritage List. It is projected as a ‘‘global shrine to the triumphof the human spirit in enduring oppression and to the ultimate victory of humanrights’’ (Graham et al., 2000, p. 248).

Although the Robben Island project, along with its conservation of the variouslandscapes of the island, does not contain the term ‘ecomuseum’ in its title, theproject shares many of the characteristics often associated with ecomuseums.

Correspondence Address: International Centre for Cultural and Heritage Studies, School of Arts and

Cultures, Newcastle University, Bruce Building, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU.

Tel: þ44 (0)191 222 3428. Email: g.e.corsane@ncl.ac.uk

Landscape Research,Vol. 31, No. 4, 399 – 418, October 2006

ISSN 0142-6397 Print/1469-9710 Online/06/040399-20 � 2006 Landscape Research Group Ltd

DOI: 10.1080/01426390601004400

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

9:17

11

Oct

ober

201

4

The aim of this article will be to use these common characteristics—or indicators—ofthe ecomuseum ideal to evaluate the initial years of Robben Island as a NationalMuseum and a World Heritage Site. After providing brief contexts for RobbenIsland and its transformation into a cultural and heritage showcase for the newSouth Africa, the ecomuseum ideal and the key indicators of ecomuseologicalinitiatives will be introduced. These indicators will then be used in an analysis of theRobben Island project during its inception phase.

The primary research method used for the analysis will be the reflection of theauthor (and a further development of Corsane, 2006a) who was an observer-participant and employee in the early years of the project. Although employed as thefirst Robben Island Training Programme (RITP) Coordinator (Corsane, 2006a;Mpumlwana et al., 2002), the author was not directly involved in the core managementactivities relating to the setting up of the project, but there remains a danger thatcloseness to these activities may result in a degree of subjectivity in the reflection. Useof more objective ecomuseum indicators should help to reduce this possibility. Detailsof the research process behind the development of these indicators are given below inthe section on the ecomuseum movement and ecomuseum indicators.

Robben Island

Robben Island, located in Table Bay about 11 kilometres out of the harbour at theVictoria and Alfred Waterfront in Cape Town, is roughly 5.4 kilometres long,1.5 wide and 475 hectares in size (see Figure 1). Although Robben Island has aniconic status associated with the ‘struggle’ against the apartheid regime inSouth Africa, the island’s history is not limited to its use as a political prison for

Figure 1. Robben Island viewed from Lion’s Head mountain in Cape Town (photographed bythe author).

400 G. Corsane

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

9:17

11

Oct

ober

201

4

apartheid South Africa. Indeed, the island has a much longer history which has beeninterpreted in a volume of academic essays (Deacon, 1996). When reading thisvolume, however, one finds that the island was often used as a place of banishmentfor people perceived to be undesirable in, or a threat to, society on the mainland.

From 1652, with the first Dutch settlement being established at the Cape as are-supplying station for the Dutch East India Company ships en route to and fromAsia, the island was often used during alternating Dutch and British occupations(1652 – 1910) as a prison for military, political and/or common law prisoners. Thishistory was overlaid between 1846 and 1931 when the island was also used as a placeof confinement for people diagnosed with mental disabilities, leprosy and chronicillness, or declared as paupers. Between 1936 and 1959 the control of the island wasmoved to the South African defence forces and in 1939, with the potential threatsassociated with the outbreak of World War II, it was fortified to strengthen thecoastal defences and heavy artillery emplacements were built. In 1960, control ofthe island was moved to the South African Prisons Service and until 1991 it was thenotorious prison of the apartheid era (1948 – 1994). Finally, after the release ofthe political prisoners in 1991, the island’s maximum-security prison was used tohouse common law prisoners until December 1996.

From 1960 in particular, the island was a landscape of continuing contestationover its use and what it symbolised. ‘‘Seldom has one small piece of land been soheavily imbued with a symbolism which remains, like understandings of its past andhopes for its future, so deeply contested’’ (Deacon, 1998, p. 161). During the 1970sarguments were put forward that the island should be turned into a nature reserve,or into a holiday resort (see Deacon, 1998), allowing the island to take on a more‘neutral’ symbolism. With the removal of the political prisoners from the island in1991, these debates resumed and at times became intense. In the lead-up to the firstSouth African democratic elections in 1994 the future use of Robben Island becamean important question.

Esiqithini: The Robben Island Exhibition was unveiled in the South AfricanMuseum in Cape Town in May 1993 as a display put together jointly by the museumand the Mayibuye Centre of the University of the Western Cape (UWC), which wasa significant repository of documentary and artefact material relating to theliberation movements. Based around a timeline of the key events in the history of theisland (Deacon et al., 1996), highlighted on a sequence of display panels with imagesand accompanied by objects, the exhibition was the first real public presentation ofthe island’s history. This exhibition ‘‘set out to raise discussion about the island’sfuture, informed by a presentation of its remote and recent past’’ (Davison, 2005,p. 190). During the opening address, Ahmed Kathrada, one of the Rivonia trialistswho had been imprisoned on the island, when reflecting on its possible future, stated:

While we will not forget the brutality of apartheid, we will not want RobbenIsland to be a monument of our hardship and suffering. We would want it to bea monument reflecting the triumph of the human spirit against the forces ofevil; a triumph of freedom and human dignity over repression and humiliation;a triumph of wisdom and largeness of spirit against small minds and pettiness; atriumph of courage and determination over human frailty and weakness;a triumph of non-racialism over bigotry and intolerance; a triumph of the new

Using Ecomuseum Indicators 401

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

9:17

11

Oct

ober

201

4

South Africa over the old. (Kathrada, 1996, pp. 10 – 11; see also quote in Nyren,1995, p. 7)

