This paper was accepted for publication in February 2017
Heritage tourism linked with past or current cultural diversity and ethnic minorities has become asignificant part of the tourism industry. This paper contributes to the discussion about heritagemanagement related to niche tourism development and minority group participation. The specifictheme of Jewish heritage tourism is analysed, particularly through the case of the present Jewishcommunity of Bucharest. Empirical results are presented and discussed in order to understand howthis community and the local tourist sector perceive the tourist potential of its heritage, andenvisions its development. A reflection on the discourse behind the current and possible futuremanagement of Jewish legacy can thus contribute to a better understanding of the complexity ofniche heritage tourism processes in former or present multi-ethnic sites.
This paper discusses some of the issues relatedto niche cultural tourism and heritagemanagement in a former multi-ethnic context.
When a dominant group inherits heritage from afading ethnic minority, issues related to dissonantnarratives, participation in decision-making and socialsustainability are particularly delicate. The case ofJewish heritage in Bucharest was chosen to contributeto the more general discussion on niche tourism, sinceBucharest is a traditionally cosmopolitan city wheresome of its historical minorities, primarily Jews, havebeen dramatically reduced by emigration, but haveleft a considerable cultural legacy and still ask forinvolvement and participation in the managementand promotion of their tangible and intangibleheritage. Strategies, practices and discourses bydifferent stakeholders, linked to Jewish heritageproduction and management, need to be assessed andunderstood. The still largely unexpressed potential ofthis niche within the development of tourism inBucharest, along with early signs of economic andpolitical exploitation of this heritage by non-Jewishstakeholders, makes this case study relevant for thebroader theme of sustainable cultural tourism studies.
In the first section of this paper, the theme of nicheheritage tourism will be analysed according toexisting literature and its trends. After a presentation ofthe study methods, the case study will be described
and analysed in order to illustrate how the Jewishcommunity in Bucharest perceives the criticalelements and the economic potential of its culturalheritage, and envisions its development. These will becompared with visions and practices by non-Jewishstakeholders interested in this niche tourismdevelopment. The conclusion will reflect on thediscourse concerning current and possible futuremanagement of Jewish minority heritage, and howthis case study contributes to the discussion about thecomplexity of niche heritage tourism practices inmulti-ethnic contexts.
Minority heritage tourism
Cultural heritage, both tangible and intangible, isgenerally constructed, identified, interpreted andmanaged in line with a certain scale of values andmeanings, and through selection processes linked topresent and future political and economic visions andplans (Ashworth et al. 2007; Graham and Howard2008; Smith 2006). Thus, heritage itself can be seen asthe contemporary functional use of this legacy withinan existing cultural, social and economic context andaccording to a certain diachronic representation oflocal or national identities (Ashworth 2011). The aimsof heritage recognition, celebration and promotion areto build or reinforce a certain social system, sustainpolitical power, or bolster tourism development.Heritage, with its artefacts and activities, is continuously
(re)interpreted according to different factors, such asnationality, ethnicity, religion, class, age, gender,education, personal history and political opinions(Ashworth et al. 2007).
Tourists are often attracted by cultural diversity,which incentivises the growth of various tourismproducts and destinations (Castro et al. 2007; Cohen2004; Hoffman 2003; Krakover 2012; Ma andHassink 2013). Some heritage sites are recognised asmajor tourist attractions of universal significance,while many others tend to attract special interestgroups, leading to the creation of niche tourismproducts (McKercher 2002; Trauer 2006). Nichetourism can be defined as a segmentation of the widertourism industry into specific and recognisableproducts (MacLeod 2003; Novelli 2005). Accordingto Robinson and Novelli (2005), this can be seen as areaction to the phenomenon of globalised masstourism. The discourse on niche tourism is mainlyconstructed by the producers of tourism, rather thanconsumers, as an element of competitive strategy andmarketing, in order to diversify the image of adestination and capture new potential markets (Dinisand Krakover 2016; Robinson and Novelli 2005).
Niche tourism marketing can be seen as a specificstrategy which chooses to concentrate on a limitedmarket, often with significant purchasing power, andis considered appropriate for small or specialisedeconomic activities or territories (Dinis 2006; Toftenand Hammervoll 2009). Current or former multiculturaland cosmopolitan contexts, where different nationalgroups made their mark on the landscape andcontributed to territorial identity, offer significantopportunities for niche cultural tourism, as certainaspects of this complex heritage can be created,recognised, highlighted, reinterpreted and ultimatelysold in order to diversify the image of the touristoffering, even after previous phases of neglect ordestruction (Caffyn and Lutz 1999; Novelli 2005;Poria and Ashworth 2009; Walder et al. 2006). Inmany cases of tourism development, and especially inniche heritage tourism, the images, meanings, andvalues attributed to a heritage site are often moredecisive than the intrinsic value of the site itself (Poriaet al. 2004).
According to Tunbridge and Ashworth (1996),heritage is a contemporary interpretation linked to acertain narrative of history. Hence, discordantmeanings and representations of the past tend to givespace for dissonance and lack of consensus overheritage management, particularly in cases wheredifferent cultures maintain different attributions ofvalue. The response of host cultures to dissonantheritage varies from appreciation and tolerance tohostility and disinheritance. While tolerance maygenerate a range of accommodating behaviours,disinheritance is usually described in forms ofemphasis on single-sided narratives, silencing theother cultures’ narrative, neglect, erasure or even
destruction of heritage monuments (Graham et al.2005; Landzelius 2003).
According to Krakover (2016), when a majoritygroup inherits traces of the past or current presence ofminorities, three options are possible with regard totheir visibility in the tourist image of a specificterritory:
1 the minorities’ heritage is silenced or neglected;2 it is tolerated or authorised as an additional
element coexisting with the dominant one;3 it is incorporated within the local narrative to
generate a complex, inclusive and pluralisedplace identity.
