Sie sind auf Seite 1von 17

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp.

193–209, 2011
0160-7383/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Printed in Great Britain
www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures
doi:10.1016/j.annals.2010.08.003

EDUCATIONAL DARK TOURISM AT


AN IN POPULO SITE
The Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem
Erik H. Cohen
Bar Ilan University, Israel

Abstract: Based on a study at Yad Vashem, the Shoah (Holocaust) memorial museum in
Jerusalem, a new term—in populo—is proposed to describe dark tourism sites at a population
and spiritual center of the people to whom a tragedy befell. Learning about the Shoah in
Jerusalem offers a different but equally authentic encounter with the subject as visits to sites
in Europe. It is argued that a dichotomy between ‘authentic’ sites at the location of a tragedy
and ‘created’ sites elsewhere is insufficient. Participants’ evaluations of seminars for
European teachers at Yad Vashem indicate that the location is an important aspect of a
meaningful encounter with the subject. Implications for other cases of dark tourism at in
populo locations are discussed. Keywords: dark tourism, Holocaust, education, location,
authenticity. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION
Educational Dark Tourism
‘‘Dark tourism’’—tourism to sites related to death and disaster
(Lennon & Foley, 2000; Seaton, 1996) is not a new phenomenon; bat-
tlefields, cemeteries and sites of natural disasters have long drawn tour-
ists (Ashworth & Hartman, 2005; Timothy & Boyd, 2002) and it has
received increasing attention by researchers in recent years. Within this
growing body of literature, authenticity of location has been addressed
as one of the key elements (Belhassen, Caton, & Stewart, 2008; Miles,
2002; Tumarkin, 2005). The actual sites of disasters have been referred
to as in situ or primary sites, while memorials and museums set up in
other locations have been referred to as secondary or created sites (Len-
non & Foley, 2000; Wight, 2006; Wight & Lennon, 2007).
In this article I argue that such a dichotomy is too simplistic to accu-
rately describe the authenticity of dark tourism experiences. I propose

Erik Cohen is a senior lecturer at the School of Education at Bar-Ilan University [38
Bethlehem Road, Jerusalem, Israel 93504. Email: <ehcohen@mail.biu.ac.il>]. His research
interests include tourism (with a focus on Jewish travel to Israel and Shoah-related travel),
education (especially informal) and ethnic-religious identity. He has directed numerous
national and international empirical studies and has been widely published in these fields. He
lives in Jerusalem with his wife and three sons.

193
194 E.H. Cohen / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 193–209

a new term, in populo, to describe sites which embody and emphasize


the story of the people to whom the tragedy befell. These may be
located at population and/or spiritual centers of the victimized people,
irrespective of the geographical distance from the events commemo-
rated. The in populo concept responds to a theoretical gap in heritage
or dark tourism research. As Li (2003, p. 250) suggests, there is a ‘‘. . .
need for the development of a person-based category in an authenticity
model. . .authenticity is therefore argued as being achieved either
through environmental experiences or people-based experiences, or
an interaction of the two.’’
This article explores the perceived authenticity of an in populo dark
tourism site using a case study of educational dark tourism; a seminar
for European teachers hosted by the International School for Holo-
caust Studies at Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’
Remembrance Authority in Jerusalem, Israel. Through this example,
it is demonstrated that a dark tourism experience which is perceived
as authentic and meaningful may be provided through interaction with
the affected population at what may be referred to as an in populo site,
even if it is physically distant from in situ sites. Additionally, the impact
of the explicitly educational nature of the seminar-tour is explored.
This particular sub-population of tourists is presented because their
documented responses to their experience at Yad Vashem are enlight-
ening in understanding the phenomenon of an in populo site. Clearly,
other populations of visitors to Yad Vashem, such as Israeli Jews (Aur-
on, 2008; Cohen, 2009; Krakover, 2005), Diaspora Jews (Cohen, 2008a)
and Israeli Arabs (Krakover, 2005; Shoham, Shiloah, & Kalisman,
2003), would each have their own distinctive relationship to and per-
ceptions of the issues and the interpretations offered at Yad Vashem.
These populations were not addressed in the current study.
The present article postulates that Yad Vashem is perceived by the
study population as an authentic site for learning about the Holocaust,
referred to from here by the Hebrew word Shoah. Referring to the Nazi-
era genocide with the word ‘holocaust’ is problematic because of its
Greek etymology referring to religious sacrifices (Petrie, 2009) and be-
cause it is used to refer to many catastrophic events (Gerstenfeld,
2008), whereas Shoah refers specifically to the Nazi genocide.

Authenticity in Educational Dark Tourism


This discussion of the study population’s experience at Yad Vashem
is guided by studies on the nature of authenticity particularly as it per-
tains to tourism (Cohen, 2008b; Golomb, 1995; Selwyn, 1996). Pioneer
in the field, MacCannell (1976) notes the search for authenticity is an
important motivation in contemporary tourism. Expanding on
MacCannell’s work, Bruner (1991) describes tourists’ desire for self-
transformation through encounters with ‘authentic’ cultures and
Galani-Moutafi (2000) explores the process of self-discovery that takes
places as tourists interact with the Other. Pearce and Moscardo (1986)
find that satisfaction with a tour is linked to tourists’ search for authen-
ticity. As can be seen, authenticity has been used to describe a wide
E.H. Cohen / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 193–209 195

