Geoforum 52 (2014) 22–31

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geoforum

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /geoforum

Transylvanian Saxon culture as heritage: Insights from Viscri, Romania

0016-7185/$ - see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.12.008

⇑ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: acorsale@unica.it (A. Corsale), iorio@unica.it (M. Iorio).

Andrea Corsale a,⇑, Monica Iorio b

a Department of History, Cultural Heritage and Territory, University of Cagliari, Via Is Mirrionis, 109123 Cagliari, Italyb Department of Social Sciences and Institutions, University of Cagliari, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 27 June 2013Received in revised form 10 December 2013

Keywords:Authorized heritage discourseHeritagisationMulticulturalismIdentityTourismRomania

a b s t r a c t

The case of the multi-ethnic village of Viscri, Romania, is analyzed through a qualitative research method.The study highlights that the image of the village, promoted by foreign experts and some influential Tran-sylvanian Saxons, is based on the heritage of the few Saxons inhabitants left, considered as the most wor-thy of preservation, while the legacy of the rest of the population, consisting of Romanians and Roma, isovershadowed.

Study results indicate that the community does not necessarily perceive heritage the same way theexperts do. The village residents have mixed feelings towards the Transylvanian Saxon heritage andthe restoration and development actions related to it, with some residents accepting to be the custodiansof Saxons’ heritage and others showing disappointment because of the persisting economic hardships.

It is suggested that the core of heritagisation processes ought to rely on inclusion, because marginal aswell as strong groups need to have real chances and tools to enable them to effectively reflect on theiridentities and their aspirations.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

It is widely recognized that heritage is socially constructed, anempty box to fill with material and immaterial objects accordingto an attribution of meanings and values (Ashworth, 2000;Graham, 2002; Smith, 2006). The past itself is neutral. Withoutintercession it is neither exciting, nor boring, nor meritorious(Timothy and Boyd, 2003). The contents, interpretations and repre-sentations of heritage resources are selected according to thedemands of the present and, in turn, are bequeathed to an imag-ined future (Ashworth et al., 2007). Thus, heritage is the contempo-rary use of the past according to current political, social andeconomic realities (Ashworth, 2000). Heritage is constructed atmultiple scales in order, for example, to build social identity, tolegitimize political power, or to exploit heritage for tourismdevelopment.

Heritage production, or heritagisation, as Ashworth (2000) callsit, is essentially a political process that implies choices among pos-sibilities, the fundamental issues are related to who has theresponsibility and power to make this selection, which underpinswho gains and who loses. In theory, the whole of humanity, orthe entire community, should be involved in the selection but, inpractice, the dominant political, social, religious or ethnic groupusually determines the ‘‘authorized’’ heritage through a cultural‘‘discourse’’ that validates the choice made (Smith, 2006).

Smith (2004, 2006) and Timothy and Boyd (2003) argue thatmost heritage tends to exclude the past of powerless groups andminorities, favoring artifacts, places and events of the elite. In thissense, heritagisation is not an equalizing measure but, rather, is away to impose power and cultural hegemony (Lloyd, 2007; Harvey,2007).

Confrontation of issues associated with heritage inclusion andexclusion, and societal or intentional amnesia (deliberately sup-pressing certain parts of history or heritage potential belongingto certain groups and communities) have become crucial in presentsocieties that are characterized by more and more complex formsof cultural diversity. Questions about community participation, so-cial inclusion and the recognition of diversity are called into theheritage arena.

Using the concepts of ‘‘authorized heritage discourse’’ and ‘‘her-itagisation’’, this paper contributes to the discussion on the pro-duction of heritage made by experts for imprinting a particularidentity on a site and use it mainly for tourism purposes. It also of-fers insights on the risk of cultural disinheritance that may occurwhen the discourse held by heritage selectors displays in amulti-ethnic context, privileging and validating the heritage ofone ethnic group to the detriment of others. The case of Viscri,Romania, will be examined. This site is pertinent to the discussionsince it is a multi-ethnic village, historically inhabited by Transyl-vanian Saxons, Romanians and Roma people, with a rigid ethnichierarchy with Saxons at the top. Cultural and rural tourismdevelopment has been promoted in the village mainly by foreignexperts who selected Saxons’ culture as heritage, since it was

A. Corsale, M. Iorio / Geoforum 52 (2014) 22–31 23

considered as the most authentic, worthy of preservation andattractive for tourists. Then, although Saxons are numericallyscarce nowadays, their culture still shapes the tourist image ofthe village, and that de facto overshadows the heritage belongingto Romanians and Roma.

Actors, discourses and reasons behind Transylvanian Saxons’culture heritagisation will be highlighted and the reactions, per-ceptions and benefits obtained by the various ethnic groups willbe portrayed. Thus, this paper contributes to discussions aboutthe creation of heritage, in particular for tourism purposes. It alsounderpins the intrinsic risk of the heritagisation process to excludea part of the community and the need to challenge the dominantdiscourse about heritage for diversity and multiculturalism to havea place to display themselves.

The concepts of heritage, authorized heritage discourse and her-itagisation are discussed first. Then, the study location and themethods by which the data were collected and analyzed are pre-sented. Next, the case data are used to illustrate how local resi-dents perceive the heritagisation of Saxons’ culture and thebenefits derived from it. Finally, there is a reflection on the dis-course behind the heritagisation of the Saxons’ legacy and howthe case study contributes to a better understanding of the com-plexity of the heritagisation processes in multi-ethnic sites.

2. Creating heritage: authorized heritage discourse andheritagisation

When dealing with heritage, it is common to adopt a construc-tionist perspective which refers to the ways in which past materialartifacts, natural landscapes, mythologies, memories and traditionsare selected and turned into cultural, political and economic re-sources for the present (Graham and Howard, 2008). Heritage re-fers to things, both tangible and intangible, in the present thatare selected from the past and which we wish to take forward intothe future (Wall, 2009). The key word here is ‘selected’. This selec-tion, according to Smith (2006, 2011), is a social process that oc-curs through what she calls Authorized Heritage Discourse (AHD).It is a discourse sustained by experts (the ‘‘authorizers’’, such asarcheologists, historians, architects and national and internationalbodies) that establishes what counts as heritage, what the officialheritage is, what its value is, where resource should go, and whatcultural identities matter in the context of a particular time andplace; ‘‘heritage is a culturally directed process of intense emo-tional power [that is] both personal and social act of making senseof, and understanding, the past and the present’’ (Smith, 2006, p.304). It follows that heritage is less about tangible material arti-facts or other intangible forms of the past than about the meaningsplaced upon them and the representations which are created fromthem (Graham, 2002; Graham et al., 2000; Smith, 2004).

Similarly to Smith (2006), Ashworth (2000) argues that heritageis the result of an attribution of meaning to things selected fromthe past, a process that he calls ‘‘heritagisation’’. Values are placedupon artifacts or activities by people who interpret heritagethrough a complex series of lenses, the most obvious of whichare: nationality, religion, ethnicity, class, wealth, age, gender, edu-cation and personal history (Ashworth et al., 2007).

