st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i 35 ht t ps://doi .org /10. 26493/2350-54 43.10(2)35-42 © aut hor/aut hors Abstract In the period of last 50 years, the discussion of what authenticity really means changed from questions about realism, representation and reality in aesthetics and media studies, to “authenticity as idea” relat- ed to national identity and cultural heritage, as well as “authenticity as strategy” in marketing and place branding. Consequently, we can today define heritage tourism more narrowly as a phenomenon based on visitors’ motivations and perceptions rather than on specific site attributes. New perspectives of pres- entations, including the use of ICT devices are broadening the perspective of heritage tourism shifting it in to the world of virtual reality. Currently the presentation, this is the consumption of cultural her- itage, is shifting from “authentic” material environments and experiences in to the hyper-realistic digi- tal ones the differences between the capacities for consumption between different members of the so- ciety become reduced. Key words: authenticity, cultural tourism, cultural heritage, archaeology, ICT, disabilities Izvleček V obdobju zadnjih 50 let se je razprava o tem, kaj avtentičnost v resnici pomeni, premaknila od vprašanj o realizmu, reprezentaciji in realnosti v estetiki in medijskih študijah do »avtentičnosti kot ideje«, pove- zane z nacionalno identiteto in kulturno dediščino, pa tudi »avtentičnosti kot strategije« pri trženju in blagovni znamki krajev. Posledično lahko danes dediščinski turizem opredelimo ožje kot pojav, ki te- melji na motivaciji in percepciji obiskovalcev, ne pa na posebnih lastnostih območja. Nove perspektive predstavitev, vključno z uporabo IKT naprav, širijo perspektivo dediščinskega turizma in ga selijo v svet virtualne resničnosti. Trenutno se prezentacija, to je potrošnja kulturne dediščine, premakne iz »avten- tičnih« materialnih okolij in izkušenj v hiperrealistična digitalna, se zmanjšajo razlike med zmožnost- mi potrošnje med različnimi člani družbe. Ključne besede: avtentičnost, kulturni turizem, kulturna dediščina, ICT, posebne potrebe What do you really want? Kaj zares želite? Boris Kavur University of Primorska, Faculty of Humanities, Slovenia boris.kavur@upr.si Martina Blečić Kavur University of Primorska, Faculty of Humanities, Slovenia martina.blecic.kavur@upr.si Introduction: Seeing THE past Archaeology, when not trying to be an ac-ademic discipline and disseminate the results of research only within the aca- demic community, it has an aspiration to pres- ent to the public as accurate as possible authentic illustration of the past – it reconstructs the au- thentic landscapes, rebuilds the authentic archi- tecture, exhibits the authentic items and at least but not at last, presents the authentic archaeo- logical interpretation. The main problem arising is the academic archaeological systematic fail- ure of any form of social responsibility towards the public hiding behind an unimpregnable wall of arguments defining the imaginary no- st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i tion of authenticity in archaeological interpreta- tion. Limping behind lesson philosophy learned in the beginning of the 20th century when it be- came obvious that authentic visions, no matter how deeply felt, may be damaging when they do not sufficiently account for our responsibility to- ward others (Gardiner 2015, 99), or in the case of archaeology the interested public. With oth- er words – in the 20th century the scientifically vaguely but legally all-encompassing principle of authenticity is at least on the rhetorical level the basic and primary principle of the protection of historical and cultural heritage. Although it is mostly employed as an argument without real economic measurable background, it is legally considered being the key to the standard for as- cribing value to heritage and consequently creat- ing the basis for its 3P – preservation, presenta- tion and promotion. In the last decade numerous authors saw the peril of destroying the authenticity of cultural heritage as the initial stage of a process that will lead to the disappearance of important histori- cal information and the lack of awareness of au- thenticity (Mi and Wang 2021). They noted that: - At the material level, the protection and re- pair behavior to often damages the authen- ticity of the structures it was intended to protect. A failure to restore the original structure or the material selection, diffe- rent from the original material, functional- ly change the original functional purpose of the heritage. - At the material level, too often the unfavora- ble supervision of the government instituti- ons, ignoration of the investors and owners as well as the weak protection awareness of the general public, make the authenticity of cultural heritage lost in the development process. - At the non-material level, the lack of authen- ticity protection for culture and perception will result in the loss of the subject of cultu- ral authenticity, the dislocation of cultural display in time and space, the lack of cultu- ral integrity, and the simplification of cultu- ral diversity. - At the environmental level on