With the first democratic government of South Africa elected in 1994, a process ofconsultation regarding the future of Robben Island was initiated. Interest groups,stakeholders and interested members of the public were invited through the press topresent submissions with proposals for the future of the island. Over 200 submissionswere received, sifted and carefully considered by the Future of Robben IslandCommittee which advised the Cabinet in the new South African government led byan African National Congress (ANC) majority. The recommendation was thatRobben Island should be declared a National Monument and National Museum.This was probably the only realistic and feasible option, as many of the otherproposals were focused solely on entertainment and were considered inappropriatein light of the island’s complex history. On 4 September 1996 Cabinet decided thatRobben Island must be developed into a:

World Heritage Site, National Monument and National Museum, which canbecome a cultural and conservation showcase for the new South AfricanDemocracy, while at the same time maximising the economic, tourism andeducational potential of the island and so encouraging its multi-purpose usage.(quoted in Robben Island Museum, 2001, p. 2; also see Mandela, 1997, p. 3)

Robben Island as a National Monument, Museum and World Heritage Site

The island’s symbolic power was accepted nationally in 1996 when Robben Islandwas declared a National Monument and again in the following year when it wasopened as a National Museum and given the status of a Declared CulturalInstitution. In addition, the island’s international significance was recognised when itwas placed on UNESCO’s World Heritage List in December 1999.

On Heritage Day, 24 September 1997, Robben Island Museum was officiallyopened by President Nelson Mandela, although it had been running as a declaredCultural Institution since January of that year with a controlled number of visitorsallowed to take organised trips to the island. As the first major initiative in theprogramme of Legacy Projects aimed to help stimulate the transformation anddemocratisation of the South African heritage and museum sector, along with moregeneral developments based on tolerance, democracy, human rights and nation-building, the official opening was a significant event. As an ex-Robben Islandpolitical prisoner, Nelson Mandela said in his opening speech that:

Robben Island is a vital part of South Africa’s heritage. Siqithini—the Island—a place of pain and banishment for centuries and now of triumph—presents uswith the rich challenge of heritage. Its future has been the subject of intense andwide-ranging debate.

How do we look at the histories of different people who lived here . . .? Howdo we give expression to these diverse histories as a collective heritage?(Mandela, 1997, p. 3)

402 G. Corsane

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

9:17

11

Oct

ober

201

4

He continued later in the address to state that:

I am confident that we will together find a way to combine the many dimensionsof the island, and that we will do so in a manner that recognises above all itspre-eminent character as a symbol of the victory of the human spirit overpolitical oppression; and for reconciliation over enforced division. In this waywe will help strengthen the ethos of heritage as a binding force, rather than adivisive one; as a force of truth rather than an artificial construct to satisfy alland sundry. (Mandela, 1997, p. 3)

Earlier in his speech, Nelson Mandela had drawn attention to issues related to therepresentation of South Africa’s culturally diverse peoples and their histories andheritages in the established museums and monuments and sites. He expressedconcerns about how the majority of black South Africans found the sector alienatingand that museums, monuments and sites had excluded, marginalised and stereotypedpeople and that many exhibitions were degrading and distorted in the way that theydepicted history. It was hoped that the Robben Island Museum and the other LegacyProjects would challenge traditional western approaches to museum work andheritage management and would be more inclusive of all peoples. In many ways thenewly established Robben Island Museum unknowingly employed philosophicalframeworks and practices which mirrored those found in ecomuseology and ‘newmuseology’.

The Ecomuseum Movement and Ecomuseum Indicators

Indeed, without using the term ‘ecomuseum’ in its name, the new Robben IslandMuseum displayed many of the recognised indicators associated with the eco-museum ideal and ‘new museology’. The ecomuseum movement started in France inthe early 1970s and spread internationally to become a significant force that haschallenged more traditional approaches to museum work worldwide (see Corsane &Holleman, 1993; Davis, 1999). The movement has become strong in numerouscountries, but most noticeably in Brazil, Canada, China, France, Italy, Japan,Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Taiwan. Although many names have been associatedwith the evolution and spread of the movement, two key proponents were the Frenchmuseologists Georges Henri Riviere and Hugues de Varine who are viewed as theinitiators of the ideal. Each introduced one main central concept to museologywhich, when combined, became the foundation of the ecomuseum philosophy. Onthe one hand, Riviere believed that within their main functions museums should domore to place human affairs into a broader environmental context, while, on theother, de Varine wished to see museums become democratic institutions with localcommunities taking a far more active role in their planning and functioning(Hudson, 1992). From the outset these were also two pillars of the Robben IslandMuseum.

Centred on these two pillars, the emerging ecomuseum movement began todevelop a philosophical framework and sets of practices, setting it apart from themore ‘traditional’ museum. Important aspects of the differences between thetraditional museum and the ecomuseum have been concisely stated in a pair of

Using Ecomuseum Indicators 403

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

9:17

11

Oct

ober

201

4

equations developed by Hugues de Varine and added to by Rene Rivard (1984, 1988;also see Boylan, 1992a; Davis, 1999). These equations can be stated as follows:

. Traditional Museum¼ buildingþ collectionsþ expert staffþ public visitors; and,

. Ecomuseum¼ territoryþ heritageþmemoryþ population.

Within the philosophy and practices of ecomuseology a number of indicators whichtend to characterise individual ecomuseums have been identified (Boylan, 1992b;Corsane & Holleman, 1993; Davis, 1999; Hamrin & Hulander, 1995). However,although common ecomuseum indicators can be listed, it should be noted that notwo ecomuseums will display all of the same indicators. Each ecomuseum will beunique and will place a different emphasis on various aspects. Consequently, eachwill show a different configuration of the indicators in different proportions. This isbecause the core maxim of the ecomuseum ideal is that an ecomuseum will respondcontinually to shifting local environmental, economic, social, cultural and politicalneeds and imperatives, as determined by the local communities working with otherstakeholders.

From an ongoing review of the extensive literature produced both by practitionersand academics that relates to the ecomuseum movement, ‘new museology’ andindividual ecomuseums, Corsane et al. (2004; see also Corsane, 2006b) have iden-tified 21 indicators (Table 1). These indicators are based on a long trajectory ofreview and research that includes Boylan (1992b), Corsane and Holleman (1993),Hamrin and Hulander (1995) and the significant work of Davis (1999).