Multiple reasons and aims stand behind heritagisation. One ofthe main goals is to establish solidarity among the members of agroup (national, religious, social, etc.) by highlighting the differ-ences between them and the others so that this differentiation willlegitimize a certain social order (Poria and Ashworth, 2009). Heri-tage may also be created, misinterpreted or deliberately abused inorder to provide (or inculcate) political legitimation for certaingovernments, or to revive local economies through the re-assess-

ment, re-orientation and re-use of existing places (or the inventionof new ones) as a means to regenerate images. The multiethnic andmulticultural character of a destination’s heritage is sometimeswillfully used as an asset in the tourist market (e.g. PennsylvaniaDutch Country) but controversial processes of selection and heri-tagisation still occur when the image of a region becomes associ-ated with stereotyped expectations from tourists (Kraybill, 2001).

The fact that heritage is the result of a selection process car-ried on by authorized people in order to build consensus (polit-ical, social, economic) means that some may disagree with thechoices that have been made or with the images and stories thatmay be associated with it and told about it. If something isauthorized, backlash is nearly inevitable and contested heritagesor dissonant discourses are likely to arise as a response to theauthorized heritage. While the AHD tells what legitimate heri-tage is, or not, it both includes and excludes (Smith, 2006,2011). It ‘‘includes’’ in its attempt to provide a cultural and his-torical narrative that explains a sense of place that is promotedto obtain a wider audience, which tends to maintain class andethnic social hierarchies (Smith, 2009). It ‘‘excludes’’ since thenarratives offered by the AHD simply do not speak to the wholerange of cultural and social diversity that characterizes presentsocieties (Smith, 2006, 2009).

It follows that heritage can be a controversial topic and theselections that are made and the meanings that are ascribed tothem may be contentious and dissonant at different levels and indifferent times (e.g. the Bamiyan Buddha statues in Afghanistan, Is-lamic monuments in India and Hindu temples in Pakistan, the Jew-ish, Christian and Muslim heritage in Israel and the West Bank,etc.).

Poria and Ashworth (2009) argued that heritage is a political re-source and, as such, aims at legitimizing a specific social realitywhich divides people into ‘‘we’’ and ‘‘they’’. Heritagisation oftenaims at highlighting and entrenching differences and social bound-aries, and contrasts among groups can be exacerbated as a conse-quence of heritage selection, protection or celebration. Tunbridgeand Ashworth (1996) argued that dissonance arises because ofthe zero-sum characteristics of heritage, all of which belongs tosomeone and not to someone else. The creation of any heritage as-set actively or potentially disinherits or excludes those who arenot, or do not feel emotionally linked with the meaning attributedto that heritage.

The definition, management and promotion of heritage is essen-tially an act of power that reflects the vision of the dominantgroup(s) which, time after time, decide(s) what is to be preservedand brought into the future. Heritage is inescapably related to achoice about which history should be discredited, which heritageforgotten and which people disinherited. Unless the basic tenetsof heritage creation are challenged, there will always be exclusionand disinheritance and the re-affirmation of a certain social order.As Smith (2009) asserts, the core of heritage debate needs to becentered on how the heritage that we save and promote actuallyrepresents the diversity of historical and contemporary socialand cultural experiences.

The case study that will be described below demonstrates howthe creation of an ‘‘authorized heritage’’ by mainly foreign expertsin a multiethnic context, where unbalanced power distribution ex-ists among ethnic groups, has excluded part of the communityfrom the celebration of its heritage and has re-affirmed a hierarchalsocial and ethnic order. Only one specific ethnic-related aspect ofheritage has been selected and promoted through a hierarchisationprocess, mainly for the tourism consumption, while the real multi-faceted culture of the whole community has been overshadowed.Community reaction and benefits, as well as possible risks andchallenges, will be discussed later.

Table 1Proportion of the ethnic groups in the population of Viscri (1880–2011). Source:Sandu (1999) (for 2011, Municipality of Bunes�ti and MET).

Ethnic group 1880 1930 1975 1989 1992 1998 2011

Germans 495 562 342 279 69 30 15Romanians 169 145 110 125 230 119 100Roma/Gypsies 28 78 141 180 101 251 305Others 11 2 25 30 15 47 0

Total 703 787 618 632 415 447 420

24 A. Corsale, M. Iorio / Geoforum 52 (2014) 22–31

3. Viscri: a multi-ethnic village with a multi-faceted heritage

Viscri (German: Deutschweisskirch) is located within the ruralmunicipality of Bunes�ti, in the county of Bras�ov, Transylvania,Romania (Fig. 1). It is a typical village of medieval Saxon founda-tion with an imposing fortified church and a number of ancientfarmhouses located along the main streets, as many other settle-ments in Transylvania.

The Transylvanian Saxons are an ethnic German population thatsettled in several parts of Transylvania mainly between the 12thand 13th centuries (Gündisch, 1998; Wagner et al., 1982).

Several waves of settlers founded a number of villages, townsand cities in vast areas of the region and were granted substantialadministrative and religious autonomy since the 13th century(Riley and Dinescu, 2007; Roucek, 1971; Tiplic, 2006). At the endof the 19th century, when their ancient privileges began to beeroded, Saxons started leaving Transylvania. Their emigrationoccurred through several stages, particularly after the First andthe Second World War. The last massive emigration wave of tensof thousands occurred in the last two decades of the 20th century,before and after the fall of Nicolae Ceaus�escu’s regime (Roucek,1971; Wagner et al., 1982; Steigerwald, 1985). The generallyhostile attitude of the Romanian interwar and communist govern-ments towards the ethnic minorities, the welcoming policies of theFederal Republic of Germany between the 1960s and the early1990s and the poor living conditions in Romania, compared toGermany and North America, were the main reasons for leaving(Koranyi and Wittlinger, 2011). The Transylvanian Saxon popula-tion decreased from 237,000 people in 1930 to 18,000 in 2002, to12,000 in 2011, according to the Romanian censuses.

In many parts of Transylvania, the mass emigration of the Sax-ons caused a dramatic change in the ethnic composition and threa-tened the preservation of a rich heritage symbolized by theLutheran fortified churches of medieval origin which still markboth the rural and urban landscapes of the region. Their emigrationalso led to the abandonment of many houses, some of which sub-sequently passed into the hands of Romanian and Romainhabitants.

These changes also occurred in Viscri. Today, according to thedata provided by the Municipality, out of 420 inhabitants, approx-imately 300 belong to the Roma community, 100 are Romanianand 15 are Saxon (Table 1). The Saxon community is predomi-nantly bilingual (German/Romanian), while the Romanian andthe Roma community generally only speak the Romanian lan-guage, with a small minority of Roma families also speaking Hun-garian. The Saxon community follows the Lutheran faith, whileRomanians and Roma are predominantly Orthodox.

Source: authors, 2012.

Fig. 1. Location and view of Viscri.