range of tourist experiences, and several researchers have sought to


clarify the meanings of the term. Selwyn (1996) differentiates between
‘cool’ authenticity, which relates to cognitive knowledge about objects
or experiences and ‘hot’ authenticity, describing an emotional ‘alien-
ation-smashing’ experience. Similarly, Wang (1999) differentiates
between authenticity which is objective (such as museum artifacts),
symbolic (socially constructed symbols of authenticity) and existential
authenticity (providing the tourist with an authentic sense of Being).
Taking a different view of the issue, Andriotis (2009) defines five core
elements of authenticity: spiritual, cultural, environmental, secular and
educational.
Despite attempts to define it, authenticity remains an elastic concept.
Tourists’ perceptions of authenticity are affected by their social identi-
ties (Cohen, 1988; Sedmak & Mihalič, 2008; Timothy & Boyd, 2002). To
the extent that authenticity is seen as subjective, individuals may differ-
ently perceive the authenticity of a place or activity; their belief in the
authenticity of an experience or site accurately expresses their experi-
ence (Cohen, 2008b; Golomb, 1995). Following Cohen’s (1979) typol-
ogy of tourists, how close the destination site is to the tourist’s
spiritual center affects perceptions of authenticity and the meaning of
the site. The same site will be experienced differently depending on
the degree to which the tourist is psychologically and emotionally in-
volved with the events memorialized. The experience will differ for tour-
ists related to the victims, those related to the perpetrators or by-
standers, and those who are not directly related to the event (Ashworth
& Tunbridge, 1996). For tourists who have an intimate emotional
involvement with the memorialized events, dark tourism may be more
than simply ‘meaningful’; it may provide ‘peak experiences’—transient
moments of self-actualization (Maslow, 1971) or ‘flow experiences’—
recurrent moments of self-actualization occurring as one engages in
an ongoing activity (Cohen, 2008b; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). These
experiences are similar to Wang’s (1999) existential authenticity.
Returning to the issue of locational authenticity, it must be noted
that while the physical and social contexts of a site affect tourists’ per-
ceptions of its authenticity, primary sites do not ensure authenticity
and secondary sites do not preclude it. Simulations or re-enactments
at primary sites may create a feeling of inauthenticity (Boorstin,
1964; MacCannell, 1973; Stone, 2006). Memorials located at the site
of an atrocity may not enjoy the freedom to provide historical, political
and educational contextualization and interpretation of events,
(Bollag, 1999; Taum, 2005; Wight & Lennon, 2007; Williams, 2004).
Historic artifacts or testimonies of survivors at secondary sites such as
museums or memorials may provide a sense of objective authenticity
(Reisinger & Steiner, 2006; Wang, 1999). However, visiting historically
authentic sites or viewing authentic relics do not automatically provide
tourists with an experience that helps them to understand the events
which took place. Cole (2000) notes that there is an inherent risk of
distancing and objectifying the past if too much emphasis is placed
on museum displays of relics as the primary means of preserving
memory.
196 E.H. Cohen / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 193–209

Furthermore, extremely disturbing elements in primary sites may not


be appropriate for educational purposes. For example, some genocide
memorials in Rwanda have retained unburied bones and display
blood-stained stones, arguably the most authentic possible reminders
of the atrocities, but groups of schoolchildren and visiting foreigners
are not generally brought to them but rather to the Kigali Genocide
Memorial. There, traditional museum displays using text, photographs,
recorded testimonies and videos provide an ‘‘. . . encounter with some-
thing extraordinary which is nevertheless presented in a familiar way,
very professionally done, extremely moving and eloquent,’’ (Caplan,
2007, p. 20).
Although dark tourism spans a spectrum of ‘shades of darkness’
including recreational and entertaining sites (Stone, 2006; Strange &
Kempa, 2003), much dark tourism is part of a growing trend of personally
meaningful tourism (Breathnach, 2006; Novelli, 2005; Stone & Sharpley,
2008). Dark tourism is often related to tourists’ identity or heritage; for
example, African-American tourism to sites along slave trade routes
(Bruner, 1996; Dann & Seaton, 2001; Essah, 2001), or tourism to battle-
grounds and war memorials which affected one’s country or where one’s
relatives fought (Chronis, 2005; Kiesling, 2000; Slade, 2003; Williams,
2004; Winter, 2009). For populations affected by major tragedies, memo-
rials may be ‘sites of memory’ (Nora, 1998; Resnik, 2003; Winter, 1998).
To make tours to dark sites more meaningful and to enhance the
perceived authenticity of the experience, explicit and implicit educa-
tional, heritage, political and historical messages are often included
(Baker, 2009; Caplan, 2007; Yoneyama, 1999). Inclusion of an educa-
tional dimension may help distinguish meaningful dark tourism expe-
riences from recreational or voyeuristic ones. Educational elements
encourage tourists to be more ‘mindful’, which in turn increases their
satisfaction with and perceived meaningfulness of the tour (Moscardo,
1996). The motivations for visiting dark tourism sites—particularly the
‘darkest’ and most emotionally disturbing sites related to wars and
genocide—reflect a complex combination of sociological and psycho-
logical factors (Coles & Timothy, 2004; Sharpley & Stone, 2009). Sim-
ilarly, sociological factors impact the ways in which events are
presented and interpreted at different dark tourism sites.

Interpretation at Shoah Sites in Israel, Europe and the USA


There are numerous sites related to the Shoah, each with its own
style of presentation and interpretation. Various sites have distinctive
styles of presenting this darkest of issues, reflecting the viewpoints of
the four interest groups of dark tourism as defined by Seaton
(2001): subject community, host community, owners and tourists. In
this article the site is considered from the perspective of the tourists,
reflecting Sharpley and Stone’s (2009, p. 112) emphasis on the needs
of this interest group: ‘‘. . . interpretation of dark sites should . . . com-
memorate in a manner which recognizes and responds to the emotions
of potential visitors or visitor groups.’’
E.H. Cohen / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 193–209 197