In June 2004, the author completed a research trip down the eastern side ofFrance. He visited 64 ecomuseum hub, or antennae, sites (see Indicator 10 inTable 1) to test the developing set of ecomuseum indicators as an instrument ofevaluation. All of this above reviewing and research reveals the value of using thefollowing indicators as an instrument of evaluation of ecomuseums and otherintegrated heritage management projects.

Using a checklist matrix of questions developed around these 21 indicators, fiveecomuseums in Piemonte and Liguria, northern Italy, were evaluated in a pilotresearch project undertaken in 2005 by Davis. The success of this pilot has revealedthat the indicators can, indeed, be used successfully to evaluate ecomuseum andother heritage management projects. The article written following this pilot projectconcludes that ‘‘the questions developed during this work remain as a valid checklistagainst which ecomuseums or other community-led heritage projects can beevaluated’’ (see Corsane et al., forthcoming). The value of using the indicators asan evaluation instrument was also confirmed by the feedback on two paperspresented by Davis and Corsane at the 2005 International Forum of EcomuseumsCommunication and Exploration, Guiyang, Guizhou, People’s Republic of China inthe first week of June 2005. This is why the author believes that this instrument canbe used to critically evaluate the Robben Island Museum and World HeritageSite during its inception. In particular, the evaluation of the Robben Islandproject against the first four indicators is of interest. The discussions around thesefirst four are more complicated and require more critical reflection than thediscussions based on the later indicators, because these first four relate torelationships and the power dynamics between national and local stakeholders.

404 G. Corsane

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

9:17

11

Oct

ober

201

4

With regard to Robben Island these relationships have had to be balanced carefullythrough negotiation.

Using Ecomuseum Indicators to Evaluate Robben Island Museum

and World Heritage Site

When turning to consider how the first three of these ecomuseum indicators can beused to evaluate the initial work of the Robben Island Museum it is important tounderstand how the project developed in relation to what the newly elected nationalgovernment hoped to see as outcomes.

In December 1996, an interim authority was created to manage the project until aninstitutional Council could be appointed to oversee the Robben Island Museum and

Table 1. Museum indicators

Ecomuseum indicators

An ecomuseum will often:1. Be steered by local communities2. Allow for public participation from all the stakeholder and interest groups in all the

decision-making processes and activities in a democratic manner3. Stimulate joint ownership and management, with input from local communities,

academic advisors, local businesses, local authorities and government structures4. Place an emphasis on the processes of heritage management, rather than on heritage

products for consumption5. Encourage collaboration with local craftspeople, artists, writers, actors and musicians6. Depend on substantial active voluntary efforts by local stakeholders7. Focus on local identity and a ‘sense of place’8. Encompass a ‘geographical’ territory, which can be determined by different shared

characteristics9. Cover both spatial and temporal aspects, where, in relation to the temporal, it looks at

continuity and change over time rather than simply trying to freeze things in time10. Takes the form of a ‘fragmented museum’, consisting of a network with a hub and

antennae of different buildings and sites11. Promotes preservation, conservation and safeguarding of heritage resources in situ12. Gives equal attention to immovable and movable tangible material culture, and to

intangible heritage resources13. Stimulates sustainable development and use of resources14. Allows for change and development for a better future15. Encourages an ongoing programme of documentation of past and present life and

people’s interactions with all environmental factors (including physical, economic, social,cultural and political)

16. Promotes research at a number of levels—from the research and understanding of local‘specialists’ to research by academics

17. Promotes multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches to research18. Encourages a holistic approach to the interpretation of culture/nature relationships19. Attempts to illustrate connections between: technology/individual, nature/culture, and

past/present20. Provide for an intersection between heritage and responsible tourism21. Bring benefits to local communities, for example, a sense of pride, regeneration and/or

economic income

Using Ecomuseum Indicators 405

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

9:17

11

Oct

ober

201

4

staff members were appointed. Immediately, the new national government placedsubstantial pressure on this interim authority. Central government wanted the islandto be opened to the public as soon as possible so that it could stand as a beaconof the changes and new order in South Africa, and as a symbol of hope andreconciliation (see Strange & Kempa, 2003). This imperative was seen to be of suchimportance that the common law prisoners were moved off the island and themaximum-security prison was closed as a prison in December 1996 and re-opened asa heritage tourist destination in January 1997 (Smith, 1997). When the tourismoperations started, a limited number of visitors (265 per day) were taken oncontrolled and prescribed tours of the island and prison. The transfer of the islandfrom the Department of Correctional Services to the then Department of Arts,Culture, Science and Technology and the opening of the museum happened over acouple of weeks, even although full forward planning and impact assessments hadnot been completed and visitor facilities had not been installed (Shackley, 2001b).

In view of these swift decisions and the new national government’s agendas interms of stimulating nation-building, reconciliation, tolerance, equality anddemocracy, there was the potential for the balance of the power dynamics to tipin favour of a top – down approach with policies and plans being imposed fromabove. From the outset, the ANC majority-led central government took a leadingrole in the redevelopment of the island through the interim authority and laterthrough the Robben Island Museum Council and the permanent staff appointed.However, this being said, every attempt was made from the inception of the RobbenIsland Museum to encourage a democratic approach to management (Indicators 1, 2and 3).

