ARTICLE IN PRESS
Tourism Management 28 (2007) 519–529
www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman
Reaearch article
Selective interpretation and eclectic human heritage in Lithuania
A. Craig Wight, J. John Lennon
Moffat Centre for Travel and Tourism Business Development, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, Scotland G4 0BA, UK
Received 31 October 2005; accepted 10 March 2006
Abstract
This paper examines recent controversy in Lithuania surrounding 20th century wartime tragedy with particular emphasis on
contrasting the commemoration of the mass extermination of the Jewish community and the suffering of Lithuanian Partisans during
Soviet Occupation. Comments are made on the consequences of authorities eschewing research into these areas and the consequent
implications for the modern human and tourism heritage offering that currently exists within the country. The paper postulates through
analyses of two case studies that recent tragedy in Lithuania is a newly fashioned ‘taboo’ for authorities and locals. Analysis suggests that
there are dichotomous representations of tragedy inherent in two of Lithuania’s high profile ‘dark’ tourist attractions. The paper builds
on previous literature examining the phenomenon of ‘dark tourism’. The conclusion postulates the need for an open and transparent
historical perspective on interpretation and education. These are primary considerations in promoting collective future acceptance of the
country’s past.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Lithuania; Vilnius; Dark tourism; Vilna Gaon Jewish State Museum; KGB Museum of Genocide Victims; Selective interpretation
1. Introduction
The term dark tourism was coined by Lennon and Foley
(2000) to describe the attraction of visitors to tourism sites
associated with recent and historic incidences of death and
disaster. These sites have been classified in literature
(Lennon & Foley, 2000; Smith, 1998) into ‘primary’ sites,
such as holocaust camps to sites of celebrity deaths, and
‘secondary sites’ sites commemorating tragedy and death.
It is the second category, (specifically museums associated
with tragedy and death in the Lithuanian context) that will
be examined in this paper.
Some authors who have broached the subject of dark
tourism have explored the reticence of destinations and
cultural groups to confront ‘dissonant’ or inharmonious
heritage (see for example, Dwork & Van Pelt, 1997;
Tunbridge & Ashworth, 1996). Hypotheses have been put
forward on the authenticity of the past and the visitor
experience at ‘dark’ heritage sites. Debate continues on the
management and manipulation of cultural landscapes to
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 141 331 8400; fax: +44 141 331 8411.
E-mail address: cwi2@gcal.ac.uk (A. Craig Wight).
0261-5177/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2006.03.006
accommodate tourism activity, with reference to sites
presenting death, war and tragedy inter alia to the visiting
public (for example, Beech, 2000; Wight & Lennon, 2004).
Such contention has lead to deliberation over issues such as
the management of ‘dark’ sites, interpretation of these sites
and the motivation of the visiting public (Lennon & Foley,
2000; Smith, 1998; Strange & Kempa, 2003).
The context has widened to include academic enquiry
into visitation to sites associated with the ‘dark’ side of
human nature including prisons (Strange & Kempa, 2003)
and labour camps associated with World War II. The
notion is not an entirely western one, indeed some research
has been conducted into dark heritage in non-western
countries, for example Vietnam and Cambodia (Henderson, 2000), Japan (Siegenthaler, 2002), Africa and the US
(Shackley, 2001; Strange & Kempa, 2003). This paper
extends the academic coverage of the phenomenon in the
Lithuanian context and it confirms Lithuania as a
destination with a dark heritage of invasion, genocide
and repression. It is the representation of this dark past
that forms the basis for examining two museums with
varying approaches to the representation of tragedy. The
case studies in this paper seek to present issues such as
ARTICLE IN PRESS
520
A. Craig Wight, J. John Lennon / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 519–529
management dilemmas, visitor interpretation, authenticity
and informational accuracy. The issue of ‘selective’
interpretation is examined in the context of the representation of the country’s dark past in two key museums in
Vilnius.
2. Background to Lithuania and Vilnius
The Republic of Lithuania is located in Eastern Europe
on the coast of the Baltic Sea with a population of
approximately 3.5 million (Clottey & Lennon, 2003).
Vilnius, the capital has a population of 542,287 (Vilnius
City Municipality, 2005). The Old Town of Vilnius is the
historical centre and is one of the largest in Eastern
Europe. Vilnius also represents the largest administrative centre in Lithuania comprising all major political,
economic, social and cultural centres
Lithuania gained independence (by decree of the
erstwhile German Tsar) in 1918, yet the threads of
independence began to weaken by 1939 when fascist
Germany annexed Klaipeda and the surrounding region
(Laučka, 1986). In July 1940, the country was largely
annexed by the USSR and the successive German
occupation in the years to follow eradicated the majority
(over 200,000 lives) of Lithuania’s Jewish population
(Bousfield, 2004; Lopata, 1993).
Following the devastation wreaked by World War II the
nation found itself on the brink of physical annihilation.
The period following the war saw Soviet domination of the
nation and its economy, with independence coming in 1991
following a long and bloody period of resistance.
3. Tourism in Lithuania
Prior to independence from the Russian Federation in
1991, tourism in Lithuania followed traditional patterns of
centrally planned leisure activity. During this period
Lithuania was part of the larger, centrally planned Soviet
economy which revolved around 5-year state plans.
Patterns of tourism in centrally planned economies have
been well documented (Hall, 1991; Shaw, 1979). A strong
emphasis was placed on spa and sanatorium based leisure
which Lithuania was naturally positioned to benefit from,
and subsequent resort development of spa facilities at
Birstonas and Druskininkai occurred. Other planned
activities included state organised group tours and excursions focussed around the capital, Vilnius, and the Baltic
Sea resorts at Palanga and Klaipeda.
Lithuanian hotel and sanatoria stock which were
developed by the state in the period 1950–1975 and have
seen deterioration and dating of facilities following
independence. However, many of these facilities remain
in use although levels of service, quality and maintenance
are all problematic.
After independence in 1991 the most significant growth
has been in tourism visits to the capital, Vilnius, and this
follows a development pattern for such emergent destina-
tions which sees tourism development concentrated in this
way (Lennon, 1996). These cities provide ideal short break
destinations for leisure tourists and their government and
administrative functions serve to catalyse business tourism.