The village used to have distinct ethnic areas, with the Saxonpopulation traditionally living in the upper part of the settlement,close to the Lutheran church, while the Romanian and Roma com-munities lived in two separate areas in the lower part. This separa-tion used to reflect the dominant economic and political status ofthe Saxon community and the weaker position of the Romanianpopulation. The Roma community had, and still retains, a lowerstatus than the Romanians. Their area is situated at the periphery,almost outside the village, and is characterized by mostly poor andprecarious houses and shelters, and weak or absent infrastructure(Figs. 2 and 3). The Roma community still forms the poorest part ofthe population. The prevalent economic activity for the Saxon andRomanian communities is a combination of agriculture, employ-ment in construction and the tertiary sector, particularly com-merce and administration, and tourism, while the Romacommunity largely relies on subsistence agriculture alone, with afew exceptions (Sandu, 1999).

This traditional ethnically-characterized social pyramid waschallenged during the interwar years and during the communisttime, when the Saxon community was deprived of much of its an-cient power and privileges, while the settlement of Romanian andRoma people in the area was encouraged and organized but, inreality, the key year of 1989 still saw the village clearly reflectingthe older medieval hierarchical model. Besides the Saxon group,the relations between the Romanian and the Roma community alsoshow clear inequality (Denton, 2003).

In spite of the deep changes that have occurred during the pastcentury, the long presence of the Saxon community is still evidentin the village, which retains a valuable architectural heritage thatincludes an impressive Lutheran fortified church, mainly built inRomanesque and Gothic style, and a predominantly traditional rur-al settlement consisting of colourful farmhouses of medieval foun-dation and Baroque appearance (Akeroyd, 2006). The rapiddecrease of the Saxon population documented above seriouslythreatened the built heritage during the late decades of the 20thcentury, since many houses remained empty and started falling

Source: authors, 2011.

Fig. 2. The Roma quarter between Bunes�ti and Viscri.

Source: authors, 2011.

Fig. 3. Rural life in the Roma quarter of Viscri.

Table 2Occupation, sex and ethnicity of the interviewees. Source: Authors’ fieldwork (2012).

Occupation Sex Ethnicity

Guesthouse owner Female RomanianGuesthouse owner Female RomaGuesthouse owner Female SaxonMilk processing runner Male RomanianGrocery shop owner Male RomanianGrocery shop owner Female RomanianSouvenir shop runner Female RomanianGuesthouse maid Female RomaBlacksmith Male RomaCart driver for tourists Male RomaBrick maker Male RomaFarmer Male RomanianFarmer Male RomaMET director Female SaxonOrthodox priest Male RomanianHousewife Female RomaMunicipal Secretary Male RomanianNurse Female RomanianShepherd Male RomaShepherd Male Romanian

A. Corsale, M. Iorio / Geoforum 52 (2014) 22–31 25

into decay. In spite of the deep changes in the social and ethniccomposition of the village, the historical buildings linked withthe ancient Saxon presence have been rescued and secured thanksto the commitment of some Saxon families who did not leave andto the aid of several international organizations which started andpromoted the heritagisation of Transylvanian Saxon culture, par-ticularly the Mihai Eminescu Trust (MET), which will be describedbelow. In fact, since the 1990s and particularly after 1999, severalprojects have been realized specifically in order to preserve the tra-ditional structure, architecture and landscape of the village, as willbe documented later.

4. Methodology

The study is substantially based on a qualitative research meth-od and incorporates the three sources of data recognized in quali-tative research: observations, interviews and consultation ofsecondary sources (Merriam, 2002; Patton, 2002). The field studywas made during summer 2012 over a period of 20 days. Observa-tions included visits to the main cultural highlights and repeatedwalks in the village. Due to the way of life in Viscri, the streetsare constantly busy with people collecting milk, walking to school,visiting the local stores for groceries and so on. Thus, it was easy toobserve the social life of the village.

The authors undertook the interviews as informal conversationswith key stakeholders and inhabitants somewhat representative ofthe local socio-ethnic and economic system. They were identifiedobserving and joining the social life of village and were subse-quently asked to hold a conversation. The village is small enoughto easily categorize its key stakeholders and its basic economicstructures. Nobody refused to be interviewed and twenty conver-sations were held, namely with the Municipal Counselor and localDirector of the Mihai Eminescu Trust (a person who covers bothroles), the Municipal Secretary, the Orthodox priest, three guest-house owners, the milk processing facility owner, two owners ofgrocery stores, the owner of a tourist shop, a guesthouse maid, ahousewife, a nurse, a blacksmith, a cart driver, a brick maker,two farmers and two shepherds (Table 2).

The main questions of the conversations were how the localcommunity perceived the restoration works on the built Saxonheritage and which types of benefits they were obtaining fromthe heritagisation of Saxon culture, especially in terms of enhance-ment of their livelihood. Conversations with residents and stake-holders were held at their home or office and varied in lengthfrom 30 to 60 min; they were conducted in Romanian and, in mostcases, they were taped and subsequently transcribed. There was nolanguage constraint, since the authors speak Romanian fluently.

Prior to entering the field, the authors undertook a review of lit-erature on heritage, authorized heritage discourse and heritagisa-tion, part of which has been reported above, to provide a broadacademic context for the research. They also consulted a range ofsecondary sources, such as statistical data on the demographyand the economy of the village and the region and materials thatdirectly or indirectly deal with Saxons’ cultural heritagisation. Inparticular, MET’s website and a number of studies about theimportance of rescuing Transylvanian Saxon heritage were con-sulted. This allowed understanding who selected this heritageand how it was valued and represented, which permitted interpre-tation of the discourse behind its heritagisation.

5. The heritagisation of Transylvanian Saxon culture

Unlike most Transylvanian villages, where tourism is negligible,Viscri has been able to exploit its identity as a Saxon villagethrough a process of heritagisation promoted by three key actors,namely: the United Nations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganization (UNESCO), a British non-profit foundation called Mi-hai Eminescu Trust (MET) and a local resident of Saxon ethnicity.Thus, the selectors of Saxon culture as heritage have mainly beenforeign experts and, among them, MET has certainly played a lead-ing role. Other foreign NGOs and organizations operate in the area(such as Opération Villages Roumains and Iceland-Liechtenstein-Nor-way European Economic Area Agreement Grants), but their actionshave not been as pervasive as the ones by MET.

The starting point of the heritagisation process was the inclu-sion of the Lutheran fortified church of the village (Fig. 4) in theWorld Heritage List in 1999, together with the fortified churchesand villages of Biertan, Câlnic, Dârjiu, Prejmer, Saschiz and ValeaViilor, as an extension of the previous inclusion of Biertan alone(1993). The motivation for the inscription was that: ‘‘these Transyl-vanian villages with their fortified churches provide a vivid picture ofthe cultural landscape of southern Transylvania. The seven villages in-scribed, founded by the Transylvanian Saxons, are characterized by aspecific land-use system, settlement pattern and organization of thefamily farmstead that have been preserved since the late Middle Ages.They are dominated by their fortified churches, which illustrate build-ing styles from the 13th to the 16th century’’ (UNESCO, 1999).

In the case of Viscri, almost all the village has been incorporatedinto the UNESCO protected area of 48 ha, excluding a few modernhouses in the lower part of the settlement but including some of

Source: authors, 2011.

Fig. 4. The Lutheran fortified church of Viscri.

Source: authors, 2011.

Fig. 5. Guesthouse in Saxon style.