Yad Vashem in Jerusalem is among the most visited sites related to


the Shoah. It was established in 1953 by mandate of the Israeli Parlia-
ment as a memorial museum, and also as a resource for continued
research and education on the Shoah. Yad Vashem (and other sites
in Israel, such as the Ghetto Fighters’ Museum) played a pioneering
role in memorializing and documenting the Shoah, establishing educa-
tional centers at a time when there were few such sites (Farago, 1982;
Resnik, 2003). The museum and archives contain many primary
sources, including original documents and objects as well as recorded
testimonies of survivors. It hosts individual tourists, group tours, school
trips, conferences and seminar programs. The extensive work invested
in creating the memorial and archives of Yad Vashem has led to its
international acclaim in the fields of research and documentation of
the Shoah.
Yad Vashem may be said to embody contemporary Israelis’ social
memories of the Shoah (Auron, 2008). The museum’s website de-
scribes the site as, ‘‘. . .the Jewish people’s living memorial to the Holo-
caust.’’ Interpretation at Yad Vashem portrays a classic Zionist theme
regarding the Shoah of ‘destruction to redemption’—perennial perse-
cution in Exile rectified by the survival of the Jewish People in an inde-
pendent state in Israel. Interpretation has undergone transformation
over the course of the past half century, reflecting changing attitudes
among the Israeli public towards the Shoah and its victims and survi-
vors (Porat, 2004; Resnik, 2003). From an early narrative which empha-
sized resistance to genocidal anti-Semitism and culminating in the
founding of the State of Israel, more subtle and complex views of
the history of the Shoah and its survivors in Israel have evolved. Yad
Vashem was conceptually designed to personify and personalize his-
tory, showing Jewish life in Europe, its destruction and its continuation
after the Shoah in Israel, with an intense focus on the individuality of
those who suffered. In recent years Yad Vashem has launched projects
to make the subject of the Shoah relevant to contemporary youth and
adults from a wide variety of backgrounds, giving more emphasis to
universal themes of the Shoah (Yad Vashem, 2010). The seminar for
European teachers is one example of such a project. Nevertheless, at
Yad Vashem there is an explicitly articulated connection between
the attempted genocide and the subsequent continuation in Israel of
the Jewish people—including but not limited to Shoah survivors. This
view is at the heart of the in populo memorial. It is expressed in various
ways by the Yad Vashem staff and teachers, and therefore impacts the
experience of the non-Jewish European tourists taking part in the sem-
inar series.
Upon leaving Yad Vashem, the tourist can see and experience mod-
ern Jewish life in the State of Israel. This is a critical aspect of the visit.
The interpretation at Yad Vashem may be contrasted with tours to
Shoah-related sites in Europe and in the USA. Sites in Europe such
as former concentration and death camps offer the ‘darkest’ experi-
ence due to their ‘locational authenticity’ (Miles, 2002, p. 1177). This
is undeniably a critical aspect. Jewish tourism to Shoah sites in Europe
represents a type of pilgrimage (Kugelmass, 1994). A growing number
198 E.H. Cohen / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 193–209

of Israeli students (essentially all of whom previously visited Yad Vas-


hem) participate in pilgrimage-tours to sites in Poland (Cohen, 2009;
Feldman, 2001, 2008; Vargen, 2008). However, many of the Shoah-re-
lated sites in Eastern Europe are owned, maintained and guided by lo-
cal non-Jewish populations and their relationship to the sites and their
history may be ambiguous, as they struggle with their memories and so-
cial representations of the Shoah era (Ashworth, 2002; Beech, 2000;
Huener, 2001; Macdonald, 2006; Rosenthal, 1998). Tourists to Shoah
sites in Eastern Europe experience a society in which Jewish life essen-
tially no longer exists, making presentation of the issue of the Shoah
particularly difficult (Gruber, 2002; Hartmann, 2005). Marcuse sug-
gests that while memorials at former concentration camps play a cru-
cial role in preserving the memory of the Shoah, they may not be
the most appropriate places for Shoah education: ‘‘. . .memorial si-
tes. . .should draw especially on their unique strength, namely the emo-
tional appeal of a genuine historical site with authentic remains, and
leave most of the intellectual learning for other, more suitable, situa-
tions’’ (Marcuse, 2001, p. 391).
Additionally, primary sites in Europe do not automatically provide
the necessary interpretation to help tourists understand the events that
transpired there. For example, no memorial has been established at
Babi Yar, a ravine in the Ukraine where over 100,000 people (mainly
Jews) were killed in 1941 by the SS-trained Einsatzgruppe squads (Epstein
& Rosen, 1997); a tour to this site is not educational and gives no insight
into the people who lived in the area and were killed there.
In the United States, home to millions of Jews, a number of Shoah
memorials and museums have been established which do effectively
and powerfully inform tourists about the magnitude of the Shoah
and its historical context. Shoah museums in the USA often include
certain in populo features, such as recorded testimonies, talks by and
with survivors and even tours guided by survivors or their descendents
(Saulny, 2009). However, the interpretation of the events they present
differs from that at Yad Vashem. Here a few examples of Shoah muse-
ums in the USA (not meant to be exhaustive) are cited as illustrations.
Extensive Shoah-related exhibits at the Jewish Museum in New York
City highlight post-war Jewish life in America, although in recent years
Israel’s role in post-Shoah Jewish life has begun to be addressed also.
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC
embodies an American ethos of democracy, universal values and rights
of the Other (Flanzbaum, 1999). The presentation at the Los Angeles
Museum of the Holocaust (2010) is less personal that that at Yad Vas-
hem, as stated on their website: ‘‘The Los Angeles Museum of the
Holocaust presents the history of the Holocaust as objectively as possi-
ble. For this reason its exhibits present as many original artifacts as pos-
sible and display them in a way that allows them to tell the individual
stories they contain.’’ This museum also presents a narrative of various
populations who suffered at the hands of the Nazis including, in
addition to Jews, the Roma people, homosexuals, Catholics, disabled
people, and those who resisted the Nazis.
E.H. Cohen / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 193–209 199

Yad Vashem intentionally and explicitly offers a distinctly different


approach to learning about the Shoah. One factor in this is that at
Yad Vashem, the four interest groups are linked in terms of identity:
victims of Shoah (subject community), Israelis (host community), the
State of Israel (owners), and the Diaspora and Israelis Jews tourists
who make up a large percentage of the museum’s visitors. Thus, inter-
pretation at Yad Vashem is from a Jewish perspective, and the narrative
is one of the victimized people telling their own story. While the cur-
rent case deals with a population of non-Jewish tourists, the presenta-
tion at the museum is largely geared towards people with a personal
link to the Shoah; for example, the Hall of Names provides a place
for family members to record personal details about victims. Programs
like the seminar series discussed in this article include planned
encounters with Israelis—not only Shoah survivors and their descen-
dants—as part of the curriculum. It is these elements which indicate
the in populo nature of the site.