In places where minority cultural heritage has(re)surfaced in recent times, majority groups may reactin terms of nationalistic confrontation, or culturaldissonance (Olsen and Timothy 2002; Tunbridge andAshworth 1996). However, recent evidence suggests asignificant attitudinal shift with respect to theperception, management and promotion of minorityheritage from option (1) to options (2) and (3). Besideslocally specific political reasons, a generally growinginterest in the development of niche tourism productsis often one of the driving forces of this ongoingchange (Ashworth et al. 2007). Chhabra (2012)showed how institutions dealing with cases ofdissonant heritage can successfully engage inparticipatory practices and promote social inclusionand a shared sense of heritage, identity and belonging.
Dealing with minority heritage tourism, on thepolitical, economic and cultural level, implies acontinuous confrontation on the themes of heritage-making, commodification, community participation,social inclusion and the recognition of diversity(Chambers 2005; Lowenthal 1998). A number ofinternal and external barriers can prevent effectivelocal community and minority group participation inniche tourism development; among them, lack offunds, insufficient knowledge about tourismeconomics, excessive presence of large investors, andethnic or social discrimination (Cole 2006; Tosun2000).
The Jewish niche product in Europe
Jewish heritage tourism is a cultural niche productoffered to visitors in many European destinations(Gruber 2002; Krakover 2013). Ashworth (1996)discussed this specific topic in his theory on dissonantheritage, considering dissonance as a frequent andoften inalienable attribute of heritage and itsmanagement, particularly in Jewish sites associatedwith violence, atrocities and inter-ethnic clash.Gruber (2002) documented the ‘reinvention’ ofJewish-related sites and narratives in many Europeanurban and rural contexts, focusing on the complexand varied motivations which, both at the local and
the general level, back the rediscovery andreinterpretation of memories and sights which hadpreviously been forgotten or deliberately hidden.Krakover (2016) acknowledged the growth of interestin tangible and intangible Jewish culture, partlyovercoming the dissonance theories, and proposed amodel of Jewish heritage tourism development inEurope which will be further analysed in this paper.
Since the end of communism in central and easternEurope, a growing interest in Judaism, Jewish historyand culture and the Holocaust has led to theirprogressive recognition as part of national and localheritage, history and identity, even in countries whereJewish communities have disappeared, or have beenreduced to tiny and barely visible minorities. Thisphenomenon paradoxically coexists with survivingor resurging episodes of antisemitism, and alsooccurs in countries where the responsibilities of localcollaborators in the Holocaust have never beenwidely and fully acknowledged, such as Belarus,Croatia, Lithuania, Ukraine or Romania itself (Dean2004; Wiesel et al. 2004).
Restoration or reconstruction of synagogues,opening of museums and exhibitions, construction ofHolocaust memorials, production of films and novels,organisation of Jewish folk music festivals and otherevents can be observed in most European countries(Valley 1999). Jewish-themed tourism has thusbecome a recognisable niche within the widercultural tourist market, through the involvement ofpublic authorities as well as private operators (Gruber2002; Krakover 2017). New Jewish museums havebeen opened in large cities as well as in rural villagesin many countries, from Spain to Poland (Gruber2007; Russo and Romagosa 2010), while Holocaustsites are visited by millions of people every year(Thurnell-Read 2009). Numerous Jewish-style shops,art galleries, restaurants and caf�es have been opened,often by non-Jews, and mainly address non-Jewishcustomers (Gruber 2002).
In the old Jewish districts of Prague and Cracow,which have become mass cultural tourismdestinations, the tourist experience is forged not onlyby visits to synagogues and museums but, even moresignificantly, by the general atmosphere generatedby Jewish-themed festivals and exhibitions, music,souvenir shops, inns and restaurants (Lehrer 2015;Sandri 2013). However, besides this directlyopportunistic dimension, the rediscovery of Jewishhistory and culture is mainly produced by non-Jews,and according to their changeable perception,representation and interpretation. This heritage can bemetaphorically viewed and used in discourses relatedto multiculturalism and hybrid identities, to Nazicrimes or communist denial. It can be reinterpreted asa symbol of survival for oppressed peoples andsupport for democratic ideals (Tuszynska 1998;Young 1993). This phenomenon has a strong personaland intimate dimension, but also reverberates onto
public policies. In fact, this broad rediscovery ofJewish history and culture, as well as Holocaust-related memories, can be used to re-think and re-definecollective histories, representations and narratives,either consciously or unconsciously, supporting acertain image of either a dominant or a minority group(Krakover 2012 2016).
Parallel to these phenomena, mainly related to therecent growth of interest in Jewishness amongst non-Jews, an internal Jewish rediscovery of European rootsand heritage has also significantly contributed to thedevelopment of this niche tourist segment, particularlysince the fall of communism and the rebirth of Jewishlife in central and eastern Europe (Flesler and P�erezMelgosa 2010).
Within the broader ‘macro-niche’ of culturaltourism, Jewish heritage development in Europepresents unique features, as the sites generallyrepresent the legacy of a minority, which eitherdisappeared, in some cases even centuries ago, or isnow represented by small groups of people with highmedian age and advanced degrees of assimilation(Gruber 2002; Sandri 2013; Smith and Zatori 2015).This implies that Jewish communities are not alwaysable to keep a central role in decision-making relatedto the management and promotion of their heritage.At the same time, however, Jewish heritage is notalways easily understandable by an average non-Jewish visitor or stakeholder, as synagogues are oftenhoused in small and unimposing buildings, and visitsto other sites, such as cemeteries, Holocaustmemorials and former Jewish streets and districts,require adequate preparation and interpretation(Ioannides and Ioannides 2006; Krakover 2013).
Krakover (2016) suggests a model outlining ageneral path of progressive development for Jewishheritage sites, which also appears to be applicable toother heritage sites that might resemble the Jewishheritage niche. According to this model, at an earlystage, the presence of a well-preserved historicalsynagogue is usually essential; its recognition,restoration, maintenance and promotion favour theencounter of several stakeholders, including the localJewish community, public authorities, tourist bodies,international Jewry. At this early stage, visits to thesynagogue are usually free or by donation.