26 A. Corsale, M. Iorio / Geoforum 52 (2014) 22–31

the areas historically populated by Romanians and Roma. Thewhole village and the surrounding hills are included in a ‘‘bufferzone’’ of 217 ha, aimed at protecting the historical landscape.

The first initiatives that led to the inclusion of Viscri in theWorld Heritage List came in the early 1990s from the Ministry ofCulture of Romania and from the University of Bucharest, but theadvocacy provided by the Saxon resident and by an English writer(Jessica Douglas-Home) was decisive. The former is one of the veryfew Transylvanian Saxon inhabitants who chose not to leave thevillage in the early 1990s. She worked as a teacher in the villageand, since 1992, has been Municipal Counsellor at the Council ofBunes�ti. Her conversations with the authors revealed that shewas one of the very few people who fought to attract nationaland international attention towards the cultural heritage of Viscri.In 1994, she encountered the writer and ICOMOS (InternationalCouncil on Monuments and Sites) consultant Jessica Douglas-Home, already active in the preservation of Romanian cultural her-itage during the difficult years of Nicolae Ceaus�escu’s regime. Thisencounter created the basis for the subsequent process of heritagi-sation which occurred in Viscri and turned it into a cultural high-light of international importance. Douglas-Home was, and still is,the president of the Mihai Eminescu Trust, created in 1999 to fur-ther promote several actions aiming at the preservation of tradi-tional architecture and landscape in Transylvania, almostexclusively focusing on the former Saxon villages. Douglas-Home,thanks to her network of acquaintances, was also able to involveCharles, Prince of Wales, who is the Royal Patron of the Trust andbought a house in Viscri, which helped to promote the actions atthe national and international levels.

The Saxon resident mentioned above was appointed as MET’svice-director. As she reported to the authors and as stated in theofficial MET website, the aim of the Trust is to preserve and restorethe traditional Saxon architecture of this part of Transylvania. TheTrust describes its activities as follows: The Trust concentrates in theSaxon villages of Transylvania, a special case because of the age andrichness of their culture and the emergency caused by mass emigrationof the Saxon inhabitants to Germany in 1990. These villages – farmers’houses and barns built around fortified churches, substantially un-changed since the Middle Ages – lie in spectacular beautiful surround-ings. The hills and valleys are rich in wild flowers (http://www.mihaieminescutrust.org/).

Great emphasis has been put on tangible heritage, through therestoration of the Lutheran fortified churches in several Transylva-nian Saxon villages, opening them to visitors, giving informationon their history, and restoring the façades of traditional houses

belonging to the Saxon architectural style. In Viscri, since 1999,the first and main actions have led to the restoration of around105 buildings, basically all the houses located within the UNESCOsite, which formed the core of the Saxon settlement. Restorationworks have been done according to Saxon traditional styles, tech-niques, colours and decorations, employing a local workforce andusing locally-produced materials (MET, 2009). The Trust pays forthe restoration of the façades, while work in the interior of thehouses is the responsibility of the owners, who are free to modifythem to non-Saxon or non-traditional forms. The medieval fortifiedchurch has been restored and opens regularly for visitors withtours provided in several languages. An ethnographic museum, so-lely focusing on Transylvanian Saxon history and heritage, hasbeen opened inside the walls and towers of the fortress.

MET also addressed the promotion of mixed forms of culturaland rural tourism. In each of the 12 villages where the Trust oper-ates, a ’’model guesthouse’’ was opened to encourage similar initia-tives in areas where rural tourism had never been previouslypracticed (Fig. 5). In Viscri, MET established three guesthousesand helped local residents to reorganize their houses in order tohost tourists. Sixteen guesthouses are currently working, mainlylocated in the historical core of the village. Viscri is now a relativelywell-known village, cited in almost all tourist guidebooks aboutRomania. In 2000, about 400 tourists visited the fortress; in 2008their number had already increased to 10,000 and in 2010 it was12,000 (data provided by MET). Most tourists are international,but the share of domestic tourists is growing (4000 in 2010), as aconsequence of a slow but steady growth of interest in rural lifeand the heritage of ethnic minorities in Romania. Direct inquiriesby the authors revealed that the average price for a night is 40RON (US$1 = 3.3 RON), including breakfast, and a meal costsaround 13 RON. According to the interviewees, tourism produces40–50% of the involved households’ incomes. Almost all food isproduced locally and cooked according to Saxon and Romanianrecipes. Tourists are mostly day-trippers, but there is a significantpresence of overnight stays. The latter mostly arrive through pack-age programs organized by foreign and national tour operators thatare in contact with MET. The involvement of Prince Charles, oftencited by Romanian media, has also worked as an attractor, as manynational tourists show curiosity about ‘‘Prince’s house’’ and abouthis concern for such a remote village.

As already observed, Transylvanian Saxon architecture and tra-ditions received great emphasis, as the image of Viscri that is pre-sented and sold to the outside world is basically that of a Lutheran

A. Corsale, M. Iorio / Geoforum 52 (2014) 22–31 27

Saxon village (Hughes, 2008; Klimaszewsky and Nyce, 2009;Klimaszewsky et al., 2010), even though the population is over90% Romanian and Roma and follows the Orthodox religion.Tourists take pictures of Saxon houses bearing freshly restoredand re-painted German names and writings; the visit to theLutheran fortified church is the highlight of the stay and the annexmuseum basically only shows history, culture, lifestyles and habitsrelated to Transylvanian Saxons. The guesthouses themselves, eventhose managed by Romanian and Roma families, show a distinctSaxon architectural style. The Saxon house bought by PrinceCharles is another attraction, as shown even by Google Maps(2013), although its interior is not open to ordinary visitors. TheOrthodox church and the older Romanian and Roma sections ofthe village are usually skipped. As the Saxon church and housesare recognized and indicated by guidebooks, websites and touroperators as the highlights of the village, the Romanian and Romafamilies involved in tourism tend to arrange their guesthousesaccording to Saxon traditions.

Basically, through the AHD asserted by the MET, Romanian andRoma are expected to become the custodians of Saxons’ heritageand are also expected to do what they are told, in order to preserveand exploit this valuable heritage in the best way. This is perceivedin different ways by different inhabitants, as will be discussedbelow.

6. The local perception of the heritagisation and the benefitsobtained

When asked about what they thought of the restoration activitymanaged by MET, interviewees showed mixed reactions that seemto be related to their degree of involvement in the restoration workitself and on the tourism activities arising, rather than to their eth-nic belonging. For example, the blacksmith and the brick maker,both Roma, expressed appreciation. Indeed, in order to obtainmaterials for the restorations, a brick and tile-roofed kiln has beenbuilt with MET’s funds, and the two village blacksmiths have beenencouraged to re-start traditional ironwork to produce fixtures forwindows and doors. The brick maker said: ‘‘I have produced most ofthe bricks and tiles used to restore the Saxon houses. My sons helpedme, too. I earned a good amount of money, so that I could build myhouse near the forest, where my whole family lives’’. The blacksmithreported: ‘‘MET gave me the chance to continue my father’s work, mybrother and I worked a lot for them. Now tourists come here to seehow I work the iron, and I sell them little horseshoes, as lucky charms.I am proud of my work and to live in Viscri’’.