STUDYING THE SHOAH IN JERUSALEM


Study Methods
In 2005–2006, a survey was conducted among participants in a series
of seminars lasting 7 to 10 days, hosted by the International School for
Holocaust Studies at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. The survey had two par-
allel aspects: one was primarily evaluative; the other was a sociological
inquiry of the program. This article deals with the latter aspect. The
seminars were attended by over 300 teachers interested in being part
of a network of European Shoah studies teachers. The seminars in-
cluded workshops and lectures, tours of the Yad Vashem campus and
instruction in use of the museum’s resources, tours of Jerusalem, time
with Israeli hosts, and leisure activities. The main topic was history of
the Shoah and anti-Semitism in Europe. The seminars included lec-
tures and discussion of Jewish life in post-WWII Europe, particularly
in participants’ home countries. Additionally, participants explored
Jewish life in contemporary Israel (primarily through visits with Israelis
and tours) and discussed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Questionnaires in six languages were distributed to participants at
the end of each seminar. A total of 272 questionnaires were collected
from participants in 14 different seminars. This represents almost the
entire population of participants in the seminar program. Additionally,
the study included 17 discussion groups of three participants each and
telephone interviews with 15 seminar alumni after they returned to
their homes.
During the course of the study and the analysis of the survey re-
sponses, it became increasingly apparent that the location of the sem-
inar in Jerusalem was a key feature of the experience for the
participants. In particular, the qualitative aspects of the study (inter-
views, observations and focus groups) brought out the importance of
the location to the participants.
200 E.H. Cohen / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 193–209

The Survey Population


Participants came from over a dozen different European countries
(Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Liechtenstein, Lithuania,
Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden and the United Kingdom).
They were for the most part primary and secondary school teachers of
history, civics, religion, literature, and art. Over half were currently
teaching Shoah studies at their schools. Slightly less than half were in-
volved in other Shoah-related projects, such as leading trips to museums
or Shoah sites. Some held teaching certificates, others completed PhD
degrees. They ranged in age from 20 to 74 (two thirds were between 30
and 50 years old). Women outnumbered men nearly two-to-one. Almost
none of the teachers were Jewish. Their personal connection to the
Shoah varied: some had victims, perpetrators or even both in their fam-
ilies; others had no family connection whatsoever to the Shoah.

RESULTS
Dark Pilgrimages and the Search for Authentic Meaning
The survey results indicate that participants were searching for a
meaningful dark tourism experience, which, to a large degree, they
found in their seminar at Yad Vashem. Over 90% of the seminar par-
ticipants declared that study of the Shoah influences their outlook
on the world, and well over half said that it ‘definitely’ does. Further-
more, virtually all participants agreed that the Shoah has universal
meaning. This indicates that the visit to Yad Vashem is not only related
to the particular historical event, in which participants’ families may or
may not have been directly involved, but is part of an exploration of
broader, more fundamental issues.
The majority of participants were satisfied with the quality of the pro-
gram. The overwhelming majority of participants said their under-
standing of issues such as the history of the Shoah, pedagogy of
teaching the Shoah, Israel, Judaism and attitudes about the Shoah in
their home culture expanded as a result of the seminar. At the same
time, they found it emotionally difficult. Participants who said they
were ‘very satisfied’ with the program, found it ‘definitely’ met their
expectations and said they would ‘definitely’ recommend it to others,
were also the most likely to say they found the program emotionally dif-
ficult. In other words, tourists who were emotionally moved by the pre-
sentation at Yad Vashem got more out of the program.
Interviews with the seminar participants indicated that many of them
were struggling with personal issues related to the Shoah and with is-
sues in their classrooms such as denial of the Shoah and re-emergent
anti-Semitism, controversy surrounding the State of Israel, the rights
of minority groups, and discussions of subsequent instances of geno-
cide. Virtually all participants (over 95% in each case) indicated an
interest in learning about and discussing their country’s role in the
Shoah and the older generation’s role in WWII, Jewish populations
of their country, history of anti-Semitism, and the ongoing Israeli-
E.H. Cohen / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 193–209 201

Palestinian conflict. Over three quarters were interested in theological


implications of the Shoah.
Participants from various countries expressed significantly different
reactions to the seminar, reflecting their previous exposure to the
subject of the Shoah. For example, in the focus groups we noted a rad-
ical difference in the emotional experiences of German and Austrian
participants, although they both came from countries that were at
the center of the Shoah. The German participants had previously taken
part in widespread national Entschuldigung (apology or exculpation)
programs regarding the Shoah and therefore were emotionally pre-
pared to encounter the issue. Interestingly, the Polish participants also
exhibited a very high level of previous knowledge, despite the official
silence surrounding the issue under the Communist regime. In stark
contrast, many Austrian participants underwent far more emotionally
wrenching experiences at Yad Vashem, apparently confronting for
the first time some of the history of their country and even their
own families. An observer at the Austrian focus groups stated that many
participants cried during the discussions and seemed ‘emotionally
broken’ by the experience.
Participants’ responses indicate that they were searching for under-
standing and a meaningful experience related to an emotionally
difficult issue, which is close to the core of their basic worldview. This
raises a fundamental question: What is the significance of an educa-
tional tour to the Yad Vashem Shoah memorial museum in Israel for
non-Jewish European teachers?

Authenticity of Location
The fact that international tourists who are highly knowledgeable
about the Shoah chose to come to Yad Vashem and specified high
satisfaction with the experience indicates that they perceived it as a
legitimate and authentic site for learning about the Shoah. Their eval-
uations in the questionnaires and their statements in the interviews
and focus groups showed that the seminars at Yad Vashem offered a
unique opportunity for learning about the Shoah in a way that is linked
to victims and their descendents. Some participants had previously
visited concentration camps (one even worked for an organization that
arranges tours to such sites). Nevertheless, many said that the visit to
Yad Vashem broadened and expanded their understanding of the
Shoah, particularly by allowing them to learn about Jewish life prior
to and after the Shoah.
The itinerary and curriculum of the seminars at Yad Vashem in-
cluded many activities that illustrate the concept of an in populo site.
Participants met with Shoah survivors and heard their testimonies; they
toured Israel and Jerusalem, and attended workshops on the role of
the Shoah in contemporary Israeli society.
The participants were asked to suggest ways of improving the semi-
nar program. The most frequent suggestion by far was for more
encounters with Israelis in general, not only survivors or their direct
202 E.H. Cohen / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 193–209