Consequently, like Estonia and Latvia to the north,
Lithuania is progressing with capital city bias in tourism
development. Meanwhile, other parts of the country are
struggling to preserve identity and maintain even domestic
levels of visitation. Many of the problems discussed by
Jaakson (1996) in the context of Estonia in relation to
overdevelopment of the capital and its heritage areas have
clear parallels to Vilnius.
3.1. Tourism growth and the stabilisation of the Lithuanian
economy
The growth in tourism in Lithuania has followed the
economic reforms undertaken since independence and the
transition towards market economy. Lithuania inherited
the complicated legacy of over 50 years of Central Soviet
planning and in 1991, upon independence the Russian
Federation introduced massive increases to the prices of
energy and raw materials exported to Lithuania the result
was hyper-inflation, downturns in living standards and a
decline in industrial output. A programme of economic
stabilisation, privatisation and free market reform helped
create a supportive environment for the introduction of
monetary policy and the reintroduction of the Lita which
was pegged to the Euro in 2002. Privatisation has resulted
in the transfer of state assets to the private sector via
voucher schemes and cash sales. In addition, agricultural
land is now 40–50% privately owned although significant
hardship remains in this sector (Baltic Database, 2002).
Tourism constitutes one of the fastest developing growth
areas of the economy. There are currently over 600 firms
involved in tourism contributing some 5–6% of Lithuanian
GDP (Lithuanian National Tourism Statistics, 2004). The
benefits of EU membership have done much to raise the
profile of the Baltic States. Lithuania is likely to see major
development of the capital, with slower development in the
rural and coastal municipalities.
This paper will examine the emergent destination of
Vilnius and how this new and relatively dynamic city
economy is dealing with its past. The visitor attractions
of the capital underlie and reaffirm the country’s history
from the magnificence of the baroque old town, to the
remains of the Jewish ghetto.
4. Methodology of Museum analysis–the context of Vilnius
The following sections present explanatory case studies
of two museums which can be considered ‘dark attractions’. Each is concerned with providing access to
collections that can be fundamentally identified as ‘dark’.
Managing such sites of human atrocity can be contentious,
particularly when the atrocity is recent and management
decisions must be made whilst the survivors and relatives of
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Craig Wight, J. John Lennon / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 519–529
the victims are still coming to terms with the event. The
Vilna Gaon Jewish State Museum is juxtaposed alongside
the Genocide Museum to expose differing approaches to
managing the commemoration of Lithuanian tragedy.
Analyses of such approaches to managing ‘dark’ pasts
have been commodiously concerned with ‘mega’ dark
attractions such as Auschwitz (Beech, 2000) and The
Holocaust Museum in Washington (in the context of land
mark cultural museums) by Lennon and Foley (2000).
Thus, the cultural and management contexts of these
Lithuanian dark sites are examined to identify the extent to
which public perceptions of the issues addressed in the
museums are crucial considerations for managers.
Explanatory case study design has been selected with
cognisance of Yin’s (1994) categories of data collection (see
below). Crucial to the content of the case studies is the
presentation and analysis of publications available from
each museum which offer opposing views and accounts of
events associated with the Holocaust. Of further importance are the interviews which were conducted with senior
staff from each museum which provide some comprehension of management approaches adopted in each museum.
Six important types of data can be collected in order to
present a robust case study. Yin (1994) classified these as
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Documents
Archived records
Interviews
Direct observation
Participant observation, and
Artefacts
The multi-modal approach for the two case studies
presented in this paper considers the first, second, third,
and sixth of these categories. As far as possible, an
objective approach has been adopted with cognisance of
the need to present conclusions based on factual evidence
from sources including museum promotional literature,
interviews with senior staff and experience from visitation.
Like most research, qualitative document analysis is
interpretive and can allow for instances of certain meanings
and identification of emphases which can be used for
demonstration. Altheide (2000, p. 291) lists six steps to
follow in order to carry out systematic analysis:
(1) Pursue a specific problem to be investigated.
(2) Become familiar with the process and context of the
information source.
(3) Become familiar with examples of relevant documents,
noting the format in particular. Select a unit of analysis,
for example, each article.
(4) List several items or categories to guide data collection
and draught a protocol (data collection sheet).
(5) Test the protocol by collecting data from several
documents.
(6) Revise the protocol and select several additional cases
to further refine the protocol.
521
These steps were proximately adhered to in the case
studies to follow. For example, a number of English guide
books and museum publications were analysed (some
revealing conspicuously contrasting accounts of the past)
satisfying points 3 and 6 of Altheide’s recommendations.
Additionally, to facilitate analysis and to simplify reference
the authors produced summary tables which are based on
interviews and documentary analyses and their emerging
meta-typologies. As Zonabend (1992) points out, explanatory case studies should incorporate the views of the
‘actors’ in the case under study. These tables are based on
the views of key management figures from each museum
and they conclude each case study section, summarising
themes and the ways in which these themes are manifest in
each museum environment.
The two museums, the Vilna Gaon Lithuanian State
Jewish Museum and the Museum of Genocide Victims are
relevant within the evolving paradigm of ‘dark’ attractions
which have so far been categorised as western tourist
attractions associated with, and addressing issues of war,
death and disaster. The methodology selected includes
textual analysis of books, photographs and illustrations
and E-mail correspondence (in the case of the Vilna Gaon
Lithuanian State Jewish Museum), in addition to written
text in the form of publications and news letters purchased
or obtained from each museum. Interviews were also
conducted with senior figures from each site. The Academic
Secretary of the Vilna Gaon Lithuanian State Jewish
Museum agreed to an interview, as did the director of the
KGB Museum of Genocide Victims.
In terms of methodological limitations, language has
presented as the greatest barrier to penetrating Lithuanian
societal discourse surrounding the role of the two
museums, and the historical events they represent. Interviews, guide books and other written and spoken records
have been interrogated in English and the caveat must
therefore be that there has been be no analysis of the
discursive formations surrounding both museums.