As the synagogue enters the cultural tourism circuit,and is listed in best-selling guidebooks and travelwebsites, regular opening times and institutionalisedentrance fees are established, and a Jewish-themedmuseum is usually opened.
At a more mature stage, other Jewish-relatedcultural sites, such as side streets, cemeteries,memorials and Hebrew writings, receive recognitionand enter the circuit, although the direct revenuegeneration may be less than that of the synagoguesand museums. Promotion of intangible heritage,storytelling, dedicated brochures and maps tend tofollow, accompanied by an increasing presence of
services for Jewish visitors (e.g. kosher shops andrestaurants, appropriate accommodation) and forgeneral tourists (e.g. agencies, souvenirs, festivals). Inthe final stage, the international relevance andrecognition of the Jewish heritage in the destinationleads to its inclusion in regional and internationalcultural itineraries and networks.
Overall, considering the past, ongoing and plannedpractices of revitalisation and commodification ofJewish heritage, both positive and negative aspectscan be identified (Corsale and Vuytsyk 2015; Gruber2009). Rampant commercialisation of Jewish-relatedsites in Poland and Germany raised significantnegative reactions in part of the Jewish world(Podoshen and Hunt 2011). At the same time,rehabilitation and revitalisation of Jewish heritage inmany European cities have turned decaying andforgotten neighbourhoods into vibrant andcosmopolitan urban spaces (Krakover 2012).
The histories and memories that are resurrected areoften reinterpreted, distorted, codified and used in orderto suit specific personal, collective, local or nationalneeds. For example, celebrating the multicultural pastof cities like Prague, Budapest, Cracow, Vilnius or Lvivis part of a common and widespread post-communisthistoric narrative stressing the belonging to a mythical‘Mitteleuropa’ or a ‘Western world’ embedded withtolerance and cultural vivacity (Godis and Nilsson2016).
Promotion of past Jewish life and culture can thusfulfil cultural demands or suit political strategies, andcan also support niche tourism business and easedestination diversification (Dinis 2012; Robinson andNovelli 2005). However, the exploitation of this legacywithout the involvement of a living and approvingJewish community may raise serious issues ofauthenticity, participation and inter-ethnic dialogue. Inmany cases, small and marginal Jewish communitiesare expected to become partners in tourismdevelopment related to their own culture, but oftenlack funds and know-how, and may not always share acoherent and unanimously positive view on the touristoption itself. Public authorities or private stakeholders,on the other hand, do not necessarily need the supportand involvement of Jewish communities when dealingwith this niche tourism segment.
Study methods
In order to investigate both the case study and themore general issues related to Jewish heritage tourismand niche tourism associated with minority groupsmore fully, a qualitative research approach waschosen. Observations, interviews and secondarysources were the main methods of data collection(Merriam 2002; Patton 2002). The field study wasundertaken in June 2016. Direct observationsincluded visits to the main sights related to the Jewishhistorical and current presence in Bucharest. The
author conducted unstructured interviews with keystakeholders from the Jewish community of Bucharest(including the Jewish Community’s headquarters andthe staff working at the Choral Temple Synagogue, theMuseum of Jewish History and the State JewishTheatre) and with tour operators and agenciesworking in this specific tourism segment. The mainissues discussed in the interviews were about how thedifferent stakeholders within the Jewish communityenvision the management and promotion of Jewishheritage for tourism purposes, and how private touristoperators relate to it. A total of 22 interviews washeld; each started with a presentation of the author’sresearch aims, and focused on the interviewees’visions about strengths, weaknesses and perspectivesof Jewish heritage preservation and tourism-relatedpromotion. Interviews were held in Romanian andvaried in length from 30 to 60 minutes; they weretaped and subsequently transcribed in order tohighlight the pertinent excerpts and enable the criticalanalysis of their content.
The author also consulted secondary sources,including historical and recent statistical data on thedemography and the economy of the city, adoptinga multidisciplinary approach, in order to betterunderstand the case study context. Brochures, mapsand other publications prepared for free distributionby the municipal and national tourism offices werecollected in order to detect and evaluate the coverageof the Jewish-related attractions in the printedmaterial. Likewise, this coverage was also examinedin the municipal and national official websites, as wellas published guidebooks and popular internationaltravel websites1. The collected information enabledcomparing the actual presence of references to Jewishheritage in the tourist sources and the perception bythe surveyed stakeholders. This allowed understandingof how Jewish tangible and intangible heritage inBucharest is valued and represented, which permittedinterpretation of the discourse behind its managementand promotion.
Jewish heritage in Bucharest
The city of Bucharest, despite its turbulent history andperiodical outbursts of anti-Semitic violence, hosted,over the centuries, a numerous, varied and activeJewish community. Starting from the fifteenth century,the economic importance of the city attracted largenumbers of foreigners of different origins, which gavethe city a traditionally strong cosmopolitan character.The composite background of the Jewish populationwas evident in its dual organisation, as Sephardic(‘Spanish’) and Ashkenazic (‘Polish’) communitiesexisted and developed in parallel. The Ashkenazicelement grew larger than the Sephardic one and,during the second half of the nineteenth century,further split into an orthodox community, centredaround the Great Synagogue (built in 1847) and a
modernist one, which built the Choral Temple (1867).Yiddish and Ladino were widely spoken by the twocommunities, with Romanian being increasinglyspoken as a first language (Iancu 1996; Waldman andCiuciu 2011).
The Jewish population of Bucharest grewsignificantly, particularly through constant immigrationinflows, from 2600 people in 1835 (4.3% of the totalpopulation) to 76,480 in 1930 (12% of the totalpopulation). The south-eastern districts of V�ac�ares�tiand Dudes�ti were the heart of the religious andcommunal life, but Jews settled in all central districtsof the city, especially in areas of intense economicgrowth, and were active in many fields, includingcommerce and trade, industry, finance, medicine andarts. The main commercial streets and avenues ofBucharest hosted a large number of Jewish-ownedshops and companies, as well as religious, cultural,educational and social institutions (Streja andSchwarz 2009).