descendents. Almost two thirds of the participants requested more


such encounters. The next most frequent request was for more tours
of Jerusalem and Israel. These recommendations show that the partic-
ipants felt learning more about the country and its people would
enhance their learning experience. The particularity of the setting
and the value of conducting the seminar in Jerusalem were emphati-
cally repeated in the discussion groups and interviews. Many partici-
pants noted that seeing Jewish life after the war is an important
aspect of understanding the social and historical context for teaching
about the Shoah. They perceived the meetings with Israelis and inter-
actions with Israeli society as an integral part of learning about the
Shoah.
Some participants suggested that activities uniquely available at the
Yad Vashem campus or in Israel should be emphasized. For example,
in several discussion groups it was suggested that meetings with Israeli
teachers and visits to Israeli schools could be organized so European
teachers could learn how the Shoah is taught in Israeli schools. In their
focus group Polish participants said that simply seeing a Shoah memo-
rial in Israel—how the issue was presented, what artwork was
included—was itself informative. In their focus group discussion, partic-
ipants from Finland remarked on the significance of Yad Vashem’s
display of the richness of Jewish life in Europe before the Shoah, rather
than the depiction of only prisoners behind barbed wire fences. One of
the groups from England discussed the importance of seeing Jewish life
today as part of the tour at Yad Vashem, in the words of one participant,
‘‘in order to really know that Hitler didn’t win.’’ This quote succinctly
summarizes responses and reactions of many of the tourists.
The testimonies of Shoah survivors were mentioned as a particularly
powerful aspect of the seminar. Interaction with the Yad Vashem staff
was noted as a central part of the experience, and teachers expressed a
desire to remain in touch with them after returning to Europe.
In addition to their exposure to the history of the Shoah and to ped-
agogical issues in teaching that history, the seminar participants re-
ported an enhanced understanding of Jewish identity and Israeli
society. As evidenced in the interviews and focus groups, the very fact
of coming to Israel deepened participants’ understanding of the Shoah
and, for some, even constituted a kind of repentance, as typified by one
Austrian participant: Her parents had been Nazis supporters and had
prevented her from visiting Israel earlier; the seminar in Jerusalem
was therefore a powerful experience related to her personal history
of the Shoah. Visiting a site in Europe would not have had the same
significance.

DISCUSSION
Authenticity of Place: In Situ and In Populo Memorial Sites
The linked identity of the host community, subject community and
owners is a key component of Yad Vashem, differentiating it from
E.H. Cohen / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 193–209 203

other Shoah memorials and impacting the experience of tourists,


whether they are Jewish or not. As they repeatedly stated, the encoun-
ter with Jewish society in contemporary Israel was a comforting remin-
der of the ultimate failure of the Nazi regime’s Final Solution. For
participants from countries that were involved in the Second World
War, and particularly for those whose families were directly involved,
the trip to Israel enabled a close encounter with the subject of the
Shoah while simultaneously providing some distance from the issue
as it confronts them at home. This is not to say that participants were
seeking to ignore the realities of their home countries’ role; as noted
earlier, virtually all participants agreed that it is important to learn
about the pre-war Jewish population of their home country, to discuss
their country’s part in the war, and to deal with the role of the previous
generation in their country during the war and during the Shoah.
Their comments showed that they were seeking a self-transforming
tourist experience through interaction with the Other (Bruner, 1991;
Galani-Moutafi, 2000) as it was presented by the Yad Vashem staff. In
addition to the inherent features of the site and guiding, perceptions
of authenticity of the experience at Yad Vashem were impacted by
the tourists’ socialization and prior exposure to the issue of the Shoah
in their home countries (Ashworth & Tunbridge, 1996; Cohen, 1988;
Sedmak & Mihalič, 2008; Timothy & Boyd, 2002; Wang, 1999).
The tourists who took part in the seminar series came with strong
educational background and personal and professional interest in
the subject of the Shoah. Thus they embodied two of the three criteria
for mindfulness delineated by Moscardo (1996), namely, a high level of
interest in the subject and an educational motive (the third criteria,
low level of fatigue, may be problematic among international tourists).
As Moscardo (1996, p. 382) found, ‘‘Mindful visitors will be more likely
than mindless visitors to enjoy their visit, express satisfaction with their
visit, learn more from their visit and be interested in discovering more
about a topic or place.’’
Similarly, using Cohen’s typology of tourist experiences (1979,
p. 192), these tourists, engaged in educational dark tourism, were nei-
ther recreational nor diversionary; they seemed to be mainly experien-
tial or existential, seeking profound and meaningful experiences.
Following Selwyn’s (1996) description of authenticity as an emotional
experience, the highly emotional experiences of the participants in the
seminars at Yad Vashem were authentic. Given that the tourists who
took part in the seminar series had ongoing involvement in Shoah
studies, the seminars at Yad Vashem may have served as peak experi-
ences (Cohen, 2008b; Maslow, 1971) or flow experiences (Cohen,
2008b; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990); challenging, engaging and defining
moments in their ongoing exploration of the issue and its relationship
to their personal and social identities.
At the same time, the perception of the authenticity of studying the
Shoah at Yad Vashem should not be seen as purely subjective. The staff
at Yad Vahsem position the tour in real ‘‘. . .social and political contexts
that help to imbue it with meaning. . .’’ since ‘‘...notions of the spatial
and the social are both highly relevant in mediating tourists’ internal
204 E.H. Cohen / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 193–209

experiences,’’ (Belhassen et al., 2008, p. 685). This may be contrasted


to sites marketed as ‘‘Jewish’’ in European cities in which few if any
Jews now live (Gruber, 2002; Hartmann, 2005).
The fact that participants were highly satisfied with the seminar and
felt that it met their expectations indicates that they found it to be an
authentic experience. Seminar participants made a conscious decision
to deepen their already significant knowledge about the subject, specif-
ically at Yad Vashem, supplementing previous education and dark tour-
ism experiences in Europe. The experience touches on, to varying
degrees, each of Andriotis’ (2009) core elements of authenticity: spiri-
tual (in visiting the Holy Land for several religions), cultural (through
meeting Israelis and experiencing Israeli society), environmental
(tours of the country), secular (socialization with other teachers in
the field) and educational (the seminars).