Others, apparently not directly involved in the restorationworks nor in the tourism benefits, judged MET’s work as a merefaçade action, while the real needs of the community have beenbypassed since infrastructure and services are still poor. For exam-ple, some interviewees said they would like having the main streetof the village paved in asphalt, which would make walking anddriving easier. A Romanian store owner reported: ‘‘Instead of havingthe Saxon houses repainted, we need a paved street [. . .], you shouldsee what happens here when it rains or snows’’. However, MET hasinsisted on using only old-style cobblestones to preserve the atmo-sphere of the village. Its director said: ‘‘If we paved the street, Viscriwould lose its charm, and even buses with mass tourists would arrive,which we are trying to avoid’’. Some interviewees of Romanian andRoma ethnicity also complained about the lack of public transpor-tation, as people who do not have a private car face great difficultyfor daily movements and for sending children to school, beingforced to rely on neighbors’ help. For example, a Roma shepherdasserted: ‘‘See, I do not have a car, each time I have to go to RupeaI must ask for a lift’’. A Roma farmer reported: ‘‘I wonder why METdid not buy a school bus to take the children to the school of Bunes�ti’’.

A Romanian milk producer said: ‘‘Here boys and girls who want toattend the secondary school need to go to Rupea, but not everybodyhas a car [. . .] we need transportation, not decorated façades’’. A Romahousewife said: ‘‘There are no street lights in our quarter, when thesun sets, you see nothing; we need street lights. MET has forgottenus’’. A Romanian nurse said: ‘‘the doctor comes here just once a week,and people do not have enough money to buy medication [. . .] what dowe get from a repainted church if people struggle to live?’’.

Whilst MET works to preserve and restore the physical environ-ment left by the Saxons, some of the interviewees complainedabout the restrictions imposed on the external restorations, whichhave to be in Saxon style, preventing the use of more modernmaterials, such as, for example, PVC windows and roller shutters.The Romanian owner of a grocery shop said: ‘‘I cannot understandwhy people who live in a former Saxon house cannot use PVC win-dows. They are useful and they cost less than repairing those hugewooden frames’’.

On the other hand, MET’s director criticized a local Romanianresident who built a modern house within the UNESCO protectedarea: ‘‘That house is a shame, it is like a punch in the eye, it has tobe removed, but it will not be easy to do that’’.

It is interesting to observe that in the nearby villages, whereMET’s action did not arrive, Romanian and Roma people living informer Saxon houses tend to radically modernize them adding roll-er shutters, PVC windows and doors, metal gates, and they some-times introduce a first-floor balcony, remove the small pitchedroof leaning towards the short side of the house (a typical featureof Saxon village houses) and change the colours of the façades,choosing stronger tones. Orthodox churches built in neo-byzantinestyle have appeared in many settlements, close to the abandonedgothic Lutheran churches. This could be interpreted as the desirefrom the new inhabitants to shape the villages according to theirown cultural values and to the practical challenges of everyday life,regardless of their Saxon heritage (Hughes, 2008). It is possible toassume that even in Viscri this could have been happened if METhad not insisted on the restoration and valorization of the Saxonstyle.

Conversely, people who had their house restored by MET and/orare involved in some form of tourism activity, showed positive re-sponses about the restoration of the built environment. In theirview, as long as MET provides funds for the façades of the houses,there is no reason to oppose it. The tidy aesthetics of the housesand the use of traditional materials and colours, are directly asso-ciated with real income benefits. For example, a Roma guesthouseowner said: ‘‘I am happy when tourists come here to see the Saxonchurch and our nice houses. I think that we should park our cars insidethe courtyards, so that the village will look even better without thecars along the main street’’. The Romanian operator of a tourist shopreported: ‘‘Viscri is different from the other villages nearby wherehouses are falling down, here houses are well preserved and the villageis neat; we have to take care of the Saxon heritage, it is our strength’’.According to the view of the local MET director, ‘‘We need to pre-serve the Saxon houses and the church because they are the biggest as-set for the future of Viscri. I am happy that many Romanian and Romavillagers have understood this’’. The Romanian Orthodox priest said:‘‘The Orthodox people of Viscri do not feel any hostility towards theProtestant church because they know that it is important to attracttourists to the village’’.

Furthermore, interviewees directly or indirectly involved in thetourism sector, regardless of their ethnicity, reported very positiveopinions asserting that their livelihoods had improved significantlysince the beginning of the heritagisation and the subsequent tour-ism development. Now they could better pay their bills, more eas-ily buy what they needed, afford health care expenses and educatetheir children. A Romanian guesthouse owner, for example, re-ported that, thanks to the accommodation activity, she could more

28 A. Corsale, M. Iorio / Geoforum 52 (2014) 22–31

easily fund her two daughters’ studies at university: ‘‘We earn somemoney by hosting tourists and we use it to pay university fees for ourtwo daughters who study in Cluj-Napoca. If we had not started this lit-tle business, we would not have had enough money to educate ourdaughters’’. A Saxon guesthouse owner asserted: ‘‘It has been impor-tant to restore the church and the houses. Now tourists are coming andwe do good business with them, our life is better than before and thevillage is in a better condition than all the neighboring ones’’.

A Romanian grocery shop owner reported that she had diversi-fied the goods in her grocery store to meet tourists’ requests: ‘‘See, Isell all sorts of things that tourists ask for: ice-creams, beverages,snacks, postcards and some crafts, I do good business with them!’’ ARoma housemaid said: ‘‘I feel lucky to have found a job in the villageguesthouses. I rented a house and I am now able to live with my son’’.A Roma cart driver for tourists reported: ‘‘I like to share with touriststhe beauty of the landscape, and I earn money at the same time. Ibought a washing machine for my wife and I hope to build anotherroom for our children. Tourism is helping a lot; just those who are lazydo not benefit and this is their fault’’.

On the contrary, people not involved in tourism benefitsshowed mixed perceptions about the enhancement of livelihoodoptions as a result of heritagisation. Several interviewees arguedthat most jobs are temporary and just related to the restorationof Saxon houses, such as work for a bricklayer, brick maker andblacksmith. The Romanian milk processing facility owner said:‘‘In the past years, when MET was restoring all the houses, many peo-ple worked, but now things are getting worse again, most people try tolive out of farming and they do not earn much’’. A Romanian farmersaid: ‘‘I cannot see new job opportunities. Soon my son will leave thevillage to look for a job in Germany. I keep farming and strugglingevery day’’. A Romanian grocery shop owner said: ‘‘To me everythingis just a façade, now it is even worse than in the past [. . .]. I used to bea chauffeur, now I have this small shop, but actually I do not earnmuch; tourists just buy a bottle of water; they consume everythingin the guesthouses [. . .]. People who have guesthouses are the onlyones who get real good benefits’’.

In order to better understand community participation in thebenefits brought by the development of heritage tourism, an anal-ysis of the ethnic composition of the families involved in guest-house activities was undertaken. Data reveal that, out of 16families owning accommodation, 6 are Romanian, 1 Saxon, 2 Romaand 7 have mixed ethnicities (Table 3).