This proved to be very challenging for the interim authority and, although, a goodproportion of the stakeholders accepted and ‘bought into’ the vision and mission ofthe museum and were prepared to work towards its objectives, there were those whothought that things should, or could, be done differently. Those stakeholders andinterest groups that felt that they had been involved in drawing up the museum’svision and mission and accepted its objectives did not sense that anything was beingimposed from above. However, those who felt that they may have been excluded orminimised in any way made themselves heard and reacted against the museum. In aperiod of South Africa’s history when change and opportunity were accelerated, andwith the island’s high potential for contestation, the interim authority had to tread afine line in order to listen to, and meet the needs of, the different interest groups.Careful consultation and negotiation were needed to establish and maintain anappropriate equilibrium of power, participation and sense of ownership between thedifferent stakeholders (Indicators 2 and 3). The times when the balance becamethreatened and tensions became apparent was when individuals, or interest groups,started working towards their own agendas. Indeed, with so many stakeholdershaving competing interests in and seeing different potential opportunities related tothe island, the museum was far from free from internal and external tensions andcriticism. One example was the ‘invasion’ that occurred in January 1997 whenprivate charter boats, without permission from the interim authority, attempted toland on the island with unauthorised visitors. The institution’s interim staff set up ablockade to turn back these visitors, making press headlines (see Coombes, 2003).Another example was when the interim authority sought legal action to stop

406 G. Corsane

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

9:17

11

Oct

ober

201

4

a private business from selling branded merchandise that it had developed withoutthe agreement of the museum.

Regarding the input from the local communities (Indicator 1), it should be notedthat a ‘new local community’ of workers soon developed, with many staff membersliving on the island with their families. This community consisted of ex-politicalprisoners from the different liberation movements (a number being men who hadbeen imprisoned on the island, but with the addition of women ex-politicalprisoners), ex-prison warders (who had transferred across from the Department ofCorrectional Services to the then Department of Arts, Culture, Science andTechnology) and members of the interim authority (and later the staff appointed topermanent positions) and other heritage, tourism and environmental practitioners.At the level of day-to-day operations, the museum’s programmes were indeedinitiated and steered by this culturally diverse community. The new local communitywas the main driving force in the museum’s activities.

As this ‘community’ focused on the work at hand it became a microcosm for whatthe government wanted to see taking place nationally. The community, led byex-political prisoners and ex-warders who had developed friendships even before theend of the apartheid era, revealed a true spirit of tolerance, forgiveness andreconciliation. Obviously, with such cultural diversity, such rapid changes to theisland, and the pressures to deliver in the project, there were times of internal tensionand division. Yet, in the main, members of the community were prepared to try andwork out these differences and in the first five years the community appeared tocooperate towards shared goals.

In this new community, a number of ex-political prisoners were included in theproject’s middle and top management structure and also across the staff structures inall departments. However, the ex-political prisoners who have had the most contactwith the museum users are those who were employed by the museum as hosts fortours through the prison and around the island. These tour hosts steered thedevelopment of the ‘scripts’ for the tours to the various sites, buildings andlandscapes of the island, along with the more generic aspects of the prison tours.However, in the prison tours they included material from their personal memories.The scripts for the island tour and the general parts of the prison tour had to becarefully negotiated, as the ex-political prisoners from the different parties andmovements had had very different experiences on the island, depending on theiraffiliations and date of arrival. There were different voices to be heard, with eachex-political prisoner’s recollections being coloured by the beliefs and ideologies towhich he subscribed. Earlier prisoners had memories of extreme humiliation andbrutality, with conditions for later inmates becoming a little more bearable as theprison authorities responded to hunger strikes, go-slows and international pressures.

With a multiplicity of memories and voices relating to differing experiences of theisland and within South Africa as a whole, it was not always easy, or possible, toreach consensus about the messages that should be communicated and about theongoing redevelopment of the island. Consequently, an emphasis had to be placedon process (Indicator 4) to ensure that the balance already discussed was maintainedand the potential for tension was minimised. Early on, mechanisms for obtaininginput from stakeholder and interest groups were set in place. Apart from the initialpublic consultation about the future of Robben Island, a number of forums and

Using Ecomuseum Indicators 407

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

9:17

11

Oct

ober

201

4

focus groups were organised to get ideas from academics, environmentalists,museologists, heritage practitioners, government bodies, non-government organisa-tions and businesses as the project was conceptualised and as it developed. Much ofthe input from these events fed into the policies and plans drafted withinthe decision-making processes for the growing organisation. They also led to theestablishment of a network of working partnerships with organisations andbusinesses that were willing to work in line with the mission and vision of RobbenIsland Museum. Among these reference groups, the ex-political prisoners werealways seen as a key group and their input has been sought on new developments onan ongoing basis.

As mentioned above, Robben Island Museum encouraged public participationwhere it was possible and viable to stimulate a sense of joint ownership (Indicator 2).In terms of process, the museum aimed to be transparent and accountable fordecisions that were made. As already noted, at times this opened the museum tocriticism from those who might question these decisions. The museum did not shyaway from responding to these criticisms. This fitted in with a key objective: theisland had to become a ‘forum for critical debate’ and one of the first initiatives itstarted was to run a wide range of programmes where previously marginalisedand/or silenced voices could make themselves heard, thus becoming part of a newinclusive collective heritage and public memory (see Mpumlwana et al., 2002). Thesepublic events were noted in a message from Lionel Mtshali, the Minister of Arts,Culture, Science and Technology at the time, in the pamphlet with the programmefor the museum’s opening in 1997. The text reads:

Building on the legacy of the island as a platform for critical debate, monthlyfocus periods have been instituted during which youth, women and otherpeople who have been marginalised, will be encouraged to participate incurrent debates with others across the spectrum. The themes of these focusperiods will be based on the ideals represented by Robben Island. (Mtshali,1997, p. 2)

On looking more closely at where the Museum placed its emphasis in relation to theprocesses of heritage management versus heritage as a product for consumption(Indicator 4), one needs to be aware that the feasibility and sustainability of theproject was complex. Although the project received very substantial up-frontfunding to assist with its establishment, this came on the understanding that itshould become relatively self-sufficient within five years. This meant that themanagement had quickly to develop a business strategy and plan that took accountof marketing and promotion on one hand, and fundraising and income generationon the other. With regard to the latter, the museum had to consider the attraction ofinternational donor funding, obtaining business sponsorship and the use of theheritage resources available to make the most of the attraction and ‘draw’ ofthe island. This meant that, from the launch, the project placed a significantemphasis on the development and branding of its heritage products in terms of thetours and the development of merchandise. A distinctive logo was selected througha competition open to advertising companies and this was profiled whereverpossible.

