Page 43 - Dark Shades of Istria
P. 43
2.4 Warfare Tourism
mony, we cannot claim this for the latter. There is one more (negative)
phenomenon which can accompany dark tourism sites. In the Australian
example, McKay (2013), McKenna and Ward (2007), and Reynolds and
Lake (2010) problematise the excessive sentimentalisation of w w i (es-
pecially the battlefield of Gallipoli) and understand this as systemic and
unrelenting militarisation of the history and culture, although the memo-
rial days/events associated with wwi and wwii are proclaimed as days
of national importance. According to all these assertions, special empha-
sis should be put on the issue of how heritage is ‘presented in an hon-
est, ethical and inclusive manner that minimises dissonance’ (Carr, 2010;
Carr & Colls, 2016); the complexity of the dissonant perspective of her-
itage was advocated also by Tunbridge and Ashworth (1996), Dann and
Seaton (2001), Ashworth and Hartmann (2005a), Ashworth and Isaac
(2015), Hrobat Virloget (2017), and Kravanja (2018).
Many scholars, like Isaac and Çakmak (2014, 2016), Chang (2014), Po-
doshen (2013), Winter (2011), Bigley et al. (2010), Rittichainuwat (2008),
and Preece and Price (2005) focused on motivations and reasons for vis-
its to dark tourism sites, where many included also warfare sites.¹⁷ In-
teresting are the findings of Dunkley et al. (2011), who explored the mo-
tives for visits to w w i battlefields, and noted that the main reasons for
the visits were the places themselves, a specialist interest in the war or
battlefields pilgrimage/remembrance.¹⁸ Introducing pilgrimage as a phe-
nomenon into warfare tourism is quite common,¹⁹ which means that a
relatively new phenomenon (research area) and a much older and well-
established religious and cultural phenomenon of pilgrimage are linked
this way (Collins-Kreiner, 2016, p. 1). Stone (2012) marks visitors of dark
tourism sites as pilgrims and their visits as pilgrimages. Kavrečič (2017)
and Dato (2014), for example, named post-wwi politically supported vis-
its to the graves and mass tombs of fallen soldiers in fascist Italy as sacro
pellegrinaggio (sacred pilgrimage).²⁰ Collins-Kreiner (2016, p. 2) claims
that ‘both dark tourism and pilgrimage emerge from the same milieu
¹⁷ If we ignore the general reasons, such as empathy, remembrance, knowledge and the like,
those which are more specific often depend on the target group; see also Collins-Kreiner
(2016).
¹⁸ See also Tarlow (2005), Seaton and Lennon (2004).
¹⁹ Analysis of key issues and themes in dark tourism research for the period from 1996 to
2016 clearly shows that pilgrimage is one of the frequently used terms (Light, 2017, p. 277).
²⁰ Their findings are also relevant for Istria, which was annexed to Italy after the end of
w w i.
43
mony, we cannot claim this for the latter. There is one more (negative)
phenomenon which can accompany dark tourism sites. In the Australian
example, McKay (2013), McKenna and Ward (2007), and Reynolds and
Lake (2010) problematise the excessive sentimentalisation of w w i (es-
pecially the battlefield of Gallipoli) and understand this as systemic and
unrelenting militarisation of the history and culture, although the memo-
rial days/events associated with wwi and wwii are proclaimed as days
of national importance. According to all these assertions, special empha-
sis should be put on the issue of how heritage is ‘presented in an hon-
est, ethical and inclusive manner that minimises dissonance’ (Carr, 2010;
Carr & Colls, 2016); the complexity of the dissonant perspective of her-
itage was advocated also by Tunbridge and Ashworth (1996), Dann and
Seaton (2001), Ashworth and Hartmann (2005a), Ashworth and Isaac
(2015), Hrobat Virloget (2017), and Kravanja (2018).
Many scholars, like Isaac and Çakmak (2014, 2016), Chang (2014), Po-
doshen (2013), Winter (2011), Bigley et al. (2010), Rittichainuwat (2008),
and Preece and Price (2005) focused on motivations and reasons for vis-
its to dark tourism sites, where many included also warfare sites.¹⁷ In-
teresting are the findings of Dunkley et al. (2011), who explored the mo-
tives for visits to w w i battlefields, and noted that the main reasons for
the visits were the places themselves, a specialist interest in the war or
battlefields pilgrimage/remembrance.¹⁸ Introducing pilgrimage as a phe-
nomenon into warfare tourism is quite common,¹⁹ which means that a
relatively new phenomenon (research area) and a much older and well-
established religious and cultural phenomenon of pilgrimage are linked
this way (Collins-Kreiner, 2016, p. 1). Stone (2012) marks visitors of dark
tourism sites as pilgrims and their visits as pilgrimages. Kavrečič (2017)
and Dato (2014), for example, named post-wwi politically supported vis-
its to the graves and mass tombs of fallen soldiers in fascist Italy as sacro
pellegrinaggio (sacred pilgrimage).²⁰ Collins-Kreiner (2016, p. 2) claims
that ‘both dark tourism and pilgrimage emerge from the same milieu
¹⁷ If we ignore the general reasons, such as empathy, remembrance, knowledge and the like,
those which are more specific often depend on the target group; see also Collins-Kreiner
(2016).
¹⁸ See also Tarlow (2005), Seaton and Lennon (2004).
¹⁹ Analysis of key issues and themes in dark tourism research for the period from 1996 to
2016 clearly shows that pilgrimage is one of the frequently used terms (Light, 2017, p. 277).
²⁰ Their findings are also relevant for Istria, which was annexed to Italy after the end of
w w i.
43