The Romanian and Saxon families run around 75% of guest-house beds, in spite of being only 28% of the population. Theyare property owners and generally have the appropriate knowl-edge and social capital to deal with the bureaucracy and to startand run the business. In contrast, the Roma community, the mostnumerous and poorest group in the village, generally lacks thefunds and the knowledge of how to engage in new businessendeavors. However, it is significant that two guesthouses run byRoma have been opened recently and this is a sign of change.Undoubtedly, the Roma have a better opportunity when they mar-ry Romanians, as has happened in 5 cases out of 16.

Table 3Ethnicity of owners and keepers of the guesthouses in Viscri (2012). Source: Authors’fieldwork (2012).

Ethnicity of the owner/keeper

Number ofguesthouses

Number ofbeds

% of totalbeds

Romanian 6 42 44.7Saxon 1 15 16.0Roma 2 9 9.6Roma/Romanian 5 16 17.0Romanian/Saxon 2 12 12.8

Total 16 94 100

Observations revealed that around 10 young Roma women areemployed as guesthouse maids and cooks, that there are about14 Roma men who provide horse-cart tours for tourists and that al-most all of the 70 women involved in knitting socks to sell to tour-ists are Roma.

From the above observations, it appears that tourism is bringingbenefits to the community, but in different ways and ethnic shares.Compared to their size, it is clear that Saxons and Romanians arethe ones who benefit more, while Roma tend to stay on the fringes.The marginalization of the Roma community in Viscri, in the tour-ism sector, is less pronounced than in the rest of the country, butstill evident, both in terms of participation to benefits, as alreadyreported, and as heritage promotion. For example, one of the stron-gest aspects of their cultural traditions, music and dance, is notpart of the tourist experience at all.

The positive or negative perception of the Saxon culture heri-tagisation seems to be correlated to degree of involvement in thebenefits obtained from tourism – the more they get benefits, themore they appreciate the heritagisation. For these inhabitants,the reinforced Saxon appearance of the village, basically used astool for tourism development and as vehicle to obtain internationalprojects and funds, is generically seen as an asset and is not asso-ciated with ethnic or cultural competition or clash. However, it alsoappears that part of the population of Romanian and, particularly,of Roma ethnicity, does not have a clear idea of ‘‘heritage’’. A Romafarmer said: ‘‘I do not know what tourists seek when they come to Vis-cri. We live our lives here and there is nothing exceptional about it’’. Itis not easy to tell how deeply the Roma community wants to be in-volved in the heritagisation process that they are largely uncon-sciously experiencing around them, nor it is easy to understandhow much they are willing to participate in tourism. For example,a Roma housewife, whose husband is a cart rider for tourists, saidthat if many Roma are not getting benefits from tourism it is theirfault, because they simply prefer to survive on small incomes anddo nothing to change their lives.

The interviews among the local Roma community showedmixed feelings regarding their own culture, with parallel tenden-cies to assimilation, seeing Saxon and Romanian cultures as supe-rior and more attractive, and self-closure, as if Roma culture oughtto be preserved by Roma for Roma’s sake only.

7. The discourse behind the heritagisation of Saxon culture

The heritagisation process and the development initiatives ofViscri have relied so far on MET actions more than on the publicauthorities’ policies and the involvement of residents in develop-ment projects has been weak and sporadic. The weakness of therelations between the municipality and the population is still awidespread critical issue in many regions of post-communist Cen-tral and Eastern Europe, and is further worsened when ethnic divi-sions still produce social fragmentation. In the case of Romania,even after over 20 years since the start of the democratizationprocess, public authorities still tend to show weak support for bot-tom-up involvement initiatives. On the other hand, a still largelydisoriented and disorganized civil society often fails to producebottom-up participation claims. Moreover, widespread mecha-nisms of discrimination and self-exclusion still create deep chasmsseparating the Saxon elite, the dominant Romanian and themarginalized Roma population. The difficult relation between thepopulation of Viscri and the Municipality of Bunes�ti emerged insome of the interviews. A Romanian nurse said: ‘‘Our politiciansdo nothing for us, neither in Bunes�ti nor in Bras�ov nor in Bucharest.If we have tourism here we must thank MET, not the Mayor’’. On theother hand, the Municipal Secretary said: ‘‘Viscri is important forus, but we have several other villages to manage. The local community

A. Corsale, M. Iorio / Geoforum 52 (2014) 22–31 29

is not responsive, the Roma people prefer to live on subsidies and wecan not make miracles’’.

The lack of institutional dialogue and actions gave MET theopportunity and the responsibility to choose which aspects of thelocal heritage were to be granted priority. Given the aims of METand its persisting emphasis on the preservation of the Transylva-nian Saxon architecture and the traditional landscape, the best op-tions for the socio-economic development of the village havelargely been identified with the heritagisation of the Saxon archi-tecture. Saxon heritage, traditional landscapes and rural activitieswere openly chosen as the most attractive resources to guaranteeinflows of visitors and funds. The Romanian and Roma charactersof the population have thus been overshadowed by the image ofthe Saxon church and houses, which de facto renews the historicthree-layer hierarchy of the local society, with a dominant Saxoncomponent, a subordinate Romanian community and a marginalRoma population.

Thus, while the heritagisation of Transylvanian Saxon culturehas been used effectively to start tourism development in the vil-lage, with some positive effects for the spread of benefits to theRomanian and Roma communities, its side effect is the replication,in different ways, of the historical social pyramid and culturalhierarchy.

MET is now the largest conservationist organization in formerSaxon Transylvania. Its ‘‘discourse’’ to sustain the preservation ofSaxon heritage is based on the image of a rural and natural land-scape where villagers live side by side with wolves, bears, lynxesand deer (MET, 2009; Wilkie, 2001). The MET founder, during herfirst visit to central Transylvania, wrote: ‘‘I had expected to find anenclave of German culture: in fact I discovered an image of Europeas it must once have been everywhere – a landscape still disputed be-tween wildlife and people, villages still fortified against marauders, adeep intimacy between farmers and domestic animals, and a religioustranquility radiating from churches adorned by centuries of piousworkmanship’’ (http://www.mihaieminescutrust.org/).

Saxon Transylvania is thus portrayed like an idyllic land thatshould be preserved as the last refuge of rural Europe. It is not sur-prising that Prince Charles, known for his environmental con-science, has endorsed the MET’s approach and view, by acting asthe organization’s patron. He wrote: ‘‘This area represents a lost pastfor most of us – a past in which villages were intimately linked withlandscape [. . .]. There is a hope that Transylvania could hold the keyto a more sustainable and integrated agricultural and social economyby leap-frogging the mistakes of 19th and 20th centuries and showingthe way to a saner twenty first century’’ (cited in Wilkie, 2001, p. 15).

It is possible to assert that the heritage conservation modeladopted by MET has taken inspiration from the approach used bythe National Trust in Britain. In fact, this charitable body, whichmainly preserves and manages historical buildings and landscapeand supports sustainable development, has had a leading role inthe production of heritage discourse and in the setting of the stan-dards for heritage management (Smith, 2006).