CONCLUSION
This case is an example of how meaning is transmitted at an in populo
site through interaction between people-based and environmental
experiences. The results of this study indicate that Yad Vashem was per-
ceived by the European tourists as an authentic site for study of the
Shoah. To define Yad Vashem as a ‘secondary’ site fails to accurately
describe its nature in terms of consciousness or identity. Geographic
distance from site of the tragedy did not diminish the educational dark
tourism experience. Tourists found the Yad Vashem seminar to be
meaningful, if emotionally difficult, and the location in Israel was an
important contributing factor, according to their statements in the
questionnaires and focus groups. The staff and resources available at
Yad Vashem made the dark tourism experience highly educational;
alongside the emotional experience, participants’ cognitive under-
standing of various aspects of the subject improved significantly.
Because of its pedagogical approach and its location, Yad Vashem of-
fers a dynamic view of the ongoing implications of the Shoah, for
example through testimonies of survivors and exhibits on survivors
in Israel today. Tourists’ interest in meeting Israelis and seeing Israeli
society and their perception of the connection between these encoun-
ters and the learning experience were reinforced by Yad Vashem staff
and the seminar program. By allowing tourists to interact with survi-
vors, their descendants and others in the victimized population, this
in populo site provides an alternative to the encounter with the issue
of the Shoah presented at sites of former death camps. Encounters
with the population of victims add an ethical element to the tour. Par-
ticipants in the Yad Vashem seminars expressed a desire for encounter
with Jewish Israelis as part of their quest to understand and even atone
for the events of the Shoah.
There may be a trend in dark tourism towards including more edu-
cational and ethical considerations. In a study of tourism to WWI bat-
tlefields, Winter (2009) finds interpretation and motivations for
visiting evolved and broadened over time, from primarily memorializ-
E.H. Cohen / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 193–209 205

ing the dead to including education about the historic events and even-
tually touching on larger ethical questions. Wight and Lennon (2007)
point out that ‘‘addressing the ethical and spiritual dichotomies’’ is
critical in creating meaningful interpretation at dark tourism sites,
especially those with controversial political implications. Shoah-related
tourism in specific raises numerous ethical questions regarding inter-
pretation and presentation. This cannot be addressed fully in the scope
of the current article, but the comments of the participants in the sem-
inars indicate that they are interested in exploring the ethical and mor-
al aspects of the subject.

Interaction Between In Situ and In Populo Sites


Many seminar participants—and tourists visiting Shoah memorial
sites in Israel in general—previously visited European sites or do so
afterwards. The interaction between visits to in populo and to in situ sites
would be an interesting direction for future studies. There are a num-
ber of tours that intentionally juxtapose visits to Shoah sites in Europe
and Shoah memorials in Israel (Cohen, 2008, 2009; Vargen, 2008).
The interaction between visits to the two types of sites (as well as the
overall experiences in the different countries) has significant implica-
tions for perceptions of Israel, Jewish identity, and the Shoah (Cohen,
2008, 2009; Kelner, 2008).
The interplay between in populo and in situ sites may become a more
widespread phenomenon within dark tourism, as other populations of
victims who left the place of persecution establish museums or exhibits
to preserve the memory of their culture and historical experiences. For
example, both Armenians and Cambodians visit genocide memorials
as part of heritage pilgrimages to their homeland (Kiesling, 2000).
Additionally, immigrants and refugees from both of these populations
who have been unable to visit in situ memorials due to political or eco-
nomic restrictions have held memorial ceremonies and founded
memorial museums in other locations (Totten, 2005; Williams, 2004)
Memorial museums established by refugee populations, which collect
testimonies and memoirs of survivors may represent additional exam-
ples of in populo memorials.
An interesting avenue for future research would be to investigate the
extent to which tourists to other examples of in populo sites express a
desire or make an effort to meet members of the local population
whose tragedy is being memorialized. For example, at an exhibit of
photographs of victims of the Cambodian massacres under Pol Pot
displayed at the New York Museum of Modern Art in 1997 (a sort of
temporary dark tourism site), some visitors suggested that the exhibit
would be more meaningful and the photographs could be better
contextualized through involvement of Khmer- and Cambodian-
Americans (Hughes, 2003).
The results of the survey of European teachers studying the Shoah at
Yad Vashem in Jerusalem indicate the importance and relevance of
memorials located in places linked to the subject group—the people
who suffered the tragedy being memorialized, even if it is far from
206 E.H. Cohen / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 193–209

the actual site of the events. This study indicates that there is an inher-
ent and unique importance to learning about the Shoah in Israel, even
for those who are not part of the ‘subject group’ (that is, non-Jewish
tourists). Future studies may look at the ways in which Diaspora Jews
and Jewish Israelis perceive a visit to Yad Vashem or similar sites in Is-
rael as compared to their experiences at sites in Europe. Additionally,
this provides a theoretical basis for the concept of in populo memorials
in other cases of dark tourism.

Acknowledgements—I would like to thank Einat Bar-On Cohen for her remarks and suggestions
on a previous version of this paper and Allison Ofanansky for her editorial support. I would
also like to express my sincere appreciation for the helpful and constructive criticism offered
by the reviewers. Thanks to the staff of the ‘Yad Vashem International School for Holocaust
Studies Seminars for European Teachers’ for their continuous support in the research; The
anonymous reviewers of this journal whose remarks and suggestions helped improving the
manuscript; Allison Ofanansky and Ruth Rossing for their help in editing the text.