408 G. Corsane

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

9:17

11

Oct

ober

201

4

The key issues related to the development and marketing of the products wereidentified in 2000 by Shackley (2001a, 2001b) on a site visit to the island. Forexample, the cost of the tour out to the island placed the experience out of reach forthe majority of South Africans, as the ticket price would have equalled the averageweekly wage of most black South Africans. However, this problem was recognisedby the management and a number of concessionary tours and programmes wereorganised for disadvantaged groups, for example, the elderly and street-children.In addition, some of the initial merchandising and advertising could be perceived asinappropriate and could even have debased the message that the project wished tocommunicate. However, as the project has matured these problems have beenreduced.

Despite these problems, in general the organisation was very process-orientatedand this offset the frustrations that some visitors might have experienced with thetour product in the early stages of the project, where ticket sales, departure times andvisitor services were not always as ‘crisp’ as they could have been. The majority ofvisitors who went out to the island found the experience moving and life-changing.For many the trip was perceived to be a pilgrimage. The final words in the visitorinformation brochure are:

We trust that you will leave Robben Island with the feeling that you have shareda great learning experience with us.

You have participated in a pilgrimage, a journey on Robben Island which, wehope, will inspire you to help make the world a better place. (Robben IslandMuseum, n.d., p. 31; see also Shackley, 2001a, p. 174)

The prison tours facilitated by the ex-political prisoners as tour hosts are a goodexample of process-led activities on the island. Robben Island Museum hasencouraged and facilitated polyvocality and visitor participation in the meaning-making processes. Initially, ex-political prisoners and ex-prison warders worked sideby side to set up the operations and programmes of the museum. The ex-politicalprisoners from a number of the political parties banned by the apartheidgovernment, now employed by the museum as tour hosts, continue to engage withvisitors during tours through the maximum-security prison (Figure 2). The hosts usethe opportunity of the tours to share their individual and collective memories andvisitors are encouraged to respond and engage in a two-way dialogue (Mpumlwanaet al., 2002). Here, visitors become active participants in interpretation and meaning-making rather than passive recipients of fixed messages. It is also important to notethat the majority of these hosts can provide the testimony of the ordinarymembership of the movements and parties. Although they take visitors past theindividual cells in ‘B’ Block, including the one that held Nelson Mandela, and talk ofthe leadership, they also take visitors through the communal cells in the H-shapedblocks, where visitors can engage with the shared and individual memories of therank and file members. ‘‘This is a break from the traditional didactic authoritativemonologues that tend to be the dominant discourse in South African museums’’(Mpumlwana et al., 2002, p. 252). Overall, the visitor ‘experience’ is engaging andemotionally charged, especially when the ex-political prisoners share their ‘intenselypersonal’ accounts (Schofield, 2006). Initially, many of these hosts spoke about

Using Ecomuseum Indicators 409

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

9:17

11

Oct

ober

201

4

the cathartic release that came with sharing their memories and having the freedomto voice their past. However, with daily repetition and reminding of the experiences,some found that the job became draining and stressful but stuck with it because ofthe difficulty of finding an alternative job (Shackley, 2001b).

Another example of a successful process-driven activity (ecomuseum Indicator 4)was one of the early week-long Spring Schools run for secondary school children.The outcome of this event was a travelling exhibition entitled From Incarceration toLiberation that was designed using cardboard apple boxes as display cases—this wassymbolic, as this type of box was used by the political prisoners to carry their goodswhen they were moved off the island. The exhibition travelled around public spacesin the areas where the Spring School participants had come from and to communitieswhich might otherwise have no access to Robben Island. At these host venues,community members were given the chance to add and integrate their own under-standings and interpretations to the exhibition (Mpumlwana et al., 2002).

In terms of encouraging collaboration with local craftspeople, artists, writers,actors and musicians (Indicator 5), Robben Island Museum started a range ofprogrammes to stimulate collaboration. Examples of these in the first year were theEngaging the Shadows programme and Thirty Minutes: Installations by Nine Artists.In the first, artists, musicians, poets and writers were invited to participate in

Figure 2. Lionel Davis—ex-political prisoner as tour host (photographed by the author).

410 G. Corsane

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

9:17

11

Oct

ober

201

4

the launch of an artists-in-residence programme between April and July 1997.Organised by the Arts and Culture section of the museum, this cross-collaborationwas very successful. In the catalogue Zayd Minty, Arts and Culture Officer, said that‘‘through them [the artists] our developing nation will begin to question and engagewith its own shadows and in the process we will begin to discern new symbolsemerging from the darkness—new memories, new histories’’ (Minty & Conning,1997, p. 1). In the second early collaboration project of October 1997, nine artistswere invited to set up multimedia installations in the visitor booths in the old VisitorCentre on Robben Island. Called Thirty Minutes to reflect the time that visitors wereallowed to speak to prisoners via intercom, with the only visual contact beingthrough a small pane of thick bullet-proof glass, the artists installed works on theprisoners’ side in nine booths. In the introduction of this exhibition’s catalogue,Minty (1997, p. 1) reflects a number of ecomuseum indicators when he states that:

The Robben Island Museum (RIM) operates now as a unique living museumoperating in a whole environment of the island—it utilises and emphasises theIsland’s political and universal symbolism, its natural and cultural heritage andresources and works as a platform of critical debate and lifelong learning. RIMhopes to continue to educate, influence and be relevant to South African societyand the world through collections of historical material, activities andproductions. In particular, it aims to provide opportunities for different voicesto communicate, challenge and re-interpret memories, meanings, symbols andresources in a holistic and innovative manner . . . The ‘Thirty Minutes’ project isprecisely such a project—it engages visitors to RIM in a dialogue with theVisitor’s Block.