The community made its mark on the city’s urbanlandscape, spreading a taste for eclectic, art nouveau,art deco, rationalist and modernist architectural styles(Figure 1a). During the interwar period, Jewishliterature and arts flourished thanks to intellectualssuch as Tristan Tzara and Marcel Iancu (Waldmannand Ciuciu 2011).
However, antisemitism was a constant threat andviolent agitations were frequent. In January 1941,during the rebellion of the far-right LegionaryMovement, over 120 Jews were killed in a devastatingassault (‘pogrom’) that hit the core of the Jewish districtand damaged or destroyed several synagogues, homes,shops and communal buildings. In September 1942,approximately 600 Jews were deported to the easternregion of Transnistria, but large-scale deportationswere soon stopped by the ambivalent military regimeof Ion Antonescu, and the vast majority of Bucharest’slarge Jewish community survived the war and theHolocaust (Wiesel et al. 2004).
Shortly after World War II, Bucharest experienced amassive inflow of Jewish refugees coming from formerconcentration camps and from several areas ofRomania and Moldova. The city’s Jewish populationpeaked at 150,000 in 1947 (15% of the totalpopulation). Under the communist regime, in spite ofthe suppression of many Jewish social and religiousinstitutions, Bucharest continued to be the centre ofRomania’s Jewish communal and cultural life,constantly trying to cope with the unpredictabledictatorship of Nicolae Ceaus�escu. A State JewishTheatre was founded in 1948 and served as a keycultural reference for the community. Emigration toIsrael, however, drastically reduced the number ofJews in Bucharest during the second half of thetwentieth century. According to the latest census, by2011 there were only 1333 Jewish people left,although estimates by the community’s institutionsstill count around 4000, including partly Jewish
descendants and partially assimilated people. There isno significant residential concentration in the formerJewish district anymore, but Jewish communal life stillrevolves around the area and currently focuses mainlyon two functioning synagogues, the institutionaladministration, a multifunctional community centre, atheatre, a school and the minority’s media.
Jewish heritage in Bucharest suffered significantdestruction during the last years of Ceaus�escu’sregime, when a large part of the old Jewish districtwas demolished, as part of the notorious urbanrenewal plan called ‘Sistematizare’, and was replacedwith wide avenues, standardised apartment blocksand empty spaces. Several temples and synagoguesdisappeared, including the old Sephardic Spanishtemple, along with the characteristic eclecticarchitecture of the area, and its inns, houses, gardens,cobblestone streets and atmosphere (Leahu 1995; Strejaand Schwarz 2009). Three of the main synagogues,with their lavish neoclassical and Moorish Revivalarchitecture, were spared, together with the building ofthe State Jewish Theatre; these now look strandedamong communist blocks and barren areas (Figure 1b).In the surrounding districts, however, many windingstreets with tree-shaded old houses survived thedestruction, in spite of their often neglected anddecaying state, and valuable buildings once designedor decorated by Jewish architects and artists are spreadacross the city. The large Sephardic and Ashkenaziccemeteries also survived to the present day, although ina semi-abandoned state. Rampant overbuilding isnow quickly filling the underdeveloped areas withinthe district. Several surrounding streets, with their oldbourgeois houses now seriously decaying, areinhabited by very poor families, often of Romaethnicity, who obtained or occupied them when Jewsleft (Figure 1c). As there is no overall protection forthe city’s historic urban landscape, many pre-warhouses are still being demolished every year in thearea, and replaced by standardised new buildings. Alarge memorial monument dedicated to the victims ofthe pogrom and deportations was recently built by thegovernment in a barely visible area out of the Jewishdistrict, with little involvement of the community, andcurrently appears overshadowed and forgotten byboth visitors and locals.
Thus, tangible heritage shows elements of bothcultural and architectural flourishing as well asneglect and destruction. Intangible heritage, on theother hand, traces its roots back to a rich traditionwhich includes literature, music, traditions, folklore,food, etc., but has been dramatically undermined bymass emigration to Israel and the United States, andthe subsequent fading of the formerly uniqueRomanian-Jewish identity. Yet, in spite of the currentlychaotic and shabby look of the formerly picturesqueJewish district, its rich history and memories, as wellas the architectural and cultural jewels it still contains,are clearly recognisable tourism assets (Gruber 2007;
Streja and Schwarz 2009; Waldmann and Ciuciu2011).
The Jewish community of Bucharest, althoughweakened by emigration, assimilation, ageing andfinancial hardship, still manages three remainingsynagogues, one of which still functions, while twohost Jewish museums. These buildings have recentlybeen restored with mixed public and private funds(Figure 1d); a fourth synagogue, located outside theformer Jewish area, was recently renovated andacquired by the Hasidic Orthodox community and isalmost exclusively managed by that group. Themanagement of the synagogues is a significant financialchallenge for this tiny and largely impoverishedcommunity. No funds are available for the restorationand maintenance of the cemeteries and the remainingruins of other synagogues and temples. There are nokosher grocery stores or regularly open restaurants inBucharest anymore, as the reduced size of thecommunity, and its geographical dispersion, critically
hampers their profitability. No Jewish-related objectsor souvenirs are regularly sold in any of the venues,with the exception of locally printed books, mostly inRomanian and some in English or Hebrew,intermittently displayed in the internal offices of thecommunal institutions.
The voice of the stakeholders
Jewish stakeholders were interviewed in order tounderstand their perception and visions about theweaknesses and perspectives of Jewish heritagemanagement and tourist promotion. Althoughpossibly biased, the results showed considerableawareness of the cultural and economic potential ofthis heritage, but also deeply rooted distrust inpolitical strategies, and pessimism about thecapability of this dwindling community to benefitfrom the eventual large-scale development of Jewishheritage tourism. Showing a pragmatic approach,
Figure 1 (a) The eclectic architecture of the former Jewish district (Calea V�ac�ares�ti) before the demolition ordered byCeaus�escu; (b) the Great Synagogue surrounded by communist apartment blocks, empty areas and new high-rise buildings;
(c) abandoned and decaying pre-war houses in the area; (d) the recently restored Choral Temple synagogueSource: (a) Dan Vartanian (1979); (b)–(d) Andrea Corsale (2016)
none of the interviewees views the presence of privatenon-Jewish operators in negative terms, and the levelof collaboration and understanding with the non-Jewish guides and tour operators is generally good.