which his- tory depends, the historical space envi- ronment, surrounding residents and natu- ral environment considerations on which historical heritage relies, have led to the de- struction of the surrounding environment of cultural relics and historic sites. These processes made the original distinctive spa- ces lose their authenticity. Looking through the arguments, we real- ize that today a museum or an archaeological site is a place of total iconism – an allegory of the modern consumer society glorifying total passivity in the observation of the past. Its visi- tors must behave like dehumanized – access to each attraction is regulated by means that dis- courage any individual initiative. The gaze upon the monument is defined, prescribed… and it is not only the real thing, but institutionally me- diated abundance of reconstructed truth, if the visitor obeys the regulations. And it is the role of archaeologists, the scientists, to reconstruct a credible and “objective” past, to present the au- thentic archaeological heritage. But here it seems that that the foundations of the archaeological idea of authenticity were shaken by the theoretical discussions (based on practical practices) in tourism studies, and more recently by the inclusion of modern tech- nologies in to the process of presenting the past. Everything enhanced and virtual became the new reality, reality distancing itself from the ba- sic archaeological notion of authenticity based on material remains, and shifting slowly towards the authenticity based on information as such, based on knowledge about the past. Selling the experience Although not in the field, in the academic litera- ture the contemporary tourist has been ridiculed for his manner of, motivation for, and achieve- ment in travel. Basically, numerous authors de- scribing the quest of tourists for authenticity in (cultural) tourism in the last 50 years have evi- st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 36 st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i w h a t d o y o u r ea ll y w a n t? 37 dently underestimated the potential of cultural tourism and the potential of the interested tour- ists to influence the development of the tourist sector. Especially in regard to the role of cultural tourism based in the presentation of cultural her- itage and its role in the sustainable development. It was Daniel J. Boorstin that already in 1961 mentioned that the Americans suffer from extravagant expectations (Boorstin 2002) and that members of a modern society individually provide the market and create demands for the illusions that flood our experiences, illusions that deceive ourselves. Derived from his percep- tion of the modern society was also the conclu- sion that modern tourists do not seek authentic- ity at all – in their search of only entertainment and enjoyment they are easily satisfied by an in- authentic tourism experience. In the past, he claimed, the traveler was active and traveling required much planning, time and money. In modern times the tourist expects all planning to be done for him with no risk involved. Even when not being part of mass-tourism, the tour- ist has guidebooks to tell him what to see, with a star system so he knows what is most important. Based more on his perception of the American society, he assumed that people were no longer experiencing reality in their lives; in their quest for the unfamiliar they were being presented a series of pseudo-events. Tourism, especially large scale, mass tourism, was seen as being just an- other example of how American life had become overpowered by pseudo-events and contrived ex- periences. He concluded that the tourists only seldom liked authenticity of to them often unin- telligible foreign cultures, but instead preferred their own provincial expectations. Translated in to the language of archaeology we could ob- serve that the public presentations were focused on the “modern” aspects of the past, archaeolo- gy was pushing the limits of modern behavior, modern practices and modern relations back in to the past. The past was being appropriated in the basic sense of the word. A decade later it was Dean MacCannell, that presented a revised view of tourism and tourist motivation. His tourist was not a vic- tim of a contrived and illusory culture, but in- stead on a quest for authenticity that involved paying homage to the symbols of modernity. Still it was the first time that he introduced the concept of staged authenticity in tourism (Mac- Cannell 1973). The term “staged authenticity” is one used by tourism and cultural resource man- agement researchers to define a way that tradi- tional, or in the case of archaeology past, cul- tures are presented (i.e. staged) to outsiders. It can be manufactured by tourism professionals (in theme parks, performances and such), but it can be the way that locals perceive what tourists want to see and experience. Consequently, tour- ists are not allowed to see real life as lived by the natives, to see the original archaeological herit- age since these “back regions” are hidden from tourists and reserved only for the indigenous populations or for professional specialists. At best, tourists are shown “front regions” that are designed to look like