Turning to consider voluntary efforts (Indicator 6) in the initial museum period, itshould be noted that this aspect is difficult to quantify. Voluntary efforts were mainlylimited to the time and input that stakeholders gave during the focus groups andpublic forums. At various times, different organisations and associations providedexpertise and time to offer activities in the public programmes of the museum.However, as an institutionally driven business concern, the voluntary work waspossibly not as substantial as might be found in other heritage projects.

On moving to look at the museum’s focus on local identity and ‘sense of place’(Indicator 7), the museum’s location on an island with very powerful histories ofbanishment, and its compelling symbolism of hope and overcoming, need to beconsidered. The museum has a strong focus on the interpretation and communica-tion of local identity and significance. In addition, anyone visiting the island cannotbut come away with a strong sense of place. The museum has made the most of thisto ensure that visitors take part in a truly memorable experience, which for many islife-changing.

In this evaluation of the Robben Island project, the next group of indicators(7 – 12) can be considered together, as they relate more to locality, spatiality and theactual heritage resources on the ground. The project encompasses a definedgeographical territory with a set of characteristics (Indicator 8). The museumconsists of the island itself and the one nautical mile zone surrounding it. On theisland itself, this territory includes the natural landscape with indigenous and

Using Ecomuseum Indicators 411

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

9:17

11

Oct

ober

201

4

introduced flora and fauna, the built environment with buildings from variousperiods of the island’s history, a number of key heritage sites, along with all theindividual and shared memories of those who have inhabited the island, as well as allthose who have come into contact with it in a variety of ways. With its territoryextended to the maritime landscape, the museum also has to ensure the preservationof the sea bed and the conservation of local shipwrecks.

In the museum’s expressed objectives, the total integrated conservation, inter-pretation and communication of the island’s landscapes and sites, in their full spatialand temporal contexts, were, from the beginning, understood by the museum’smanagement team and staff as vital tasks (Indicator 9). This was seen in thediscussions during staff meetings. The museum has been criticised by some visitorsand academics, who have spoken to the author, for being too focused on the post-1960 history of the island. However, this is unfair, as the museum was very sensitiveto the fact that it would be this recent history that would become the main reason forpeople to visit the island. Consequently, the museum has made efforts to ensurethat the histories represented are more holistic and that more is done to placethe historical information into other contexts which cut across the multilayeredlandscapes of the island.

The museum takes the form of a ‘fragmented museum’ (Indicator 10) and this canbe clearly seen in the tours around the prison and island, where a range of differentspaces and places are visited. For example, in the tour around the island visitors see:the different spaces in the maximum-security prison (Figure 3); the kramat thatcommemorates Sheikh Madura, who was brought to the Cape by the Dutch as aprisoner from present-day Indonesia; the leper graveyard (Figure 4); the house where

Figure 3. Main door into the maximum-security prison with RITP students in front(photographed by the author).

412 G. Corsane

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

9:17

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Robert Mangaliso Sobukwe, founding president of the Pan Africanist Congress(PAC), was imprisoned in solitary confinement; the three quarries—each with theirown significant histories (Figure 5); the lepers’ church; the village, with all its

Figure 4. Leper graveyard (photographed by the author).

Figure 5. Limestone quarry where political prisoners worked in hard labour (photographed bythe author).

Using Ecomuseum Indicators 413

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

9:17

11

Oct

ober

201

4

different buildings from various periods; the artillery emplacements; the physicalenvironment; and the jackass or African penguin colony. As far as possible all thephysical heritage, both cultural and natural, is conserved in situ (Indicator 11) andthe museum has constantly been working on developing and updating a sustainablemanagement plan for its heritage resources.

Robben Island remains a site for pilgrimage with much of the sense of placeretained with minimal interpretive intervention, especially after the construction ofthe Nelson Mandela Gateway to Robben Island, which acts as a ‘hub’ (Indicator 10)or an orientation centre and exhibition space within a more traditional museumsetting. With funding raised through businesses in ‘‘Public Private Partnerships’’, thestate’s contribution to this construction was limited, in line with Robben IslandMuseum’s goal of becoming self-sufficient. The building, located in the newClocktower precinct, was officially opened on 1 December 2001 by former presidentNelson Mandela and now provides orientation information and visitor facilitiesthat people can use before and after the ferry trip to and from the island. Thisbuilding has a modern exhibition space with new media technology, where visitorscan spend time researching and learning about the various aspects of the island. Thisenhances the actual experience of going to the island and provides an opportunityfor the visitor to prepare for the trip and to obtain follow-up information throughrepeat visits to the building. The new building has also been designed so that it isphysically accessible to all. All of this has helped to provide maximum access forpeople.

In terms of the variety of heritage resources conserved, documented, researched,interpreted and communicated (Indicator 12), the museum has been active inexploring the full range. In addition to the landscapes, built environment andsignificant sites, the museum has access to documents and artefact material. Withthe disbanding of the Mayibuye Centre as it had originally been constituted andthe incorporation of its collections into the UWC Robben Island MayibuyeArchives (which is still based at UWC) in June 2001, the museum has access to alarge archival collection of manuscripts, published material and to objects.Consequently, the museum has a large ‘collection’ of immovable and movabletangible heritage resources, along with the intangible cultural heritage resourcesincluding, for example, oral traditions, oral testimonies, language, song and dance.All these resources need to be safeguarded and interpreted. This means that theisland has had to work on developing an Integrated Management Planwhich includes conservation planning and this has been an ongoing challenge(Nemaheni & Prins-Solani, 2005), especially under the requirements of retainingWorld Heritage Site status. Within this planning, the significance of intangiblecultural heritage for Robben Island has been recognised (see Deacon, 2004;Mpumlwana et al., 2002). It is this wide range of heritage resources that makesRobben Island Museum so different from ‘traditional’ museums, contained withina building and focused upon movable material culture removed from its originalcontext.