Protecting and promoting Saxon heritage in Transylvania is aproject that mobilizes certain Western nostalgias, funds and inter-ventions by creating historical connections and claiming stakes inthe fate of this space. Coupled with the projects carried out by MET,the resulting vision corresponds to a rural Arcadia where the localpopulation is expected to fulfill traditional roles by working theland, producing crafts, or supporting a heritage-based tourismmarket (Hughes, 2010).

This conservationist approach risks treating the non-Saxon pop-ulation, now the vast majority, like villagers of an immutableworld, charged, regardless of their will, with the safe keeping ofthe Saxons’ heritage (Koranyi, 2010; Hughes, 2010). A subtle formof ‘‘cultural imperialism’’ might thus be spotted, with a pragmaticproposition of the superiority of Transylvanian Saxon heritage over

Romanian and Roma heritage, while serious social problems thatneed more attention, with large rural Romanian and Roma popula-tions lacking basic infrastructure, social services, jobs, or politicalrepresentation, are treated as secondary.

The heritagisation of Saxon culture and landscape is embeddedin a project of sustainable development through small-scale tour-ism, agricultural and crafts productions, and the protection of thenatural environment and the traditional landscape. This type ofdevelopment is perceived as the most suitable for Viscri, a well-recognized sustainable cultural-rural tourism product, cherishedin Western Europe, and oriented toward a tourist market thatwas and still is in search of this kind of ‘‘old world’’ experience.The romantic image of a bucolic, medieval-like German village,with its traditional guesthouses lacking TV sets and telephones,is attractive for many Western tourists, but not necessarily forRomanian and Eastern European ones.

According to the director, MET tried to prevent the develop-ment of the more aggressive ‘‘Romanian-style tourism capitalism’’,as happened in many other Romanian areas (such as Maramures�and Bran), where deep modifications of the architecture of thehouses, the landscape, the cultivations, the food habits, etc., haveirremediably compromised the ‘‘authenticity’’ of the environment.

The well known conflict related to the controversial ‘‘DraculaPark’’ project in the medieval town of Sighis�oara, where METplayed a strong advocacy role to persuade the local authorities toreject it, while several local and national entrepreneurs and tour-ism operators supported it, is another example of Western-dic-tated agenda, although domestic opposition from severalRomanian cultural and environmentalist organizations was rela-tively solid, too (Câmpeanu, 2008). It could be argued that suchview implies the imposition of the rhetoric of sustainable tourismand conservationism. In other words, a Western-originated model,validated as the best way for the area, has been transferred byMET’s foreign experts, without taking into account whether the lo-cals might have chosen other types of development (Câmpeanu,2008; Hughes, 2008, 2010). Instead of looking for Romanian refer-ence points and advocacy groups, MET has basically imposed anexternal model of heritage management with a sort of ‘‘we knowbest’’ approach which, in some way, assumes that the locals are un-able to find more suitable solutions to their problems. Effectiveheritage preservation required a body of knowledge and experi-ence that were lacking in the area (especially soon after the fallof the dictatorship) and this justified the intervention of foreign ex-perts. Issues related to power, authority and the reshaping of theTransylvanian landscape by Western models of heritage manage-ment are all involved here.

8. Conclusions

As Smith (2006) and Ashworth et al., 2007 argue, heritagisationapproximates not a historical but a rhetorical reality, because thepast is edited and represented selectively to achieve certain ends,usually economic, political and social. In the case of Viscri, theTransylvanian Saxon heritage and history have been ‘‘validated’’by foreign experts (MET) and a local influential Saxon as the mostsignificant, traditional and authentic, while the culture and the his-tory of the other two ethnic groups, Romanians and Roma, havebeen overshadowed, at least for the moment.

A discourse which used the rhetoric of conservation and sus-tainable development has chosen Saxon heritage, with its Lutheranfortified church, and traditional farmhouses, as the most suitable togenerate development and to succeed in the so-called heritagetourism market. However, the re-construction of an image of thevillage strongly associated with the remnants of the former Ger-man presence has de facto re-affirmed the historical social pyramid

30 A. Corsale, M. Iorio / Geoforum 52 (2014) 22–31

present in that area (dominant Transylvanian Saxons, weakerRomanians, marginal Roma), in spite of the deep demographicchanges occurred in the past decades, which led to a Roma major-ity, a Romanian minority and the almost complete disappearanceof the Transylvanian Saxon group. Should the non-Saxon majorityof the community accept and assimilate themselves to the editedheritage? Or should they reject it and fight for their own heritageto be celebrated at the same time?

The study results indicate that the village residents have mixedfeelings towards the Transylvanian Saxon heritage and the restora-tion and development actions related to it. Some residents, regard-less of their ethnicity, pragmatically accept to be the custodians ofSaxon heritage since it is perceived as a tool for participating in thebenefits of tourism. Other residents, particularly those not involvedin tourism entrepreneurship, are disappointed by the imbalancebetween the funds dedicated to the restoration of ancient buildingsand the poor conditions of infrastructure necessary for daily life(roads, public transportation, schools, hospitals, street lighting,etc.). Lack of jobs, low incomes and the weak productivity of sub-sistence agriculture remain the main problems for the population.If they could benefit more from tourism, they would probably notshow any form of disappointment. Living in an ‘‘olde worlde’’ UNE-SCO site, where the culture of a former population is given moreemphasis than the culture of real people currently living there,has become acceptable when economic benefits can be derived di-rectly from it. However, it is also apparent that part of the popula-tion of Romanian and, particularly, of Roma ethnicity, do not have aclear idea of ‘‘heritage’’, as they are busy thinking about how tosurvive daily, more than contemplating cultural identity.

Should antagonist nationalism and heritage consciences arisemore vigorously or should tourism benefits decrease, disputesregarding the cultural, linguistic, religious and architectural char-acteristics of the village and its environment and the participationprocesses and decision-making practices, could arise at laterstages. Issues related to the image of the village, as associated morewith its former inhabitants than its current ones, might line upwith other issues related to intermittently strict rules concerningUNESCO sites (particularly in the building sector), to dangers ofmuseumification (e.g. the already reported cobblestone street is-sue), and to massive purchase of houses and other properties byexternal entrepreneurs and other people attracted by the bucolicimage promoted by MET itself (e.g. emulation of Prince Charles’schoice).

No decision-maker ever asked the local population what kind ofheritage they would have preferred to promote. The author’s inter-views showed that the community does not necessarily perceiveheritage the same way the ‘‘experts’’ do. The Mihai Eminescu Trustpragmatically applies a development model, revolving around thetouristically attractive image of the picturesque Saxon village,which is supposed to bring the best results in the shortest time.However, following this path paradoxically denies the essentialcharacter of Transylvania, which has always been its multicultural-ism, a feature that could well attract tourism as well. Includingheritage diversity, rather than focusing on exclusivity and hierar-chisation, could benefit the tourist sector and the involved commu-nities in Transylvania as well as in many other traditionally ornewly multicultural areas of the world.

Embracing the theory of Smith (2006, 2009) and Ashworth et al.(2007), this study demonstrates that heritagisation processes al-most always create inclusion and exclusion. This leads to reflectionon some critical points: is there a way to avoid falling into this sortof trap? How can the citizenship rights of those of all cultures andheritages be ensured, especially when major changes in the charac-teristics of the population occur? How can diversity be made into ashared resource whose benefits are accessible to the wholecommunity?