According to the interviewed staff from the ChoralTemple and the Great Synagogue, both sightscurrently host significant flows of Jewish tourists,particularly Israelis, including former Romanian Jews;the number of non-Jewish visitors is modest butsteadily growing, while local Romanian visitors arerare. The main concern for the future management ofthe sites is the tiny and decreasing size of thecommunity.
The interviewed administrator of the Federation ofthe Jewish Communities of Romania, based inBucharest, advocates keeping a central role in thedevelopment of Jewish heritage tourism in the city,and proposed a partial reconstruction of the formerJewish district, in the remaining empty areas, indicatingthe cases of Prague and Cracow as successful models.Tourism is viewed as a major economic opportunity,particularly for the younger elements of the community.However, serious pessimism is caused, again, by theever-reducing size of the community itself, as well asthe lack of internal funds and the weak interest shownby both public and private stakeholders. The poorstate of the remaining old houses and the rampantbuilding of new blocks are seen by the Federationas serious threats for the historical and culturalsignificance of the former Jewish district, and obstaclesfor its tourist development, but the community has nomeans to influence the urban planning or socialevolution of the district.
Staff of the Jewish Community Centre confirmedthese views, adding that the cultural life of thecommunity, in spite of its reduced size, is still activeand diverse, and several events have been organisedover the years for the Romanian population in order torevive interest in and knowledge about the Jewishworld, including music and food venues. Culturalexchanges have also involved other historicalminorities living in the city, such as Roma andArmenians. The cost of these events, however, issignificant and the community can hardly cover themwith sufficient regularity.
The head of the ‘Center for Monitoring andCombating Antisemitism in Romania’, a local NGO,also showed awareness of the tourist and culturalpotential of Jewish heritage in Bucharest, and works onseveral projects to foster it, including the digitisation ofcemetery records to support genealogical tourism, andmultimedia applications to highlight Jewish-relatedbuildings and sights spread across the historical districtsof the city. However, according to this interviewee,lack of public interest and inactivity, and fragmentationwithin the Jewish community itself, critically hamperedthe implementation of these projects. Moreover,Bucharest is not generally perceived as a culturaltourism destination, and the memory of the ancient
Jewish presence is largely lost among the Romanianpeople.
The State Jewish Theatre is still formally asignificant element of the Jewish identity in Bucharest,but, following the emigration and ageing of thecommunity, its staff and audience are now mainlynon-Jewish. It is managed according to the nationallaw on ethnic and linguistic minorities, thus all theplays must have a connection to Jewish culture, and atleast 25% of them must be in Yiddish, making it thelast regular Yiddish theatre in Europe. The theatre’sateliers host a wide collection of costumes, sceneries,texts and posters which could easily fill a museum,but the interviewed staff indicated lack of funds, weakinterest from the institutions and the rundown state ofthe surrounding area, widely demolished duringCeaus�escu’s years, as key issues. The theatreultimately aims to renovate its cultural offering and tointroduce plays in foreign languages, in order toattract new local and international audiences.
Other interviewed Jewish stakeholders, such as theCentre for the History of Romanian Jewry, theMuseum of the History of the Romanian JewishCommunity, located in the former United HolyTemple, the Memorial Museum of Jewish Martyrs,located in the Great Synagogue, and the BucharestKlezmer Band (the only Jewish folk music players inthe city), all showed scepticism about the future of theold Jewish district but showed confidence in a slowlybut steadily growing interest in Jewish culture andhistory within the Romanian population.
Given the overall modest attention shown bygovernmental tourist offices, private entrepreneurshave autonomously started promoting Jewish heritagetourism. Four interviewed operators, organisingJewish-themed guided tours in Bucharest, deal withsignificant numbers of visitors, particularly Israeli andAmerican Jews, followed by non-Jewish tourists;Romanian visitors are however rare. According tothe interviewees, one of the main difficulties indeveloping this segment is the dilapidated look of theold Jewish district, caused by the demolition orderedby Ceaus�escu and subsequent neglect. It is so difficultfor foreign tourists to imagine how the area usedto look, that some tour operators feel compelled tocarry old pre-demolition pictures, and take visitorsto neighbouring surviving old streets to recall thelost atmosphere of the district. The three oldestsynagogues and the theatre are usually included in thetours. Some of them also add the Hasidic Orthodoxsynagogue and at least one of the two main Jewishcemeteries, according to the customers’ interests, andcan extend the tour to other Jewish sights out ofBucharest, including Transylvania and Moldavia. TheHolocaust memorial is usually skipped by all of thembecause of its remote location and its widelyperceived unattractiveness.
The Jewish sights, including the cemeteries, arecited in most guidebooks, such as the Lonely Planet,
Rough Guide, National Geographic and In YourPocket, as well as travel websites (TripAdvisor,VirtualTourist) and in the national tourism website(http://romaniatourism.com/jewish-heritage.html#Bucharest), but there is still no dedicated municipaltourism website. The presence of Jewish history andheritage in the brochures, printed materials andwebsites run by the city’s and county’s touristauthorities is sporadic and marginal, generally citingthe Choral Temple and the Museum only. This mayshow a persisting underestimation of this potential byRomanian authorities.
A pilot project of digitisation and promotion ofJewish heritage, also for tourism purposes, was fundedby the Romanian government and implemented by theUniversity of Cluj-Napoca, the Spiru Haret Universityof Bucharest and the National Institute of HistoricalMonuments, under the direction of Professor MirceaSergiu Moldovan, between 2008 and 2011 (JEWISH-ROM). Two prototypes of digital geo-referenced andJewish-themed cultural trails were proposed forBucharest, one covering 18 existing and formersynagogues and the other including 19 interwarbuildings designed by Dada architect Marcel Iancu.However, no further trails have been recorded since.