the real thing. The indus- try specialized in the efforts providing the tour- ist with the feeling he had an authentic tourist experience, and prohibiting him to realize he has failed in his quest. But how was the motivation for tour- ism perceived at the end of the seventies. John Compton (1979) suggested several motives, in- cluding: escape (from the drudgery of everyday life), relaxation, prestige, especially among those who do not travel, regression (i.e., being able to act immaturely without being judged by one’s reference groups), education and novelty. Actu- ally, with the notion of novelty he turned the whole narrative upside down – novelty was a rel- ative concept without any semantic relation to authenticity. Everything goes – everything was a novelty for the tourist. The past was slowly con- quering it’s grandeur. But in the beginning of eighties Umberto Eco (1983) published a series of essays with a hy- percritical description of the contemporary tour- ist industry. Discussing mostly American post- modern tourist attraction, he described them as being hyper-real. Their deliberate creation was st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 38 a process where the American imagination de- manded the real thing but the market fabricat- ed the absolute fake. Derived from the Ameri- can concept of prosperity, which is focused on having more than is needed, it produced artifi- cial tourist attractions that try to be extravagant and better than the original. He concluded that it is certain that tourists prefer hyper-realism to real sites. And archaeology was actually follow- ing if not even creating the trend – it was the pe- riod of reconstructions and reenactments, where the past, to be presented crated anew following the demands and expectations of the consumers (Barker 2010; Hartford 2016). However, tourists may simply be satisfy- ing different types of utility – of form, time and place (Cohen 2002). While seeing a real prehis- toric painted cave in a real setting might be pre- ferred, it may simply not be possible, given time and place constraints. Also, it must be admitted, the tourist may not wish to suffer the travails of a trip to a remote locale. Seeing a real Roman city has a major constraint – since the best pre- served are in the remotest regions of the today “civilized” world visiting them poses to the aver- age tourist a major problem directly addressing the time, money and efforts the tourists are able (and willing) to invest. And since there are no time machines to take travelers back to the “real thing,” with the help of hyper-realism the tour- ist satisfices his experience, while perhaps actual- ly learning something about the “real thing.” The end of century, with the development of technol- ogy and with the introduction of practices that explained and promoted archaeological heritage, enabled experiences that were better than real, authentic in their own way. But it was John Urry (2002) that described the trends in the new millennium, claiming that the post-tourist knows that they are a tour- ist and that tourism is a game, or rather a whole series of games with multiple texts and no sin- gle, authentic tourist experience. Further he not- ed that the post-tourist takes pleasure in the fact that so many tourist experiences are available so all of these motivations can be satisfied. It was all based or actually adapted to the notion that the modern or actually post-modern (post-tour- ist) is a critical consumer that embraces open- ly the increasingly inauthentic, commercialized and simulated experiences offered by the tour- ism industry. And the presentations of the past – including museums, archaeological parks and reenactment events, are a constituent element of cultural tourism. Although developed still in the eighties these concepts make more sense in the last two decades when the post-modern world is characterized by globalization, hyper-consumer- ism, the experience economy and new develop- ments in technology. Consumers have numerous choices and possibilities, and often undertake seemingly incompatible activities simultaneous- ly in order to capitalize on this array of oppor- tunities. Cultural tourism is no exception (Ko- białka 2013). It was in 2007 that in the monumental vol- ume Tourism and Politics, Debbie Lisle described the rise of dark tourism as the last real experi- ence in the post-tourist world (Lisle 2007). She demonstrated that the myth of modern tourism is centered on the possibility of encountering au- thentic difference, a claim actually less possible if we take into consideration the fact that tourism is a global industry from the 1990s. She claimed that the only “real” places in the world are con- flict areas and war zones affiliated with death and violence and that the Dark tourism tell us a great deal about the relationship between tour- ism and conflict. They illustrate that places of conflict are not excised by the tourist gaze, but are instead integral to it. In the same year James Gilmore and Joseph Pine published the book Authenticity: What Consumers Really Want – they were not only thinking of tourism, but of consumer culture in general (Gilomre and Pine 2007). They claimed that people increasingly see the world in terms of real and fake, and because of the shift to the experience economy want to buy something real from someone genuine. Today goods and ser- vices are no longer enough – what consumers want today are experiences described as memo- st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i w h a t d o y o u r ea ll y w a n t? 39 rable events that engage them in an inherently personal way. As paid-for experiences prolifer- ate, people now decide where and when to spend their money and their time. But in a world in- creasingly filled with deliberately and sensation- ally staged experiences, in an increasingly unreal world, consumers choose to buy or not buy based on how real they perceive an offering to be. They claim that business today, therefore, is all about being real. Original. Genuine. Sincere. Authen- tic. Presenting the real past. And of course, this brings us back to the objects of dark tourism, el- ements of archaeological heritage linked to con- flicts and death as the optimal places to present the authentic reconstruction of the past. Anticipating the future one might argue that as long as the tourist thinks a fantasy-lad- en tourist site or experience is real, then this is simply inauthentic – if the tourist knows the site is fake, and still likes it, perhaps even more than seeing the real thing, then this is hyper-reality. However, this taxonomy condemns as merely in- authentic many tourist sites and experiences that are so fantastic that the traveler should have re- alized they were fake, and perhaps did so on at least some level of consciousness (Cohen 2002). Conclusion: Participating – a dialogue with authenticity For tourism studies, allegations of inauthentic- ity generally relate to staged events and touris- tic experience that fail the objective authentici- ty test – it assumes that there is an undistorted standard to determine what is or is not genuine (Umbach and Humphrey 2018). But is it really so? Here we can come to assess the appropriate- ness of authenticity, not in terms of the appro- priateness of its explanatory and constitutive be- liefs but instead in terms of whether an instance of authenticity successfully plays the functional role that it is “meant” to play. And archaeology has a problem with that – as a discipline it has a problem in defining what is it meant to do. To preserve the authentic landscape, feature, item… or to explain? It is easy to hide behind the pres- ervation of the authentic but hard to explain it. In this period of nearly 50 years, the discus- sion of what authenticity really means has been going on in many different academic fields, from questions about realism, representation and re- ality in aesthetics and media studies, to “authen- ticity as idea” related to national identity and cultural heritage, as well as “authenticity as strat- egy” in marketing and place branding. All these discussions influenced the question of authentic- ity as a cultural concept in tourism and consum- er culture from different analytical views, and re- lated the discussions of authenticity in tourism studies to other theoretical and academic fields – in our case archaeology as a specific constitu- tional element of cultural heritage. In the last two decades it was argued that authenticity is a spent issue in tourism – that it is no longer relevant to tourists, a redundant con- cept which they no longer concern themselves with. However, the fact that authenticity lacks a universal definition does not prove its redun- dancy. It simply shows that the concept has not reached “basic concept status,” but then, it does not have to. As long as tourists continue to con- cern themselves with evaluating authenticity of cultural objects and experiences by whatever cri- teria they apply, then authenticity should remain firmly embedded in the development of tourism theory (Mkono 2012). But is it still credible to consider and ana- lyze consumer behavior as an expression of false consciousness? If we accept that authenticity is never objective, but always constructed, then we should take seriously accounts whereby consum- ers themselves perceive their experience as au- thentic. Empirical studies have explored con- sumers’ own voices, and uncovered processes whereby consumers experience acts of consump- tion as helping them achieve moments, or subjec- tive states, of authenticity. They see themselves not as duped victims of false consciousness, but as active agents capable of framing and pursuing life-goals with a degree of autonomy. Numer- ous authors suggested that we ought to take such positions seriously and treat consumers (in this case tourists) as active agents in the production st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 40 and performance of authenticity (Umbach and Humphrey 2018). Consequently, we can define heritage tour- ism more narrowly as a phenomenon based on visitors’ motivations and perceptions rather than on specific site attributes. This means that herit- age tourism is not only tourism in places catego- rized as heritage or historic places based purely on the fact that they present history, but histo- ry featured is part of the experience and partial- ly links it with motivations for the trip (Poria, Butler and Airey 2003). In this sense, authen- ticity is actually performed, and through the term performative authenticity authors linked the two positions that have emerged in tourism studies with respect to the concept of authen- ticity – on one side object related (authentici- ty synonymous to original and trace) and sub- ject related modes of authenticity (existential authenticity covering bodily feelings, emotion- al ties, identity construction and narration relat- ed to place) (Knudsen and Waade 2010). The lat- er corresponding to the evolution of the modern cultural tourist that was transformed from con- suming the vision about past history, passing to consuming past cultural, historical and natural resources as well as intangible heritage and at- tractions to finally actively performing a struc- tured decision-making process based on criteria of desirable leisure experiences such as engaging in social interaction, doing something worth- while, feeling comfortable and at ease in one’s surrounding, being challenged by new experi- ences, having the opportunity to learn and par- ticipating actively (Sheng and Chen 2012; Di Pi- etro et al. 2014). Especially the young generation asked for a different cultural consumption mod- el – knowledge-based activities that are partici- pative in situ (Papathanasiou-Zuhrt and Weiss- Ibáñez 2014). Especially in this population the use of modern ICT devices, included in to the daily activities, enabled the changes in cultural consumptions. Not that the only facilitated the broad information remotely but also facilitated the access and consumption for categories of as- sets that were previously considered being less accessible (Vasile et al. 2015). And further they stimulated all the senses allowing the consump- tion of the information in both terms of educa- tion and entertainment (Addis 2005). It is exactly the ICT devices that in a spe- cific area of cultural heritage consumption, in our focus in the case of archaeology, can ena- ble, when discussing the involvement of persons with disabilities the shift form the discussion about minorized identities towards a common experience. Since disability is not a personal trait that an individual possesses but a way of seeing things, consuming information, that in- cludes the whole of society (Fraser 2018, 12–20). And in the moment when the presentation, this is the consumption of cultural heritage is trans- formed from “authentic” material environments in to the hyper-realistic digital ones the differ- ences between the capacities for consumption between different members of the society be- come reduced. Modernizing the presentation of cultural heritage becomes “normalization” of the consuming society. Implementing virtual heritage technologies can, beside advertising the archaeological sites and promoting the events on them, be used as means documenting the heritage and reducing its vulnerability, caused by exposure of access. But most important it allows to resurrect the complexity of destroyed or not accessible sites and items (Farid and Ezzat 2018). Information and communication technology in the role of as- sistive technologies forms a collective and inter- active support for knowledge and performs dif- ferent roles pursuant to the type of disability to enable the consumption of cultural information and to address the question of authenticity of in- formation provided. Summary In the period of last 50 years, the discussion of what au- thenticity really means changed from questions about realism, representation and reality in aesthetics and me- dia studies, to “authenticity as idea” related to national identity and cultural heritage, as well as “authenticity as strategy” in marketing and place branding. All these dis- st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i w h a t d o y o u r ea ll y w a n t? 41 cussions influenced the role of promotion of cultural heritage and especially archaeology in cultural tourism and consumer culture. Consequently, we can today define heritage tourism more narrowly as a phenomenon based on visitors’ mo- tivations and perceptions rather than on specific site at- tributes. This means that heritage tourism is not only tourism in places categorized as heritage or histor- ic places based purely on the fact that they present his- tory, but history featured is part of the experience and partially links it with motivations for the trip. New per- spectives of presentations, including the use of ICT de- vices are broadening the perspective of heritage tourism shifting it in to the world of virtual reality. It is exactly the ICT devices that in a specific area of cul- tural heritage consumption, in our focus in the case of archaeology, can enable, when discussing the involve- ment of persons with special needs the shift form the discussion about minorized identities towards a com- mon experience. And in the moment when the pres- entation, this is the consumption of cultural heritage, is shifting from “authentic” material environments and ex- periences in to the hyper-realistic digital ones the differ- ences between the capacities for consumption between different members of the society become reduced. Povzetek V obdobju zadnjih 50 let se je razprava o tem, kaj avten- tičnost v resnici pomeni, premaknila