5. The centrality of dark tourism and methodological
concepts
Academic commentary and interest in dark tourism may
have its origins in the work of Tunbridge and Ashworth
(1996), Dwork and Van Pelt (1997) and Lennon and Foley
(2000). These authors (and subsequent contributors) have
researched the reluctance of destinations and cultural
groups to confront dissonant or inharmonious heritage
(Wight, 2006) and they have contextualised and defined the
importance of authenticity and visitor experiences at ‘dark’
heritage sites. The management and manipulation of
cultural landscapes towards accommodating tourism interest has been a persistent topic in related academia.
Contention has lead to debate over contemporary management issues related to the presentation of ‘dark’ sites using
various interpretative techniques.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
522
A. Craig Wight, J. John Lennon / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 519–529
Previous work (Wight & Lennon, 2004) has outlined the
centrality of interpretation in the context of museums
concerned with the commemoration of ‘dark’ history. The
methodology adopted in Wight and Lennon (2004)
combined questionnaire design with covert participant
observation. Other methods that have been tested in
academic enquiry into dark tourism have been predominantly qualitative (Wight, 2006). These have included
semiotic and discourse analyses (Siegenthaler, 2002), semistructured interviews and overt observation (Lennon &
Foley, 2000) and ethnography (Smith, 1998). The methods
have been applied to large units of analysis (for example, in
the case of Smith’s ethnography) and to individual tourism
operations of ‘dark’ interest (for example, Beech, 2000).
This methodology seeks to combine interviews, observation and qualitative document analysis in the case study
context. These exploratory (grounded) case studies analyse
management issues and widen the meta-analysis of dark
tourism to include the Baltic States, a region rich in
dissonant heritage.
(2001, p. 1) calls for clarification and further exploration of
this complex past in arguing that:
This is a difficult and painful theme from what seems to
be a distant past. But history is such that problems do
not vanish nor disappear with time, and the need to
record past events becomes even more urgent as the
number of participants and witnesses decreases. Sooner
or later the truth has to be faced and events must take
their rightful place in the historical process.
7. Case study 1—the Vilna Gaon Lithuanian State Jewish
Museum
7.1. Location and background
The main branch of the Vilna Gaon State Jewish
Museum (henceforth, VGM) is near the centre of Vilnius
on 12 Pamenkalnio Street (presented as Fig. 1). This is the
‘Holocaust Museum’ and is situated off the main
thoroughfare with limited signage (there is only one sign
visible from the street).
The museum houses exhibitions in four other locations:
6. Interpretation in the commemorative environment
Interpretation is the primary means by which museums
communicate with visitors and it is through interpretation
that memory and audience engagement becomes selective
and syncretic. As Ham and Krumpe (1996, p. 2) argue:
Interpretation, by necessity, is tailored to a noncaptive
audience—that is, an audience that freely chooses to
attend or ignore communication content without fear of
punishment, or forfeiture of rewardy Audiences of
interpretative programmes y freely choose whether to
attend and are free to decide not only how long they will
pay attention to communication content but also their
level of involvement with it.
Interactivity and innovative exhibitory techniques are
central to the entertainment experience within the museum
environment and can bring the visitor closer to the
‘experience’, however spurious the authenticity of this
experience may be. Interpretation in this sense is the sum
and substance of commemoration and can have various
impacts on audiences, often based on the political or
cultural agendas of host destinations and managers. As
Hollinshead (1999) argues, tourism is a means of production whereby the themes and sites viewed are cleverly
constructed narratives of past events which can manipulate
tourists to become involved in configurations of political
power.
The following exploratory case studies introduce evidence of such conflicting political and cultural agendas in
the context of Vilnius, Lithuania. The management of
interpretation and memorial is analysed with implications
for future collective acceptance of the eclectic ‘dark’ past
projected through the museum environment. Atamukas
The Jewish Community Centre at Pylimo Street
comprising various exposition halls.
The Paneriai Holocaust Memorial which opened in 1960
to commemorate victims of mass killings during the
Second World War. It is located on the actual site of the
killings.
The Tolerance Centre at Naugarduko Street.
The Jacques Lipchitz Gallery in Druskininkai.
The Jewish Museum, as an institution caring for Jewish
culture and traditions has featured significantly in 20th
century Lithuanian heritage. The first Jewish Museum was
founded in 1913 (Vilna Gaon State Jewish Museum
(VGM), 2005), and was the result of the efforts of the
Society of Lovers of Jewish Antiquity. These activities
Fig. 1. The Holocaust Museum exhibition, or ‘Green House’.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Craig Wight, J. John Lennon / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 519–529
along with the development of the museum were abruptly
halted by the outbreak of the First World War in 1914. The
Jewish Museum was re-established in 1920 and on the eve
of the Second World War the museum housed over 3000
objects and some 6000 books as well as numerous artefacts,
letters, memoirs, photographs and newspaper issues
(VGM, 2005).
When Lithuania was annexed by the Soviet Union in
1940, the VGM was put under the control of the Peoples
Commissariat (Ministry) of Education and lost its independent status before being handed over to Soviet
Lithuania’s Academy of Science (VGM, 2005). A great
number of Jewish institutions were liquidated around this
time and Jewish communities, along with the Hebrew
language ceased to exist with staff and leaders from many
Jewish institutions being either arrested, or dismissed
(VGM, 2005).
7.2. The Holocaust exhibition
The Holocaust Museum (or ‘Green House’) introduces
visitors to Jewish history and houses a collection of
documents containing details of the Holocaust in Lithuania, amongst these are documents from commanders in the
‘Einsatzgruppen’ reporting on the results of their activities.
As well as documentation, the museum holds permanent
exhibitions on the Holocaust, long forgotten posters of the
Ghetto Theatre, numerous models and photographs of the
Great Synagogue, Purim dolls and other historical
memorabilia (VGM, 2005). There is also a section of the
museum honouring ethnic Lithuanians who rescued and
hid Jews from their German captors during the time of the
Holocaust.
Some members of staff in this building are either first or
second generation survivors of the Nazi Holocaust, or are
directly descended from survivors. Their collective research
has resulted in numerous publications, including a listing of
Vilnius Ghetto prisoners, a guide to the Jewish community
in Vilnius restorations of historical memory and the
assembling of a Judaic library. The museum is featured
on the Jewish Art Network, an international Internet art
gallery which assists the VGM in terms of heightened
coverage of their robust collection of Jewish art work
(VGM, 2005).
7.3. Visitation
The VGM (at the time of writing) has begun to collect
data on visitors, and reportage of this data is published in
the museum’s periodical news letter. An Excerpt from the
December 2004 edition is shown in Fig. 2.
These figures are based on the results of data collection
undertaken by staff at the three branches of the museum:
The Holocaust Museum, the exhibitions at the Pylimo
Street address and the Ponar branch comprising Paneriai
Memorial. Visitors to the Tolerance Centre are not
included since this was closed during most of 2003
523
Fig. 2. Visitors categorised by origin (source: VGM, 2004).
(VGM, 2004). Total visitor figures for 2003 based on data
collection at the three main sites total 12,500 from some 44
different countries. The museum estimates (VGM, 2004)
that they are commonly visited by historians, politicians,
public figures, students and Lithuanian school pupils and
many who seek information on genealogy or specific,
personal information. A clear peak season is identifiable as
late July through August with visitation dipping significantly during the months of December and January.
Various Lithuanian schools, colleges and other social
institutions who had been invited to the museum to learn
about the Holocaust and contemporary Jewish culture had
replied declining such invitations. It is over-speculative to
form any conclusion on the basis of these observations, yet
it is worthy of consideration given the superficial level of
visitation by ethnic Lithuanians to the museum. Other
factors to consider are the lack of signage, the lack of
marketing campaigns and the elusiveness of the museum’s
branches (there are in fact five, yet these are not
consistently advertised in tourist informational sources).
7.4. Interpretation and the presentation of tragedy
The museum has existed (in its present state and
location) for 14 years and exhibitions and artefacts are
reflective of stagnant and dated techniques. Narrative is
predominantly in Lithuanian with limited English translation. Signage and artefacts are preserved in casing or
behind protective covers and there is no use of interactive
technology.
One of the primary targets for upgrading is the
‘Catastrophe’ (Holocaust) Exhibition yet this work is
progressing slowly due to a lack of funding (VGM,
2003). The majority of the exhibits within the Holocaust
Museum are photos, documents, art and sculpture which
combine to:
yreveal the terror of the Holocaust, life in the Ghettos
and (to reflect upon) armed and spiritual Jewish
resistance in Lithuania (VGM, 2004).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Craig Wight, J. John Lennon / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 519–529
524
Some improvements to the interpretation of the former
Jewish Ghetto in Vilnius have been developed in 2005
including narrative and signage surrounding key buildings
and historical landmarks in the area.
The museum’s academic secretary asserts that the aim of
the museum is to develop historical consciousness of
Lithuanian society, distorted under Soviet Rule. As an
excerpt from a VGM promotional leaflet notes:
The absence of knowledge about history, culture and
annihilation of Lithuania’s once largest minority, the
Jewish people, has resulted in misleading stereotypes
(VGM, 2004).
Through the analysis of museum literature and interviews with the Academic Secretariat, it can be concluded
that the museum management perceive their role as the
primary centre of historical expertise on Jewish life and its
revival in Lithuania. They also attach value to education,
access to collections and organising awareness activities
based on Jewish life in Lithuania.
7.5. Summary
Table 1 provides a summary of interpretation through
the representation of various themes which the museum
tackles. The themes presented were identified by the
academic secretary as key elements that the museum
Table 1
Representation of themes by the Vilna Gaon Lithuanian State Jewish
Museum
Theme
Representation
Holocaust/human suffering
Permanent exhibitions of
Artefacts including bones of victims
Photographs (including themes, such as
children and the Holocaust)
Documentation (of Nazis and of Jewish
victims)
Paneriai Memorial (the site of mass
executions of Jews on the outskirts of
Vilnius
A celebration of Jewish
culture and heritage
Travelling exhibitions
Artwork, including the Jewish Art
Network Internet galleries
Conferences
Education for schools/other institutions
and the wider public
Jewish culture and the
future
Publications
Seminars
Education
‘Living History’
Walking tours
Paneriai Memorial
Artwork
tackles as an institution. The representation of these
themes is grounded in observations made during visitation.
The interpretation within the museum assumes a knowledge of the crimes committed against Lithuanian Jews in
the vicinity and outskirts of Vilnius, and the chronological
sequence in which they took place. However the balance of
interpretation is clearly different to that found in the KGB
museum as noted in the second case study. The Holocaust
is presented as a Jewish tragedy as opposed to a Lithuanian
one and much of the interpretation points to Lithuanian
Nazi collaborators including policemen, doctors and other
professionals. It is this ‘real’ interpretive setting that the
manager believes may repel indigenous Lithuanian visitors,
who may prefer to avoid any level of engagement with the
issues presented.
The most interesting observation from Fig. 2 (visitation)
is that Lithuanian ethnic visitors to the museum are less
represented than visitors from other European countries. It
has been argued and reviewed earlier in this paper (Puisyte,
1997) that collaboration between German Nazis and ethnic
Lithuanians during the war occurred frequently, yet
politicians, and other authoritative stakeholders are only
now beginning to broach this subject with trepidation. The
museum representative interviewed during this study
suggested that there may be some sense of collective guilt
and apathy amongst locals surrounding engagement with
the umbrageous issue of the Holocaust. Indeed, at one
stage in the interview it was commented that local people
who had spoken on the subject of (non) visitation had
intimated that they felt it may be ‘inappropriate’ to visit
such a museum.
8. Case study 2—the Museum of Genocide Victims (KGB)
8.1. Location and background
The building is positioned on the outskirts of the Old
Town of Vilnius overlooking the former Lukiskiu Aikste,
or ‘Lenin Square’. A statue of Lenin once stood in the
centre of this square pointing towards the museum, its
main purpose being to serve as a palpable warning of the
fate that awaited those who opposed the Soviet regime. The
statue was ceremoniously removed in 1991 after a failed
coup which precipitated the final break up of the Soviet
Union and can now be found in Grutas Park (Bousfield,
2004).
The square on which the Museum of Genocide Victims
(henceforth MGV) is situated has played a long and
infamous role in the history of Vilnius and is a particularly
relevant location for a museum themed on Soviet occupation. After the 1863–64 local uprising against the Russians,
a number of rebels were publicly hanged in the square and
it was later the site of a number of atrocities committed by
Soviets on Lithuanian nationals.
The MGV building was initially built to serve as the city
court house (Bousfield, 2004) and during the first Soviet
occupation of Lithuania in 1940 it was taken over by the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Craig Wight, J. John Lennon / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 519–529
8.2. Visitation
Statistics on visitors were not available at the time of
visitation, however subsequent E-mail correspondence with
a senior specialist of the museum provided some basic
figures. These are presented as Figs. 3 and 4 which outline
visitation statistics and visitor profiles from 2003 and 2004,
respectively.
In 2003 the museum received 12,248 visitors and of these
5787 (47%) were part of a group. Of the groups, 2940 (or
50%) were schoolchildren representing half of all group
visitors. The year 2004 saw an increase of 12% with visitor
numbers totalling 13,864. Of these, 42% were part of an
organised group, and 41% of group visits were schoolchildren touring as part of a group. In 2004 staff conducted
351 tours of the museum, and of these tours, 169 were for
schoolchildren.
Visitation to the Museum of Genocide Victims 2003
53
Percentage
52
51
Visits made as
part of a group
Visits made alone
Visits made as part of a
group
50
49
48
Visits made
alone
47
46
Visitor type
Fig. 3. Visitation to the Museum of Genocide Victims in 2003 broken
down into group and individual visits.
Visitation to the Museum of Genocide Victims 2004
70
Visits made as
part of a group
Visits made alone
60
Percentage
NKVD (the former name for the KGB). The following
year the building became a Gestapo headquarters during
the German occupation and more recently (from 1944) it
played host to incarcerated political prisoners who were
held and subjected to various physical and psychological
torture techniques in the basement (Bousfield, 2004). The
building remained as a KGB headquarters until 1991
(shortly after independence).
The MGV as it exists now was established by order of
the Minister of Culture and Education and the President of
the Union of Political and Deportees in October 1992.
Later, in 1997, the museum was renovated and in March of
the same year the Government handed all rights to the
museum over to the Genocide and Resistance Research
Centre of Lithuania with whom ownership has remained
ever since. The museum houses a collection of artefacts,
documents and photographs themed on repression against
Lithuanians by the occupying Soviet regime between 1940
and 1990 (MGV, 2004). Material on display is related to
anti-Soviet and anti-Nazi resistance, information on
partisans struggling for freedom and victims of what the
museum refers to as genocide.
525
50
Visits made as part of a group
Visits made
alone
40
30
20
10
0
Visitor Type
Fig. 4. Visitation to the Museum of Genocide Victims in 2004 broken
down into group and individual visits.
8.3. The main exhibition
One of the most notable features of the MGV is the
exterior brickwork of the building upon which are etched
the names of various victims of KGB interrogation and
murder. However, this feature does not overshadow the
strikingly controversial selection of provocative and
macabre exhibits to be found within the building. Interpretation in the museum takes the form of raw and stark
photographs (many of slain partisans), prison cells
(apparently untouched since the last KGB officers evacuated the building) clothing and technology, documents
and audio commentary in the form of cassette-guided
tours. Lennon and Foley (2000) commented on the issues
of authenticity in examining touristic re-enactments of the
last car journey of President John F. Kennedy and exhibits
on show (in and around the sixth floor of the Dallas Book
Depository) related to his death. The authors noted the
inability of the visitor to be certain that the objects,
documents and other artefacts on display were authentic.
The same can be said for the MGV, however, during
visitation the authors of this paper were permitted to view
a developing exhibition on the second floor of the building
(now open) which the museum Director insisted had not
been altered since the KGB left the building in 1992.
Interpretation in this respect is stark and uncomplicated
and there is some use of basic contemporary exhibitory
techniques, such as audio-visual equipment.
The exhibition comprised basement cells and a further
section presenting exhibits of the dark history of Lithuania
between 1940 and 1941, the history of armed resistance
between 1944 and 1953 and acts of repression carried out
by Soviets. E-mail correspondence from the museum
advises that a third section of the museum will be opened
to the public in late 2005. This will present themes of
prisons and deportation and KG activity between 1954 and
1991. The prison remains largely preserved in its pre-1991
state and visitors can expect to see the rooms of the duty
officer, the search and finger printing rooms, a padded cell
where prisoners were tortured, solitary confinement cells
ARTICLE IN PRESS
526
A. Craig Wight, J. John Lennon / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 519–529
and some 19 detention cells. Temporary thematic exhibitions operate in some cells (MGV, 2003) such as ‘The
Armed Resistance’. Over 220,000 volumes of documents
were discovered in the building relating to KGB activity
(MGV, 2003) and these have been placed in the Special
Archives of Lithuania (LYA).
The retelling of events through such interpretation is
commented on in Lennon and Foley (2000, p.78) with
reference to the commemoration of the death of President
Kennedy in the USA. The authors comment (of interpretation found across three commemorative ‘Kennedy’
sites) that:
In projecting visitors into the past, reality has been
replaced with omnipresent simulation y thus the real is
confined in pure repetition.
Such is the case with the MGV tour that directs and
coerces the visitor towards a conclusion that is based on a
sanitised section of history that is part of a more complex
series of events.
8.4. Interpretation and the presentation of tragedy
The cassette-narrated tour of the museum offers
commentary on the basement (prison cell) section of the
museum. Each cell presents a different exhibitory theme
including the detention cell which was where arrested
prisoners were initially placed before interrogation began.
Most of the cells still contain the original pre-1991 beds
and furniture, and some still display graffiti etched onto the
walls by prisoners. Another cell is filled with shredded
documentation of interrogation and intelligence which the
KGB did not wish to share with the public and
consequently destroyed prior to their evacuation in 1991.
The museum curator claims that this shredded documentation is authentic and that it is on display in order to
represent the KGB’s recording and subsequent censorship
of the sheer scale and volume of crimes committed against
prisoners. Various equipment and technology is on display
such as an old typewriter and communications radio
transmitter used by duty officers.
Other cells display texts and photographs of famous
prisoners who passed through (or died in) the museum.
These include the Catholic Bishop Borisevicius, shot in the
basement in 1946; and partisan leaders Jonas Zemaitis and
Adolfas Ramanauskas who survived for years in the forests
of Soviet Lithuania before their capture and execution by
the KGB in the mid-1950s (Bousfield, 2004). A recent
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) report contained
an interview with former prisoner Juozas Aleksiejunas who
was tortured with sleep deprivation by the KGB just before
the end of World War II in the building as it existed then
(Lane & Wheeler, 2004). One cell in the museum remains
closed as it still contains human remains which are pending
removal. The basement is presented as the last display in
the tour and is where condemned prisoners were taken to
be shot. Indeed, the entire tour is presented as a slow
crescendo of horror, with interest and audience stimulation
increasing in direct proportion to the length of the audiotour.
8.5. Role of the museum
The MGV is a relatively young museum funded by the
Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania. The museum
marked its 10th anniversary in 2002 and has become an
established tourist attraction in Vilnius (MGV, 2003).
There is no newsletter or similar periodical available from
the museum but a promotional leaflet declares:
One of the museum’s objectives is to show the crimes of
the Soviet Regime and to immortalise the freedom
fighters and the victims of the Soviet Genocide (MGV,
2003).
Perhaps the most important role of the museum is to
maintain and extend access to the KGB basement prison
which was constructed in 1940 and remains in an excellent
state of repair. In 1999 several architects and museum staff
drew up plans for an exhibition space in the building.
Interpretation is conveyed through authenticity and preservation of artefacts and rooms. An important on-going
activity for the curators is to restore other parts of the
building, including the interrogation room and some of the
rooms where telephone calls were intercepted.
Given the museums role as an arm of the Genocide and
Resistance Research Centre, one of their objectives is to
market and distribute publications related to the themes
within the museum. A museum representative advised the
authors that four relevant books have been published in
Lithuanian and translated by Museum specialists. A
further publication (Whosoever Saves One Life) is the
only book that addresses the Holocaust. This concentrates
on what is described as the ‘brave actions’ of ethnic
Lithuanians who risked their lives to save members of the
Jewish community from their fate. There is no mention of
collaboration between Lithuanian nationals and the
occupying Nazis, a theme addressed transparently by the
VGM.
8.6. Summary
Table 2 summarises the main themes (identified by the
Museum Director) and representations (identified by the
authors’ observations) portrayed within the MGV.
The use of ‘genocide’ terminology in the MGV context is
concerning when juxtaposed with the less verbally inflated
terminology and context of the nearby Jewish Museum.
‘Genocide’ has been the subject of recent disquiet amongst
Holocaust commentators. The former Secretary-General of
Medicins Sans Frontieres comments in a recent BBC article
on genocide in Darfur (BBC, 2005) that:
The term (genocide) has progressively lost its initial
meaning and is becoming dangerously commonplace.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Craig Wight, J. John Lennon / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 519–529
Table 2
Representation of themes by the Museum of Genocide Victims (KGB)
Theme
Representation
‘Genocide’/human
suffering
Permanent exhibitions of
Artefacts, photographs, maps, texts
relating to Soviet crimes
Stark interpretation including authentic
prison cells and torture rooms
The basement execution room with
authentic artefacts and bullet holes
Amplified sense of suffering through
audio-tour with ‘high’ (or ‘low’) points
Lithuanian armed and
unarmed resistance to
Soviet Repression
First and second floor exhibitions
displaying texts, photographs and other
relevant materials
Publications available in English and
Lithuanian
Uniforms and technological displays
Education for school groups and
visitors
527
commemoration through themes, interpretation, narrative
and events. Both museums represent two distinct ‘dark’
epochs of Lithuanian history and both are esoteric in this
respect, particularly in terms of stimulating interest
amongst locals and the wider ethnic Lithuanian community. Through analysis of these sites a process of ‘selective
interpretation’ (Domic, 2000; Rowehl, 2003) emerges that
is inherent in each museum. Also referred to as ‘hot
interpretation’ (Uzzell, 1989), this has been defined as the
process of creating multiple constructions of the past
(Schouten, 1995) whereby history is never an objective
recall of the past, but is rather a selective interpretation,
based on the way in which we view ourselves in the present.
As Crang (1994, p. 341) notes:
The past is not an immutable or independent object.
Rather it is endlessly revised from our present positions.
History cannot be known save from the always
transitional presenty.there are always multiple constructions of the past.
Graham (2002, p. 2) in the context of heritage concludes:
Lithuanian solidarity and
determination
Publications including ‘Whoever Saves
‘Living History’
Authenticity of most of the rooms and
one Life’ documenting activity of
Lithuanians rescuing Jews
artefacts within the museum
Those who should use the word never let it slip their
mouths. Those who unfortunately do use it banalise it
into a validation of every kind of victimhood.
Contention surrounds the ‘appropriate’ use of such
terminology (and the absence of it in the Jewish Museum).
For example the academic secretary of the Jewish Museum
would prefer that the museum commemorate ‘vicitimisation’, ‘exploitation’ and Soviet ill-treatment rather than
using the term genocide and all that it implies. The
intimation is that a nation that collaborated in the ‘real
genocide’ (sic) of the Jewish race cannot seriously wish to
be regarded as genocide victims themselves particularly if
the crimes committed in each case are meticulously defined.
Yet visitation to the MGV is considerably higher,
suggesting that ‘genocide’ has a certain allure or affinity
for the visiting Lithuanian public and the theme of
‘celebrating Jewish history’, alone does not. This observation builds on the comments made by Siegenthaler (2002)
in noticing the constructions of victimisation and sacralisation that embed themselves in the discourses of ‘dark’ sites
depending on the cultures and communities in which they
are consumed.
9. Analysis of the museums
The above explanatory case studies present key issues
which are unique to each museum, specifically their roles in
y.if heritage is the contemporary use of the past, and if
its meanings are defined in the present, then we create
the heritage that we require and manage it for a range of
purposes defined by the needs and demands of our
present societies.
Lennon and Foley (2000) make reference to selectivity in
their observations of interpretation focussed on ‘dark’
heritage in the Channel Islands. Specifically, the authors
note the key role of the state in sending a small minority of
the British Jewish Community in the Channel Islands to
their deaths and profiting from sales of their businesses.
This aspect of British history, according to the authors
receives very little coverage in terms of interpretation.
Interpretation is instead focussed on the more acceptable
aspects of behaviour during occupation for example, on
events such as liberation and entertainment. Lennon and
Foley (2000, p.76) conclude:
Currently what exists (in terms of interpretation in
Jersey) is a selective perception and level of interpretation that is, at best, misguided and, at worst, deceptive.
A similar situation is certainly notable in Vilnius.
Collective feelings of anger, sorrow and pride (in the
nation’s ‘brave partisan’ movement) can be easily provoked through ‘genocide interpretation’ such as that found
at the MGV. The moral complexity surrounding the
section of history dealing with collaboration and the
Jewish holocaust is accentuated in the way in which this
history is now re-interpreted in the country’s ‘dark’ tourist
attractions. The selectivity is evident in most of the city’s
key museums (including the Lithuanian National Museum
which has no holocaust interpretation) and represents only
that which is easy for the host population to consume. The
idea of a country united in a bloody and prolonged
nationalist struggle against the Soviets is compromised by a
ARTICLE IN PRESS
528
A. Craig Wight, J. John Lennon / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 519–529
period of some 5 years during which the same people
turned on their Jewish neighbours. To quote a representative of the VGM:
ythese units of revolt (anti-Soviet fighters) who took
up arms to fight the retreating red armyy later, in a
week or two (sic) yturned the same guns on their
Jewish neighbours. And Jews were killed.
Central considerations in selective interpretation are
issues of cultural consumption and heritage commodification. These give rise to societal implications including the
exclusion of minority groups and problems with the ethics
of ‘selling’ the past (Domic, 2000). From the two case
studies and literature examined it is suggested that
historical interpretation in both museums is divorced
significantly from the local community and consequently,
the relevance of each museum is affected.
The VGM can be described as a museum offering stark
truths via modest interpretation. Conversely, the MGV
offers a modest account of historical truth via stark
interpretation. The MGV attempt to present an eclectic
representation of history via a miscellany of unspecific
interpretation. This interpretation focuses not only on the
implied primary theme (the ‘genocide’ of partisans) but
also incorporates some representation of the Jewish
holocaust as a national tragedy. This approach is
questioned by the VGM staff who argue that the MGV
focused unfairly and unwisely on the role ethnic Lithuanians played in saving Jewish citizens (for example in the
book ‘Whoever Saves One Life’ on sale in the MGV). It
was suggested that historical facts had been overlooked in
this regard and that the scale and frequency of collaboration between Nazi Germans and ethnic Lithuanians far
outweighed the incidences of Lithuanian intervention in
saving Jewish lives. The MGV’s use of the term ‘Genocide’
in their title is of concern since there is no such reference
made to this activity in either the title or the exhibition
content of the VGM. Stark historical representation is
therefore inherent not only in the palpable mixture of
interpretation found within the MGV but also in the
cultural context of the museum accentuated through the
referencing of ‘Genocide’ in its title and publications.
Domic (2000) argues that communities become substantially affected because of the alignment of heritage with
particular dominant value positions. The dominant value
position identified in Vilnius is the ‘comfort zone’ environment offered by the MGV. Interpretation and narrative
require little moral reflection in this museum. The MGV
presents a holistic image of a one-time persecuted
Lithuanian race and in this regard, it is a more comfortable
interpretive setting for ethnic Lithuanians who can abreact
in an environment of ‘collective pity’. The Jewish
Holocaust Museum on the other hand remains a difficult
commemorative environment for Lithuanians to become
immersed in; provoking feelings of collective guilt and
confusion over a largely fallow section of the country’s
dark past.
10. Conclusion
The ‘dark’ heritage landscape that exists in Lithuania is
dominated by moral complexities surrounding the commemoration of the nations tragic past. The current
situation is a disproportionate slant on this past which
offers the majority of the visiting public a chance to share
in a nation’s solidarity and determination against their
Soviet oppressors. What is distinctly missing from this
activity is an important epoch that remains unchallenged
and un-interpreted in the nation’s collective commemoration of the past.
A collective approach driven by effective, rather than
just quality interpretation may be instrumental in increasing access, education and acceptance of both of these
fascinating museums. However social and ethical taboos
dictate patterns of visitation and non-visitation to the two
museums. Some of this apprehension may be assuaged
through collaboration between the museums and through
the construction and planning of new and contemporary
exhibitory techniques. Successful interpretation consists of
much more than just higher visitor numbers (Rowehl,
2003) but also a degree of satisfaction and enlightenment
that can accompany the museum learning experience. This
is what distinguishes effective from quality interpretation.
Interpretation which is too stark and too intimidating can
prevent physical and intellectual access to a museum’s
collection. It is only through addressing the ethical and
spiritual dichotomies and dealing with selectivity in
historical narrative that an approach of collective memory
can begin to emerge that will replace trepidation and
reluctance.
Acknowledgements
The authors warmly thank Ruta Puisyte, Academic
Secretary of the Vilna Gaon Lithunanian State Jewish
Museum, Eugenijus Peikstenis, Director of the Museum of
Genocide Victims, Vilma Juozeviciute, Senior Specialist of
the Museum of Genocide Victims and Rokas Tracevskis of
the Museum of Genocide Victims. We appreciate the
committed assistance of staff from these museums
throughout the course of this research.
References
Altheide, D. L. (2000). Tracking discourse and qualitative document
analysis. Poetics, 27, 287–299.
Atamukas, S. (2001). The long hard road toward the truth. Lithuanian
Quarterly Journal of Arts and Sciences, 47(4) Internet WWW Page
at URL: http://www.lituanus.org/2001/01_4_03.htm; accessed 14/05/
2005.
Baltic Database (2002). Baltic States Report, 16 May, Vol. 3(16). Internet
WWW Page at URL: www.referl.org/balticreport/2002/05/16-160502.
htlm; accessed 05/04/2005.
BBC (2005). Analysis: Defining genocide. BBC News, Internet WWW
Page at URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3853157.stm; accessed
13/02/2006.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Craig Wight, J. John Lennon / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 519–529
Beech, J. (2000). The enigma of holocaust sites as tourist attractions: The
case of Buchenwald. Managing Leisure, 5, 29–41.
Bousfield, J. (2004). The rough guide to the Baltic states: Estonia, Latvia
and Lithuania. London: Rough Guides.
Clottey, B., & Lennon, R. (2003). Transitional economy tourism:
Lithuanian travel consumers’ perceptions of Lithuania. International
Journal of Travel Research, 5, 295–303.
Crang, M. (1994). On the heritage trail: Maps of journeys to Olde Englande.
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 12, 341–355.
Domic, D. (2000). Heritage consumption, identity, formation and interpretation of the past within post war Croatia. Wolverhampton Business
School Management Research Centre, Working Paper Series 2000.
Dwork, D., & Van Pelt, R. J. (1997). Auschwitz: 1270 to the present.
Norton & Company.
Graham, B. (2002). Heritage as knowledge: Capital or culture? Urban
Studies, 39(5–6), 1003–1017.
Hall, D. (1991). Tourism and economic development in Eastern Europe and
the Soviet Union. London: Belhaven.
Ham, S. H., & Krumpe, E. E. (1996). Identifying audiences and messages
for nonformal environmental education: A theoretical framework for
interpreters. Journal of Interpretation Research, 1(1), 11–23.
Henderson, J. (2000). War as a tourist attraction: The case of vietnam.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 2(4), 269–280.
Hollinshead, K. (1999). Tourism as public culture: Horne’s ideological
commentary on the legerdemain of tourism. International Journal of
Tourism Research, 1, 267–292.
Jaakson, R. (1996). Tourism in transition in post-Soviet Estonia. Annals of
Tourism Research, 23(3), 617–634.
Lane, M., & Wheeler, B. (2004). The real victims of sleep deprivation. BBC
News UK Edition, Internet WWW Page at URL: http://www.bbc.
co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3376951.stm; accessed 05/04/2005.
Laučka, J. B. (1986). The structure and operation of Lithuania’s
parliamentary democracy, 1920–1939. Lithuanian Quarterly Journal
of Arts and Sciences, 32(3) Internet WWW Page at URL: http://
www.lituanus.org/1986/86_3_01.htm; accessed 12/06/2005.
Lennon, J. J. (1996). Marketing eastern European tourist destinations. In
M. Bennet, & A. Seaton (Eds.), Marketing tourism products—
Concepts, issues and cases (pp. 103–149). Hodder and Stoughton.
Lennon, J. J., & Foley, M. (2000). Dark tourism: The attraction of death
and disaster. London, New York: Continuum.
Lithuanian National Tourism Statistics (2004). Internet WWW Page at:
URL: http://www.tourism.lt/statist/inbound.htm; accessed 01/04/2005.
Lopata, R. (1993). The second spring of nations and the theory of
reconstruction of the grand duchy of Lithuania. Lituanas Lithuanian
Quarterly Journal of Arts and Sciences, 39(4) Internet WWW Page at
URL: http://www.lituanus.org/1993_4/93_4_07.htm; accessed 12/092005.
529
Museum of Genocide Victims, Vilnius (MGV) (2003). Promotional
Leaflet.
Museum of Genocide Victims, Vilnius (MGV) (2004). War after War, The
Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania, Vilnius.
Puisyte, R. (1997). The mass extermination of jews of jurbarkas in the
provinces of Lithuania during the German Nazi occupation. B.A. thesis,
University of Vilnius (Internet WWW Page at URL: http://www.
shtetlinks.jewishgen.org/Yurburg/bathesis.html; accessed throughout
March–April).
Rowehl, J. (2003). Constructing quality interpretation: The use of
interpretative simulations reconsidered. Arkell European Fellowship
Report 2003.
Schouten, F. F. J. (1995). Heritage as historical reality. In D. T. Herbert
(Ed.), Heritage tourism and society. London: Mansell.
Shackley, M. (2001). Potential futures for Roben Island: Shrine, museum
or theme park? International Journal of Heritage Studies, 7(4),
355–363.
Shaw, D. J. B. (1979). Recreation and the Soviet City. In R. A. Hamilton
(Ed.), The socialist city (pp. 117–143). Chichester: Wiley.
Siegenthaler, P. (2002). Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japanese Guidebooks.
Annals of Tourism Research, 29(4), 1111–1137.
Smith, V. L. (1998). War and thanatourism: An American ethnography.
Annals of Tourism Research, 25(1), 202–227.
Strange, C., & Kempa, M. (2003). Shades of dark tourism: Alcatraz and
Robben Island. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(2), 386–405.
Tunbridge, J. E., & Ashworth, G. J. (1996). Dissonant heritage. The
management of the past as a resource in conflict. Chichester: Wiley.
Uzzell, D. L. (1989). The hot interpretation of war and conflict, in Heritage
Interpretation, Vol. 1. New York: Belhaven Press.
Vilna Gaon Jewish State Museum of Lithuania (VGM) (2003). Newsletter 7.
Vilna Gaon Jewish State Museum of Lithuania (VGM) (2004). Newsletter 8.
Vilna Gaon Jewish State Museum of Lithuania (VGM) (2005). History,
Internet WWW Page at URL: http://www.jmuseum.lt/index.asp?
DL=E&TopicID=6.
Vilnius City Municipality (2005). Internet WWW Page at URL: http://
www.vilnius.lt/new/en/gidas.php; accessed throughout March–April.
Wight, A. C. (2006). Philosophical and methodological praxes in dark
tourism: Controversy, contention and the evolving paradigm. Journal
of Vacation Marketing, 12(2), 119–129.
Wight, A. C., & Lennon, J. J. (2004). Towards an understanding of visitor
perceptions of ‘Dark’ sites: The case of the imperial war museum of the
North, Manchester. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 2(2), 105–122.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Zonabend, F. (1992). The monograph in European ethnology. Current
Sociology, 40(1), 49–60.