According to both Jewish and non-Jewishinterviewees, the old antisemitism, which used to bedeeply rooted in the Romanian society, is now largelygone and is replaced by widespread indifference.Jewish heritage tourism in Bucharest is now generallyconsidered, by all the interviewed stakeholders, as animportant economic opportunity in order to diversifythe image of the city, reinforce its cultural attractivenessand spread benefits to some of its marginal districts.However, the current shabby and unfinished state ofthe old Jewish neighbourhood, the lack of landscape-attentive urban planning, and the scarce governmentalsupport are widely indicated as serious weaknesses.Different histories, traditions and visions by differentstakeholders within the community also prevent theelaboration of shared proposals. Both Jewish and non-Jewish interviewees tended to make common causecriticising public institutions for their inactivity andcomplaining about the weak knowledge and interestby the Romanian population for this part of thecountry’s history.
Discussion and conclusion
Jewish heritage sites in Europe, after several episodesof violent destruction and prolonged neglect, are oftencharacterised by their small non-monumental scale,enriched by intangible memories and historicalsignificance. These characteristics tend to appeal tospecial interest groups of tourists who have some linkswith, or at least curiosity about, Jewish culture.However, Jewish sites are now often managed andpromoted by groups and cultures foreign to the Jewishfaith, which raises questions on authenticity and
participation (Howard and Allen 2005; Murzyn 2008).The development of this niche heritage may causephenomena of dissonance with regard to the present-day majority, who might not necessarily perceive itsrelevance, value and potential (Tunbridge andAshworth 1996).
At present, most foreign tourists in Bucharest areunaware of the city’s Jewish cultural resources and,because of the diminished visibility of Jewish sights, aswell as the small size of the community, this heritagemay also be unknown to many local residents anddomestic visitors.
According to the model proposed by Krakover(2016) for Jewish heritage tourism development informer communist countries, Bucharest shows discordantsigns. The first stage in this model, corresponding to therestoration of the historical synagogues and theirrise to the level of significant and appreciatedtourist attractions, and involving a wide array ofstakeholders including the Jewish community, publicbodies and private tourist operators, has beenaccomplished.
The later stages, instead, are still far away. In fact,other sights are essentially abandoned, such as thecemeteries and minor synagogues, while the theatre’sbuilding and collections are not currently open tothe general public. Moreover, the old district,destroyed under Ceaus�escu, currently presents arather unattractive or undeveloped face, with no clearand shared plans for its rehabilitation. The speculativeoverbuilding which is starting to take place in thearea, encountering little opposition from Romaniancivil society, shows the widespread lack ofconsideration for the cultural and tourist potential ofthe district, and critically undermines the potential forrestoration of the historic look of the area envisionedby the headquarters of the Jewish community. Thememory and sites of Jewish presence in the rest of thecity, including the bourgeois architecture that stillmarks many central avenues and streets, remainlargely unrecognised. Intangible heritage, includingliterature, music and food, is only seldom given touristvalue. The lack of services for Jewish visitors (such askosher food and restaurants and religious-friendlyhotels) and for non-Jews alike (souvenirs, maps,brochures) is a considerable sign of weakness. Hence,Jewish Bucharest would not easily fit into a regionalitinerary for an average tourist interested in Jewishheritage in central-eastern Europe, unlike Warsaw,Cracow, Vilnius, Prague or Budapest.
According to the survey, Jewish stakeholders areaware of both the weaknesses and the potential, butlack the necessary resources and expertise to engagein profitable tourist business. The Jewish museums stillneed an upgrade from their rather traditional modelsinto new formulas able to attract a wider public, whilethe Jewish State Theatre is starting to move graduallyin that direction. At the same time, non-Jewishstakeholders, in particular specialised tour guides,
mainly working as individuals, have already starteddeveloping this segment, offering both standardisedtours to the most visible sights and more tailoredproposals, also reaching towards other cities andregions of Romania. A national-level Jewish itinerary,sketched by the national tourism office but notsubsequently developed, has been manifest throughprivate initiatives, principally destined for Jewishvisitors.
During the interviews with Jewish communityleaders and non-Jewish private tourism operators,practically all opinions voiced by interviewees notedand lamented the lack of significant financial supportfrom public authorities and institutions. Nevertheless,governmental support has been provided through therestitution of Jewish public properties, financial aid forrestoration, and protection of some of the sights asnational monuments. Moreover, the Municipalityrecently announced the creation of a Holocaustmuseum in the heart of the old town, in the popularpedestrian area of Lipscani, one of the few districtswhich have preserved the pre-war architecture almostintact. On this occasion, in local media, Berlin,Warsaw and Moscow were cited by the authorities assuccessful examples of similar museums. Hence,some of the negative opinions given by theinterviewees about the indifference and inactivity ofpublic institutions might be excessively biased.
Given this evidence, the case of Bucharest shows asituation where a significant legacy of a minoritygroup, strictly linked with some of the key events ofRomanian history, including dark and controversialmemories linked with fascist and communist regimes,is now basically a marginal part of the city’s image.In spite of the appreciation shown by some visitors,and the growth of some small local non-Jewishbusinesses already taking advantage of the nichetourism opportunities, the potential remains largelyundeveloped.
Considering the example of cities of comparableimportance, which, according to Krakover’s model,have already attained the more advanced stages inniche heritage tourism development, such as Prague,Cracow, Budapest and Sarajevo, stronger and moresynergistic efforts would help to increase the visibilityof the community and restart some of the lost services,such as kosher food availability. However, the weakposition of the local Jewish community, in terms of itsdramatically reduced size, wealth and influence, andthe individual-focused scale of the current specialisedprivate tour operators, may also easily lead,eventually, to the encroachment of more aggressiveand exploitative approaches, alien to the localcommunity itself, raising issues of long-term socialand cultural sustainability. Moreover, the stillrelatively widespread domestic negation of Romania’sresponsibilities in the Holocaust and the nationalisticcelebration of some of the controversial figures of itshistory, such as Antonescu, might lead to a biased and
distorted interpretation, representation and narrative(Wiesel et al. 2004).