REFERENCES
Andriotis, K. (2009). Sacred site experience: A phenomenological study. Annals of
Tourism Research, 36(1), 64–84.
Ashworth, G. (2002). Holocaust tourism: The experience of Kraków-Kazimierz.
International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 11(4),
363–367.
Ashworth, G., & Hartman, R. (2005). Horror and human tragedy revisited. New York:
Cognizant.
Ashworth, G., & Tunbridge, J. (1996). Dissonant heritage: The resource in conflict. New
York: Wiley.
Auron, Y. (2008). The Holocaust: A central factor in the Jewish-Israeli identity. In
E. H. Cohen (Ed.), Jewish identity, values and leisure of Israeli youth
(pp. 153–160). Tel Aviv, Israel: The Kelman Center, School of Education,
Tel Aviv University, [in Hebrew].
Baker, P. (2009). Obama delivers call for change to a rapt Africa. In New York Times
11 July 2009. New York: New York Times. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/
07/12/world/africa/12prexy.html?_r=1&hpw>.
Beech, J. (2000). The enigma of Holocaust sites as tourist attractions: The case of
Buchenwald. Managing Leisure, 5(1), 29–41.
Belhassen, Y., Caton, K., & Stewart, W. (2008). The search for authenticity in the
pilgrim experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(3), 668–689.
Bollag, B. (1999). In the shadow of Auschwitz: Teaching the Holocaust in Poland.
American Educator, 23(1), 38–49.
Boorstin, D. (1964). The image: A guide to pseudo-events in America. New York: Harper
& Row.
Breathnach, T. (2006). Looking for the real me: Locating the self in heritage
tourism. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 1(2), 100–120.
Bruner, E. (1991). Transformation of self in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,
18(2), 238–250.
Bruner, E. (1996). Tourism in Ghana: The representation of slavery and the return
of the Black diaspora. American Anthropologist, 98(2), 290–304.
Caplan, P. (2007). ‘Never again’: Genocide memorials in Rwanda. Anthropology
Today, 23(1), 20–22.
Chronis, A. (2005). Co-constructing heritage at the Gettysburg storyscape. Annals
of Tourism Research, 32(2), 386–406.
E.H. Cohen / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 193–209 207

Cohen, E. (1979). A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociology, 13(2),


179–201.
Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 15, 371–386.
Cohen, E. H. (2008a). Youth tourism to Israel: Educational experiences of the diaspora.
Clevedon, UK: Channel View Publications.
Cohen, S. (2008b). Know thyself? Assimilating the classical leisure ideal, self-
actualisation, flow experience and existential authenticity. In P. Gilchrist & B.
Wheaton (Eds.), Whatever happened to the leisure society? Theory, debate and policy
(pp. 165–180). Eastbourne: Leisure Studies Association.
Cohen, E. H. (2009). Shoah education in Israeli state schools: An educational research
2007–2009. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University.
Cole, T. (2000). Selling the Holocaust, from Auschwitz to Schindler: How history is bought,
packaged and sold. London: Routledge.
Coles, T., & Timothy, D. (Eds.). (2004). Tourism, diasporas and space. London:
Routledge.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York:
Harper Collins.
Dann, G., & Seaton, A. (2001). Slavery, contested heritage and thanatourism. London:
Routledge.
Epstein, E., & Rosen, P. (1997). Dictionary of the Holocaust: Biography, geography and
terminology. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Essah, P. (2001). Slavery, heritage and tourism in Ghana. International Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 2(3 & 4), 31–49.
Farago, U. (1982). A summary of Holocaust education in Israel. Haifa: University of
Haifa, [Hebrew].
Flanzbaum, H. (Ed.). (1999). The Americanization of the holocaust. Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University.
Feldman, J. (2001). In the footsteps of the Israeli Holocaust Survivor: Israeli youth
pilgrimages to Poland, Shoah memory and national identity. In P. Daly, et al.
(Eds.), Building History: The Shoah in Art, Memory, and Myth. McGill European
Studies Series (Vol. 4, pp. 35–63). New York: Peter Lang.
Feldman, J. (2008). Above the death pits, beneath the flag: Youth voyages to Poland and the
performance of Israeli national identity. Oxford, New York: Berghahn Books.
Galani-Moutafi, V. (2000). The self and the other: Traveler, ethnographer, tourist.
Annals of Tourism Research, 27(1), 203–224.
Gerstenfeld, M. (2008). Institute for Global Jewish Affairs. Holocaust trivialization.
<http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=3&DBID=1&
LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=624&PID=0&IID=2199& TTL=Holocaust_Triv-
ialization>.
Golomb, J. (1995). In search of authenticity: From Kierkegaard to Camus. London:
Routledge.
Gruber, R. (2002). Virtually Jewish: Reinventing Jewish culture in Europe. University of
California Press.
Hartmann, R. (2005). Holocaust memorials without Holocaust survivors: The
management of museums and memorials to victims of Nazi Germany in 21st
century Europe. In G. Ashworth & R. Hartman (Eds.), Horror and human
tragedy revisited (pp. 89–107). New York: Cognizant.
Huener, J. (2001). Antifascist pilgrimage and rehabilitation at Auschwitz: The
political tourism of Aktion Suhnezeichen and Sozialistische Jugend. German
Studies Review, 24(3), 513–532.
Hughes, R. (2003). The abject artefacts of memory: Photographs from Cambodia’s
genocide. Media, Culture & Society, 25, 23–44. Reprinted in M. Abbas & J. Erni
(Eds.), Internationalizing cultural studies: An anthology (pp. 454–467). New York,
London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kelner, S. (2008). Jewish educational travel. In R. Goodman, P. Flexner, & L.
Bloomberg (Eds.), What we now know about Jewish education (pp. 423–432). Los
Angeles, CA: Torah Aura.
Kiesling, B. (2000). Rediscovering Armenia: An archaeological/touristic gazetteer and map
set for the historical monuments of Armenia. Washington, DC: Yerevan. <http://
208 E.H. Cohen / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 193–209