od vprašanj o rea- lizmu, reprezentaciji in realnosti v estetiki in medijskih študijah do »avtentičnosti kot ideje«, povezane z naci- onalno identiteto in kulturno dediščino, pa tudi »av- tentičnosti kot strategije« pri trženju in blagovni znam- ki krajev. Vse te razprave so vplivale na vlogo promocije kulturne dediščine in predvsem arheologije v kultur- nem turizmu in potrošniški kulturi. Posledično lahko danes dediščinski turizem opredeli- mo ožje kot pojav, ki temelji na motivaciji in percepci- ji obiskovalcev, ne pa na posebnih lastnostih območja. To pomeni, da dediščinski turizem ni samo turizem na krajih, ki so kategorizirani kot dediščina ali zgodovinski kraji zgolj na podlagi dejstva, da predstavljajo zgodovi- no, ampak je predstavljena zgodovina del izkušnje in jo delno povezuje z motivacijo za potovanje. Nove per- spektive predstavitev, vključno z uporabo IKT naprav, širijo perspektivo dediščinskega turizma in ga selijo v svet virtualne resničnosti. Ravno IKT naprave lahko na določenem področju po- trošnje kulturne dediščine, v našem fokusu v prime- ru arheologije, omogočijo, da se pri razpravi o vključe- vanju oseb s posebnimi potrebami premik od razprave o minoriziranih identitetah k skupni izkušnji. In v tre- nutku, ko se prezentacija, to je potrošnja kulturne de- diščine, premakne iz »avtentičnih« materialnih oko- lij in izkušenj v hiperrealistična digitalna, se zmanjšajo razlike med zmožnostmi potrošnje med različnimi čla- ni družbe. References Addis, M. 2005. “New technologies and cultural consumption – edutainment is born!” European Journal of Marketing 39 (7/8): 729–736. Barker, A. W. 2010. “Exhibiting archaeology: Archaeology and Museums.” Annual Review of Anthropology 39: 293–308. Boorstin, D. J. 2002. The Image. A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. 25th Anniversary Edition, New York: Vintage Books. Cohen, J. 2002. “The contemporary Tourist: Is Everything Old New Again?” Advances in Consumer Research 29: 31–35. Compton, J. L. 1979. “Motivations for Pleasure Vacation.” Annals of Tourism Research 6: 408–424. Di Pietro, L., R. Gugilielmetti Mugion, G. Mattia and M. F. Renzi 2015. “Cultural heritage and consumer behaviour: a survey on Italian cultural visitors.” Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 5 (1): 61–81. Eco, U. 1983. Travels in Hyperreality. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Farid, M. M. A. and A. A. Ezzat 2018. “The cultural and economical impacts of using virtual heritage in archaeological sites in Egypt.” Proceedings of Science and Technology 1 (2): 183–197. Fraser, B. 2018. Cognitive Disability Aesthetics. Visual Culture, Disability Representations, st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 42 st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i and the (In)Visibility of Cognitive Difference. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Gardiner, R. 2015. Gender, Authenitcity and Leadership. Thinking with Arendt. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Gilmore, J. H. and J. B. Pine 2007. Authenticity. What Consumers Really Want. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Hartford, S. 2016. “The Value of Experience: Lessons from a Study of Reenactment.” EXARC Journal Issue 2016/1. https://exarc. net/ark:/88735/10232 Knudsen, B. M. and A. M. Waade 2010. “Performative Authenticity in Tourism and Spatial experience: Rethinking the Relations Between Travel, Place and Emotion.” In Re-Investing Authenticity. Tourism, Place and Emotions, edited by B. M. Knudsen and A. M. Waade, 1–19. Bristol: Channel View Publications. Kobiałka, D. 2013. “Time travels in archaeology. Between Hollywood films and historical re-enactment?” AP: Online Journal in Public Archaeology 3, 110–130. Lisle, D. 2007. “Defending Voyeurism: Dark Tourism and the Problem of Global Security.” In Touris and Politics. Global Frameworks and Local Realities, edited by P. M. Burnes and M. Vovelli, 333–345. Amsterdam: Elsevier. MacCannell, D. 1973. “Staged authenticity: Arrangements of social space in tourist settings.” American Journal of Sociology 79 (3): 589–603. Mi, F. and Y. Wang 2021. “A Summary of the Study on the Authenticity of Traditional Village Architecture Space.” Open Journal of Social Sciences 9: 228–240. Mkono, M. 2012. “Authenticity does matter.” Annals of Tourism Research 39 (1): 480– 483. Papathanasiou-Zuhrt, D. and D. F. Weiss- Ibáñez 2014. “Cognitive processing of information with visitor value in cultural heritage environments. The case of the SEE TCP SAGITTARIUS 2011-2014.” Procedia Economics and Finance 15: 303– 311. Poria, Y., R. Butler and D. Airey 2003. “The Core of Heritage Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 30 (1): 238–254. Sheng. C. W. and M. C. Chen 2012. “A study of experience expectations of museum visitors.” Tourism Management 33 (1): 53– 50. Umbach, M. and M. Humphrey 2018. Authenticity: The Cultural History of a Polithical Concept. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Urry J. 2002. The Tourist Gaze. Second Edition. London: Sage Publications. Vasile, V., M.-R. Surugiu, I.-A. Login and C. Anca 2015. “Changes in cultural heritage consumption model: Challenges and limits.” Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 188: 42–52.