The opinions of non-Jewish residents about Jewishheritage tourism, and a possible revival of the localJewish identity, require further study. According toTunbridge and Ashworth (1996), residents belongingto currently dominant groups, and not involved in thetourism business, may develop feelings of hostility andcultural dissonance confronting the revival of a minorityheritage. However, Ashworth (2003) also recordedmainly positive reactions where Jewish memories andsights became part of a city’s recognised multiculturalhistory and identity, and a solid tourist asset.
Considering the general theoretical framework, andaccording to the empirical evidence, interviewedstakeholders tend to advocate a small-scale approach,relying on a good collaboration among the survivingJewish community and the non-Jewish guides workingin this segment, and envisioning a continuedautonomous control of heritage management by theJewish community itself. At the same time, theawareness of the weaknesses caused by the dwindlingsize of the community, and the complaints about theindifference showed by most Romanians, areaccompanied by an open distrust toward publicauthorities. It could be argued that a significantgrowth of this niche tourism, and its structuralintegration into the city’s image and offering, mightindeed carry the intrinsic risk of more powerfulstakeholders taking control of it. The cases of Pragueor Cracow, often seen as successful models, actuallyconfirm that, when Jewish heritage becomes a masstourism attraction, this is not always run by the Jewishcommunities themselves (Gruber 2002).
With each case being placed in a different social,economic, political and cultural environment, butwith comparable mechanisms of dissonance orinclusion, further exploration of the issue of minorityheritage tourism niches will enrich the discussion oncultural diversity in contemporary societies.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the Editor and thereviewers for their valuable comments andsuggestions. Thanks also to the Jewish community ofBucharest, particularly to Gilbert S�aim, and to theother people working for the preservation andpromotion of Jewish heritage in Bucharest, inparticular Eduard Popescu and Marcel Draghici, fortheir precious collaboration.
Note1 Websites (accessed 5 February 2017): http://antisemitism.ro(Center for Monitoring and Combating Antisemitism inRomania); http://teatrul-evreiesc.com.ro (State Jewish Theatre);www.inshr-ew.ro (‘Elie Wiesel’ National Institute for the Studyof the Holocaust in Romania); www.jcc.ro (Jewish Community
Centre – Bucharest); www.jewishfed.ro (Federation of JewishCommunities in Romania); www.jewish-romania.ro (ProjectJEWISH-ROM); www.romania.travel/special-interest/jewish-heritage (Romanian National Tourism Authority); www.ushmm.org/research/scholarly-presentations/symposia/holocaust-in-romania/romania-facing-its-past (United States Holocaust MemorialMuseum).
References
Ashworth G J 1996 Holocaust tourism and Jewish culture: thelessons of Krakow-Kazimierz in Robinson M, Evans N andCallaghan P eds Tourism and cultural change Centre forTravel and Tourism, Newcastle 1–12
Ashworth G J 2003 Heritage, identity and places: for touristsand host communities in Singh S, Timothy D J and DowlingR K eds Tourism in destination communities CABI,Wallingford 79–97
Ashworth G J 2011 Preservation, conservation and heritage:approaches to the past in the present through the builtenvironment Asian Anthropology 10 1–18
Ashworth G J, Graham B J and Tunbridge J E 2007 Pluralisingpasts: heritage, identity and place in multicultural societiesPluto Press, London
Caffyn A and Lutz J 1999 Developing the heritage tourismproduct in multi-ethnic cities Tourism Management 20 213–21
Castro C B, Armario E M and Ruiz D M 2007 The influence ofmarket heterogeneity on the relationship between adestination’s image and tourists’ future behavior TourismManagement 28 175–87
Chambers D 2005 Heritage and the nation: an exploration of adiscursive relationship Tourism Analysis 9 241–54
Chhabra D 2012 A present-centered dissonant heritagemanagement model Annals of Tourism Research 39 1701–5
Cohen E 2004 Contemporary tourism: diversity and change:collected articles Elsevier, Amsterdam
Cole S 2006 Cultural tourism, community participation andempowerment in Smith M K and Robson M eds Culturaltourism in a changing world: politics, participation and (re)presentation Channel View Publications, Cleveland 89–103
Corsale A and Vuytsyk O 2015 Jewish heritage tourismbetween memories and strategies. Different approaches fromLviv, Ukraine Current Issues in Tourism doi:10.1080/13683500.2015.1103210
Dean M 2004 Local collaboration in the Holocaust in EasternEurope in Stone D ed The historiography of the HolocaustPalgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke 120–40
Dinis A 2006 Rural entrepreneurship – an innovation andmarketing perspective in Nijkamp P, Morgan E and Vaz Teds The new European rurality: strategies for small firmsAshgate, Aldershot 157–78
Dinis A 2012 Tourism, niche strategy and networks as factorsfor both entrepreneurship and rural sustainability in HomlongN ed Tourism destinations and tourism businesses: issues ofcompetition and cooperation Athens Institute for Educationand Research, Athens 77–92
Dinis A and Krakover S 2016 Niche tourism in smallperipheral towns: the case of Jewish Heritage in Belmonte,Portugal Tourism Planning & Development 13 310–332
Flesler D and P�erez Melgosa A 2010 Herv�as, convivencia andthe heritagization of Spain’s Jewish past Journal of RomanceStudies 10 53–76
Godis N and Nilsson J H 2016 Memory tourism in a contestedlandscape: exploring identity discourses in Lviv, UkraineCurrent Issues in Tourism, doi:10.1080/13683500.2016.1216529