Because Robben Island is a site of symbolism and memories, the intangibleheritage plays an important role and early on the museum started a programme tocollect oral testimonies from ex-political prisoners. These have been used to interpretthe prison. It was decided to have minimal physical interpretive interventions on

414 G. Corsane

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

9:17

11

Oct

ober

201

4

the island itself, in order to keep distractions and physical change to a minimum,so display panels and exhibitions were kept to a limited number of key panels andmarkers. In addition, only a small number of objects are displayed in certain cells, asthe environmental conditions in the maximum-security prison are far from ideal interms of an appropriate ‘collections management’ regime which would normallyinclude the use of ‘preventive conservation’ techniques to measure and minimise theagents of deterioration that can adversely affect museum objects. However, one ofthe key exhibitions, Cell Stories, showcases more hardy individual objects that themuseum has on loan from ex-political prisoners. In a corridor of individual cells in‘A’ Block, there is one ex-political prisoner’s item per cell. These objects aredisplayed in simple cases similar to those that would have been made by theprisoners. There is a photograph of the owner of the object beside each case and overthe cell’s intercom station an audio recording is played with the ex-politicalprisoner’s testimony about the object (see Mpumlwana et al., 2002). Although theseobjects are often very simple, or home-made, they are given immense significance bythe stories associated with them. This display is one of the most powerful in themuseum and has a strong impact on visitors.

From the outset, the Robben Island Museum faced challenges relating tosustainable development and good use of heritage resources (Indicator 13). With theinitial pressure to make the island accessible and with such a short transfer periodfrom penal colony to tourism destination, there was very little time to analyse thepotential impact of visitors upon the island and its resources. Early concerns relatedto the sea birds that nested on the island and to the penguin colony: the possibledamage that could be done to nests and the stress on the birds. Another problem thatsurfaced within the first year was the wear and tear to the steps leading into themaximum-security prison and along the entry corridor.

In responding to these impacts and with the continuing increase of visitor numbers(during the peak month of December there were about 20,000 in 1997, rising steadilyto 45,000 in 2002), the island management had to allow for positive change anddevelopment (Indicator 14). For example, the museum constructed a ‘boardwalk’ atthe end of the first year to lessen the disturbance to the penguins. Another responsewas the re-surfacing of the tarred and dirt roads with a new durable surface ofconcrete blocks. Both of these changes blended well with the landscape andimproved conditions.

Robben Island Museum also met the common criteria for ecomuseums in terms ofresearch (Indicators 15, 16 and 17). As soon as the island was more open to publicaccess, researchers from many disciplines were allowed or invited to contribute tomultidisciplinary research in areas that ranged from botany to the history of theisland. Travelling across to the island for work each day, one often found researcherson the ferry. Interdisciplinary research was also encouraged through holistic researchprojects to document changes to the various layers of landscape on the island(Indicator 15). In these research projects the local people, including the ex-politicalprisoners involved in the documentation or oral testimonies project, were seen asexperts (Indicator 16), as were people from indigenous groups who visited the islandand contributed their own knowledge. Examples of this include groups whoshared information about the medicinal value of plants and healing and cleansingpractices.

Using Ecomuseum Indicators 415

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

9:17

11

Oct

ober

201

4

With the management of the heritage resources and the research undertaken,the museum aimed from the start to provide a holistic interpretation (Indicators18 and 19). As already noted, it did not want people to see the island only forits post-1960s history. It hoped to cover the larger temporal dimension in a way thatshowed the relationships between nature and culture and the intersections betweenthe past and the present. It may not always have been successful in doing this;however, this does not mean that the museum has not tried. The visitors’ maininterest has been to see the cells where the leadership of the movements againstapartheid were held and this has overshadowed the museum’s public programmes.

Finally, the museum does aim to provide for an intersection between heritage andresponsible tourism (Indicator 20) in a way that brings benefit to as many people aspossible (Indicator 21). Many ex-political prisoners have found work and businessopportunities through the establishment of the museum. A number have shared withthe author the positive benefits of sharing their experiences and having the sacrificethat they made affirmed as worthwhile.

Conclusion

The use of the ecomuseum indicators can be a worthwhile exercise when one wishesto evaluate an integrated heritage management project. These indicators haveprovided a structured direction to guide critical reflection on the Robben IslandMuseum in its initial implementation phase. Although the project does not includethe term ‘ecomuseum’ in its title, it shares to some degree almost all of theecomuseum indicators. Probably, the only ecomuseum indicator that is not fullyrepresented is the one that relates to volunteer input (Indicator 6). The museum hasnever depended on substantial voluntary efforts. Due to the funding that it receivedfrom the state and from the income that it has started to generate it has not had torely on voluntary work.

From the evaluation shown above, it can be noted that the Robben IslandMuseum has faced a number of pressures, challenges, problems and criticisms.However, it has been prepared to take risks, to accept criticism and to further debate.It has challenged many traditional museum and heritage management approaches inways similar to the ecomuseology movement. It is a dynamic and exciting place towork in and to visit. In many ways it has become the ‘‘cultural and conservationshowcase for the new South African Democracy’’ (Robben Island Museum, 2001,p. 2; also see Mandela, 1997, p. 3).

References

Boylan, P. (1992a) Ecomuseums and the new museology: definitions, Museums Journal, 92(4), p. 29.

Boylan, P. (1992b) Is yours a ‘classic’ museum or an ecomuseum/‘new’ museum?, Museums Journal, 92(4),

p. 30.

Coombes, A. (2003) History After Apartheid: Visual Culture and Public Memory in a Democratic

South Africa (Durham, NC: Duke University Press/Johannesburg: Wits University Press).

Corsane, G. (2006a) Robben Island: facing the challenges of creating a National Museum in a World

Heritage Site, in: J. Schofield, A. Klausmeier & L. Purbrick (Eds) Re-mapping the Field: New

Approaches in Conflict Archaeology, pp. 64 – 71 (Bonn: Westkreuz-Verlag).