Waterton et al. (2006) suggest that the ‘‘authorized heritagediscourse’’ model should be challenged and that community par-ticipation in the negotiation process of heritage is the only wayto ensure the ethic of conservation. In the same wave length, webelieve that the core of heritagisation processes ought to rely oninclusion, because marginal as well as strong groups need to havereal chances and tools to enable them to effectively reflect on theiridentities and their aspirations. The example of Viscri can be usedas a point of reflection both for other former Transylvanian Saxonvillages as well as for other multi-ethnic places located elsewherethat are seeking to develop heritage tourism.

Future research can be done to expand this study. An in-depthanalysis on the consumption of heritage by tourists and on theway tourists perceive the identity of this area would be particularlyinteresting. The perception and management of heritage by theRoma communities in the Romanian rural and urban context aswell, and the attitude of authorities and tourism operators regard-ing their inclusion in the official heritage tourism proposal shouldbe analyzed, too.

References

Akeroyd, J., 2006. The Historic Countryside of the Saxon Villages of SouthernTransylvania. Art Group International, Bucharest.

Ashworth, G.H., 2000. Preservation, conservation and heritage: approaches to thepast in the present through the built environment. Asian Anthropol. 10 (1), 1–18.

Ashworth, G.J., Graham, B.J., Tunbridge, J.E., 2007. Pluralising Pasts: Heritage,Identity and Place in Multicultural Societies. Pluto, London.

Câmpeanu, N., 2008. Material Desires: Cultural Production, Post-SocialistTransformations, and Heritage Tourism in a Transylvanian Town. PhD Thesis.University of Texas, Austin. <http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/3858> (retrieved 06.05.12).

Denton, J., 2003. Roma Political Participation in Romania. National DemocraticInstitute for International Affairs, Washington, DC.

Graham, B., 2002. Heritage as knowledge: capital or culture? Urban Stud. 39 (5–6),1003–1017.

Graham, B., Ashworth, G.J., Turnbridge, J.E., 2000. A Geography of Heritage: Power,Culture and Economy. Arnold, London.

Graham, B., Howard, P., 2008. Heritage and identity. In: Graham, B., Howard (Eds.),The Research Companion to Heritage and Identity. Ashgate, Aldershot.

Gündisch, K., 1998. Siebenbürgen und die Siebenbürger Sachsen. Langen-Müller,Bonn.

Harvey, R., 2007. UNESCO’s Memory of the World Programme. Libr. Trends 56 (1),259–274.

Hughes, A., 2008. Will there be conflict? Identity and values tensions inTransylvania’s Saxon villages, Europolis. J. Polical Sci. Theory 4, 309–328.

Hughes, T., 2010. Utopian visions for Romanians Saxon villages: impacts on therehabilitation and retrofit of traditional housing. In: Koranyi, J., Hughes, A.,Polland, J., Hughes, T. (Eds.), Displacement Utopia in Transylvania’s SaxonVillages. University of California, Iaste Working Paper Series 227, pp. 43–59.

Klimaszewsky, C., Bader, G.E., Nyce, J., Beasley, B.E., 2010. Who wins? Who loses?Representation and ‘‘restoration’’ of the past in a rural Romanian community.New Libr. World 59 (2), 92–106.

Klimaszewsky, C., Nyce, J., 2009. Does universal access mean equitable access?What an information infrastructure study of a rural Romanian community cantell us. New Libr. World 110 (5–6), 219–236.

Koranyi, J., 2010. The narrative of lost utopias: the Saxons and Anglo-Saxons edens.In: Koranyi, J., Hughes, A., Polland, J., Hughes, T. (Eds.), Displacement Utopia inTransylvania’s Saxon Villages. University of California, Iaste Working PaperSeries 227, pp. 1–8.

Koranyi, J., Wittlinger, R., 2011. From diaspora to diaspora: the case ofTransylvanian Saxons in Romania and Germany. Nationalism Ethnic Politics17, 96–115.

Kraybill, D.B., 2001. The Riddle of Amish Culture. John Hopkins University Press,Baltimore.

Lloyd, A., 2007. Guarding against collective amnesia? Making significanceproblematic: an exploration of issues. Libr. Trends 56 (1), 53–65.

Merriam, S.B., 2002. Qualitative Research in Practice. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Mihai Eminescu Trust (MET), 2009. Exploring Viscri. London.Patton, M.Q., 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, third ed. Sage,

California.Poria, Y., Ashworth, G., 2009. Heritage attractions – a resource for conflicts. Ann.

Tourism Res. 36 (3), 522–525.Riley, B., Dinescu, D., 2007. Transylvania. Frances Lincoln, London.Roucek, J.S., 1971. Contemporary Romania and Her Problems: A Study in Modern

Nationalism. Ayer Publishing, Manchester, NH.

A. Corsale, M. Iorio / Geoforum 52 (2014) 22–31 31

Sandu, D., 1999. Reconstructing Community Space. Social Assessment of Mos�na andViscri – Two Former Saxon Village in Romania. World Bank, January 1999,Bucharest.

Smith, L., 2004. Archaeological Theory and the Politics of Cultural Heritage.Routledge, London.

Smith, L., 2006. Uses of Heritage. Routledge, London.Smith, L., 2009. Class, Heritage and the Negotiation of Place. <http://www.english-

heritage.org.uk/about/who-we-are/how-we-are-run/heritage-for-all/missing-out-conference/presentations/> (retrieved 20.09.13).

Smith, L., 2011. El ‘‘espejo patrimonial’’. ¿Ilusión narcisista o reflexiones múltiples?Antípoda 12, 39–63.

Steigerwald, J., 1985. Tracing Romania’s Heterogeneous German Minority from ItsOrigins to the Diaspora. Translation and Interpretation Service, Winona, MN.

Timothy, D.J., Boyd, S.W., 2003. Heritage Tourism. Prentice Hall, London.Tiplic, I.M., 2006. The Fortified Churches of Transylvanian Saxons. Noi Media Print,

Bucharest.

Tunbridge, J.E., Ashworth, G.J., 1996. Dissonant Heritage: The Management of thePast as a Resource in Conflict. Wiley, Chichester.

UNESCO, 1999. Villages with Fortified Churches in Transylvania. <http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/596/> (retrieved 14.11.11).

Wagner, E., Schneider, E.R., Gross, M., Intscher, M., 1982. Transylvanian Saxons:Historical Highlights. Alliance of Transylvanian Saxons, Cleveland, OH.

Wall, G., 2009. Tourism and development: towards sustainable outcomes. In: Fusco,L., Nijkamp, P. (Eds.), Cultural Tourism and Sustainable Local Development.Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 31–46.

Waterton, E., Smith, L., Campbell, G., 2006. The utility of discourse analysis toheritage studies: the Burra Charter and social inclusion. Int. J. Heritage Stud. 12(4), 339–355.

Wilkie, K., 2001. The Saxon Villages of Transylvania, Romania. Kim WilkieAssociates, Richmond-upon-Thames.