Graham B and Howard P eds 2008 The Ashgate researchcompanion to heritage and identity Ashgate, Aldershot
Graham B, Ashworth G J and Tunbridge J E 2005 The uses andabuses of heritage in Corsane G ed Heritage museums, andgalleries: an introductory reader Routledge, London 26–37
Gruber R E 2002 Virtually Jewish: reinventing Jewish culture inEurope University of California Press, Berkeley, CA
Gruber R E 2007 Jewish heritage travel. a guide to EasternEurope National Geographic Society, Washington
Gruber R E 2009 Reclaiming memory: urban regeneration inthe historic Jewish quarters of Central European cities inMurzyn-Kupisz M and Puchla J eds Beyond virtually Jewish.Balancing the real, the surreal and real imaginary placesInternational Cultural Center, Cracow 63–79
Hoffman L M 2003 The marketing of diversity in the inner city:tourism and regulation in Harlem International Journal ofUrban and Regional Research 27 286–99
Howard H and Allen D 2005 Cultural tourism in central andEastern Europe: the views of ‘induced image formationagents’ Tourism Management 26 173–83
Iancu C 1996 Jews in Romania Columbia University Press,New York NY
Ioannides M W C and Ioannides D 2006 Global Jewishtourism: pilgrimages and remembrance in Timothy D J andOlsen D H eds Tourism, religion and spiritual journeysRoutledge, London 156–71
Krakover S 2012 Coordinated marketing and dissemination ofknowledge: Jewish heritage tourism in Serra da Estrela,Portugal Journal of Tourism and Development 17–18 11–16
Krakover S 2013 Generation of a tourism product: Jewishheritage tourism in Spain Enlightening Tourism 3 142–68
Krakover S 2017 A heritage site development model: Jewishheritage product formation in south-central Europe Journal ofHeritage Tourism 12 81–101
Landzelius M 2003 Commemorative dis(re)membering: erasingheritage, spatializing disinheritance? Environment andPlanning D: Society and Space 21 195–221
Leahu G 1995 Bucures�tiul disp�arut Editura Arta Grafic�a,Bucharest
Lehrer E 2015 Jewish heritage, pluralism and milieu dememoire: the case of Krakow’s Kazimierz in Lehrer E andMeng M eds Jewish space in contemporary Poland IndianaUniversity Press, Bloomington 170–92
Lowenthal D 1998 Possessed by the past: the heritage crusadeand the spoils of History Cambridge University Press,Cambridge
Ma M and Hassink R 2013 An evolutionary perspective ontourism area development Annals of Tourism Research 4189–109
MacLeod D V ed 2003 Niche tourism in question:Interdisciplinary perspectives on problems and possibilitiesUniversity of Glasgow, Crichton
McKercher B 2002 Towards a classification of cultural touristsInternational Journal of Tourism Research 4 29–38
Merriam S B 2002 Qualitative research in practice Jossey-Bass,San Francisco
Murzyn M A 2008 Heritage transformation in central andeastern Europe in Graham B and Howard P eds The Ashgatecompanion to heritage and identity Ashgate, Farnham315–46
Novelli M ed 2005 Niche tourism: contemporary issues, trendsand cases Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford
Olsen D H and Timothy D J 2002 Contested religious heritage:differing views of Mormon heritage Tourism RecreationResearch 27 7–15
Patton M Q 2002 Qualitative research and evaluation methodsSage, Newbury Park
Podoshen J and Hunt J 2011 Equity restoration, the Holocaustand tourism of sacred sites Tourism Management 321332–42
Poria Y and Ashworth G 2009 Heritage attractions – aResource for conflicts Annals of Tourism Research 36 522–5
Poria Y, Butler R and Airey D 2004 Links between tourists,heritage, and reasons for visiting heritage sites Journal ofTravel Research 43 19–28
Robinson M and Novelli M 2005 Niche tourism: an introductionin Novelli M ed Niche tourism: contemporary issues, trendsand cases Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford 1–11
Russo A P and Romagosa F 2010 The network of SpanishJewries: in praise of connecting and sharing heritage Journalof Heritage Tourism 5 141–56
Sandri O 2013 City heritage tourism without heirs: acomparative study of Jewish-themed tourism in Krakow andVilnius European Cybergeo - European Journal of Geography646 doi:10.4000/cybergeo.25934
Smith L 2006 Uses of heritage Routledge, London
Smith M and Zatori A 2015 Jewish culture and tourism inBudapest in Diekmann A and Smith M K eds Ethnic andminority cultures as tourist attractions Channel View, Bristol188–201
Streja S and Schwarz L 2009 Synagogues of Romania EdituraHasefer, Bucharest
Thurnell-Read T P 2009 Engaging Auschwitz: an analysis ofyoung travellers’ experiences of Holocaust tourism Journal ofTourism Consumption and Practice 1 26–52
Toften K and Hammervoll T 2009 Niche firms and marketingstrategy: an exploratory study of internationally orientedniche firms European Journal of Marketing 43 1378–91
Tosun C 2000 Limits to community participation in the tourismdevelopment process in developing countries TourismManagement 21 613–33
Trauer B 2006 Conceptualizing special interest tourism –frameworks for analysis Tourism Management 27 183–200
Tunbridge J E and Ashworth G J 1996 Dissonant heritage: themanagement of the past as a resource in conflict Wiley,Chichester
Tuszynska A 1998 Lost landscapes: in search of Isaac BashevisSinger and the Jews of Poland William Morrow, New York
Valley E 1999 The Great Jewish cities of Central and EasternEurope Jason Aronson, Northvale
Walder B, Weiermair K and Sancho P�erez A eds 2006Innovation and product development in tourism ErichSchmidt Verlag, Berlin
Waldman F and Ciuciu A 2011 Stories and images of JewishBucharest NOI Media Print, Bucharest
Wiesel E, Friling T, Ioanid R and Ionescu M E eds 2004International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania –final report Polirom, Ias�i
Young J 1993 The texture of memory: Holocaust memorialsand meaning Yale University Press, New Haven, CT