416 G. Corsane

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

9:17

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Corsane G. (2006b) From ‘outreach’ to ‘inreach’: how ecomuseum principles encourage community

participation in museum processes, in: Communication and Exploration: Papers of International

Ecomuseum Forum, Guizhou, China, pp. 157 – 171 (Beijing: Chinese Society of Museums).

Corsane, G. & Holleman, W. (1993) Ecomuseums: a brief evaluation, in: R. De Jong (Ed.) Museums and

the Environment, pp. 111 – 125 (Pretoria: South African Museums Association).

Corsane, G., Elliott, S. & Davis, P. (2004) Matrix of enabling features and ecomuseum indicators and

characteristics, unpublished document.

Corsane, G., Davis, P., Elliott, S., Maggi, M., Murtas, D. & Rogers, S. (forthcoming) Ecomuseum

evaluation in Piemonte and Liguria, Italy, International Journal of Heritage Studies.

Davis, P. (1999) Ecomuseums: A Sense of Place (London: Leicester University Press).

Davison, P. (2005) Museums and the re-shaping of memory, in: G. Corsane (Ed.) Heritage, Museums

and Galleries: An Introductory Reader, pp. 184 – 194 (London: Routledge) [Originally published in

S. Nuttall & C. Coetzee (Eds) (1998) Negotiating the Past: The Making of Memory in South Africa,

pp. 143 – 160 (Cape Town: Oxford University Press)].

Deacon, H. (Ed.) (1996) The Island: A History of Robben Island 1488 – 1990 (Bellville: Mayibuye Books/

Cape Town: David Philip).

Deacon, H. (1998) Remembering tragedy, constructing modernity: Robben Island as a national

monument, in: S. Nuttall & C. Coetzee (Eds) Negotiating the Past: The Making of Memory in South

Africa, pp. 143 – 160 (Cape Town: Oxford University Press).

Deacon, H. (2004) Intangible heritage in conservation management planning: the case of Robben Island,

International Journal of Heritage Studies, 10(3), pp. 309 – 319.

Deacon, H., Penn, N., Odendaal, A. & Davidson, P. (1996) Esiqithini: The Robben Island Exhibition

(Cape Town: South African Museum/Bellville: Mayibuye Books).

Graham, B., Ashworth, G. J. & Tunbridge, J. E. (2000) A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture and

Economy (London: Arnold).

Hamrin, O. & Hulander, M. (1995) The Ecomuseum Bergslagen (Falun: Ekomuseum Bergslagen).

Hudson, K. (1992) The dream and the reality, Museums Journal, 92(4), p. 27.

Kathrada, A. M. (1996) Opening address by Mr Ahmed m. Kathrada, South African Museum, Cape

Town, 26 May 1993, in: H. Deacon, N. Penn, A. Odendaal & P. Davidson, Esiqithini: The Robben Island

Exhibition (Cape Town: South African Museum/Bellville: Mayibuye Books).

Mandela, N. (1997) Address by President Mandela—Heritage Day, Ilifa Labantu: Robben Island—

Heritage of the People, 1(9), p. 3.

Minty, Z. (1997) Robben Island Museum and the Arts and Culture Programme, in: S. Williamson (Ed.)

Thirty Minutes: Multi-media Installations in the Visitor Block on Robben Island by Nine Cape Town

Artists (Cape Town: Robben Island Museum).

Minty, Z. & Conning, L. (Eds) (1997) Engaging the Shadows (Cape Town: Robben Island Museum).

Mpumlwana, K., Corsane, G., Pastor-Makhurane, J. & Rassool, C. (2002) Inclusion and the power of

representation: South African museums and the cultural politics of social transformation, in: R. Sandell

(Ed.) Museums, Society, Inequality, pp. 244 – 261 (London: Routledge).

Mtshali, L. (1997) Message from the Minister, Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, the

Honourable Mr Lionel Mtshali, in: Heritage Day, 24 September 1997: Tolerance, Democracy, Human

Rights: Robben Island Museum, pp. 2 – 3 (Pretoria: Department of Arts, Culture, Science and

Technology).

Nemaheni, T. & Prins-Solani, D. (2005) Robben Island, World Heritage Review, 40, pp. 34 – 41.

Nyren, P. (Ed.) (1995) Dreaming of Freedom: The Story of Robben Island (Johannesburg: Sached Books/

Bellville: Mayibuye Books).

Rivard, R. (1984) Opening up the Museum, or, Towards a New Museology: Ecomuseums and ‘Open’

Museums (Quebec: Rivard).

Rivard, R. (1988) Museums and ecomuseums: questions and answers, in: J. A. Gjestrum &

R. Maure (Eds) Økomuseumsboka—Identitet, Økologi, Deltakelse, pp. 123 – 128 (Tromsø: Norsk

ICOM).

Robben Island Museum (n.d.) Welcome to Robben Island World Heritage: Visitor Information

(Cape Town: Robben Island Museum).

Robben Island Museum (2001) Robben Island Museum: Strategic Plan for the 2001/2002 Financial Year

(Cape Town: Robben Island Museum).

Using Ecomuseum Indicators 417

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

9:17

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Schofield, J. (2006) Jessie’s cats and other stories: presenting and interpreting recent troubles, in: A. Hems

& M. Blockley (Eds) Heritage Interpretation, pp. 141 – 162 (London: Routledge in association with

English Heritage).

Shackley, M. (2001a) Managing Sacred Sites: Service Provision and Visitor Experience (London:

Continuum).

Shackley, M. (2001b) Potential futures for Robben Island: shrine, museum or theme park? International

Journal of Heritage Studies, 7(4), pp. 355 – 363.

Smith, C. (1997) Robben Island (Cape Town: Struik).

Strange, C. & Kempa, M. (2003) Shades of dark tourism: Alcatraz and Robben Island, Annals of Tourism

Research, 30(2), pp. 386 – 405.

418 G. Corsane

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

9:17

11

Oct

ober

201

4