66.102.1.104/scholar?q=cache:9z7R2TIcsEJ:scholar.google.com/+Armenian+
diaspora,+tourism+to+Armenia&hl=en>.
Krakover, S. (2005). Attitudes of Israeli visitors towards the Holocaust remem-
brance site of Vad Yashem. In G. Ashworth & R. Hartmann (Eds.), Horror and
human tragedy revisited: The management of sites of atrocities for tourism
(pp. 108–117). New York: Cognizant.
Kugelmass, J. (1994). Why we go to Poland: Holocaust tourism as secular ritual. In
J. Young (Ed.), The art of memory: Holocaust memorials in history (pp. 174–184).
Washington, DC: Prestel.
Lennon, J., & Foley, M. (2000). Dark tourism: The attraction of death and disaster.
London, NY: Continuum.
Li, Y. (2003). Heritage tourism: The contradictions between conservation and
change. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4(3), 247–261.
Los Angeles Museum of the Holocaust. (2010). Museum Themes. <http://
www.lamoth.org/exhibitions/museum-themes/>. Sourced 16.6.10.
MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged authenticity: Arrangements of social space in
tourist settings. American Journal of Sociology, 79(3), 589–603.
MacCannell, D. (1976). The tourist: A new theory of the leisure class. New York: Schoken
Books.
Macdonald, S. (2006). Mediating heritage: Tour guides at the former Nazi party
rally grounds, Nuremberg. Tourist Studies, 6(2), 119–138.
Marcuse, H. (2001). Legacies of Dachau: The uses and abuses of a concentration camp,
1933–2001. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Maslow, A. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. Middlesex: Penguin Books.
Miles, W. (2002). Auschwitz: Museum interpretation and darker tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 29(4), 1175–1178.
Moscardo, G. (1996). Mindful visitors: Heritage and tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 23, 376–397.
Novelli, M. (Ed.). (2005). Niche tourism: Contemporary issues, trends and cases. NY and
London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Nora, P. (1998). Realms of memory. New York: Columbia University Press. [Originally
published in French as Les lieux de me´moire Paris: Gallimard (1984–1992)].
Pearce, P., & Moscardo, G. (1986). The concept of authenticity in tourist
experiences. Journal of Sociology, 22(1), 121–132.
Petrie, J. (2009). Berkeley Internet. The secular word ‘‘holocaust’’: Scholarly sacralization,
twentieth century meanings. <http://www.berkeleyinternet.com/holocaust/>.
Porat, D. (2004). From the scandal to the Holocaust in Israeli education. Journal of
Contemporary History, 39(4), 619–636.
Reisinger, Y., & Steiner, C. (2006). Reconceptualizing object authenticity. Annals of
Tourism Research, 33(1), 65–86.
Resnik, J. (2003). ‘Sites of memory’ of the holocaust: Shaping national memory in
the education system in Israel. Nations and Nationalism, 9(2), 297–317.
Rosenthal, G. (1998). The holocaust in three generations: Families of victims and
perpetrators of the Nazi regime. London and Washington: Cassell.
Saulny, S. (2009). Holocaust museum lets local voices memorialize. In New York
Times 18 April 2009.
Seaton, A. (1996). Guided by the dark: From thanatopsis to thanatourism.
International Journal of Heritage Studies, 2(4), 234–244.
Seaton, A. (2001). Sources of slavery—destinations of slavery: The silences and
disclosures of slavery heritage in the UK and US. In G. Dann & A. Seaton
(Eds.), Slavery, contested heritage, and thanatourism (pp. 107–162). Oxford:
Routledge.
Selwyn, T. (Ed.). (1996). The tourist image: Myths and myth making in tourism.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Sedmak, G., & Mihalič, T. (2008). Authenticity in mature seaside resorts. Annals of
Tourism Research, 35(4), 1007–1031.
Sharpley, R., & Stone, P. (2009). The darker side of travel: The theory and practice of dark
tourism. Channel View Publications: Bristol.
Shoham, E., Shiloah, N., & Kalisman, R. (2003). Arab teachers and Holocaust
education: Arab teachers study Holocaust education in Israel. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 19, 609–626.
E.H. Cohen / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 193–209 209

Slade, P. (2003). Gallipoli thanatourism: The meaning of ANZAC. Annals of


Tourism Research, 30(4), 779–794.
Stone, P. (2006). A dark tourism spectrum: Towards a typology of death and
macabre related tourist sites, attractions and exhibitions. Tourism: An
Interdisciplinary International Journal, 52(2), 145–160.
Stone, P., & Sharpley, R. (2008). Consuming dark tourism: A thanatological
perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(2), 574–595.
Strange, C., & Kempa, M. (2003). Shades of dark tourism: Alcatraz and Robben
Island. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(2), 386–405.
Taum, Y. (2005). Collective Cambodian memories of the Pol Pot Khmer Rouge regime.
Paper Presented at the Fifth Annual Conference of the Asian Scholarship
Foundation. Bangkok, July 25-26, 2005.
Timothy, D., & Boyd, S. (2002). Heritage tourism. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Totten, S. (2005). Does history matter? Ask the Armenians. Social Education, 69(6),
328–332.
Tumarkin, M. (2005). Traumascapes: The power and fate of places transformed by tragedy.
Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne University Publishing.
Vargen, Y. (2008). Student journeys to Poland. Jerusalem: The Knesset Center for
Research and Information.
Vashem, Yad. (2010). Transmitting Holocaust Remembrance Worldwide: 2009 Annual
Report. Jerusalem: Yad Vashem.
Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism
Research, 26(1999), 349–370.
Wight, A. (2006). Philosophical and methodological praxes in dark tourism:
Controversy, contention and the evolving paradigm. Journal of Vacation
Marketing, 12(2), 119–129.
Wight, A., & Lennon, J. (2007). Selective interpretation and eclectic human
heritage in Lithuania. Tourism Management, 28(2), 519–529.
Williams, P. (2004). Witnessing genocide: Vigilance and remembrance at Tuol
Sleng and Choeung Ek. Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 18(2), 234–254.
Winter, J. (1998). Sites of memory, sites of mourning: The great war in European cultural
history. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Winter, C. (2009). Tourism, social memory and the Great War. Annals of Tourism
Research, 36(4), 607–626.
Yoneyama, L. (1999). Hiroshima traces: Time, space, and the dialectics of memory.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Submitted 10 August 2009. Resubmitted 10 January 2010. Resubmitted 7 April 2010. Final
version 16 June 2010. Accepted 4 August 2010. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating
Editor: Jens Kr. Steen Jacobsen.

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen