. v u

:35}:

.- V 2|. M‘.
E. .
.319

.u...u-
. a. .r,
1.-..

 

iiifva
V .21. .7
1H,. EFL .41., ..

3“
3.1] bx? IA .1.-
. {It

.| '11
I... f.‘ 1 t
V 35:.) £431 . t

. . .

. v.»
2.3.x
2‘.

Li;
A ’3’?

i .13)..
xtII‘..\v,

 

 

 

 

2mm
This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
EXPLORING THE ROLE AND IMPORTANCE OF
HISTORICAL AUTHENTICITY IN HERITAGE TOURISM
DEVELOPMENT: A CASE STUDY ANALYSIS OF
MANISTEE AND LUDINGTON, MICHIGAN.
presented by
9.
d
was}? . .
E d 3 Craig B. Wiles
a o
a fi-E
A 3 p
2 has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the
Master of degree in Park, Recreation and Tourism
Science Resources

 

 

ZSCLJQC( L/mcm MY-[P

Major Professor’ 3 Signature

(De camber 08

Date

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

. .... .g.‘

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

OCT 1 6 2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2105 c:/C|RC/DateDue.indd—p. 15

 

 

EXPLORING THE ROLE AND IMPORTANCE OF HISTORICAL AUTHENTICITY
IN HERITAGE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT: A CASE STUDY ANALYSIS OF
MANISTEE AND LUDINGTON, MICHIGAN.

By

Craig B. Wiles

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfilhnent of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources

2005

ABSTRACT
EXPLORIN G THE ROLE AND IMPORTANCE OF HISTORICAL AUTHENTICITY
IN HERITAGE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT: A CASE STUDY ANALYSIS OF
MANISTEE AND LUDINGTON, MICHIGAN.
By
Craig B. Wiles

A review of heritage tourism literature reveals a fimdamental tension between
heritage resource managers and tourism development professionals over the use, function
and authenticity of historic resources. The purpose of this study was to explore how
stakeholder beliefs regarding historical authenticity influence the heritage tourism
products, services and experiences created for visitors and the value of historical
authenticity relative to other factors involved with heritage tourism development.

Manistee and Ludington were chosen as case communities because of their
history of collaborative heritage tourism development and participation in the Michigan
Department of History, Arts and Libraries Cultural Tourism and Visitor Experience Pilot
Project. The case study approach included individual interviews with heritage tourism
stakeholders, a document review and site visits to existing heritage tourism venues.

Study participants defined history in terms of objective reality, citing the
importance of artifacts and structures for connecting with the past and the need for
historians and primary sources to ensure historical authenticity. Although considered

important, there were limits to historical authenticity when considered against other

factors such as an engaging visitor experience and generating revenue.

Dedicated to Iulia and Blake.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank Dr. Gail Vander Stoep, committee chair and mentor, for her consistent
support and encouragement and Terry Shaffer, for the opportunities he provided to grow
professionally and personally. Without the patience, understanding and early financial
support of these two special people, the ideas that led to this research never would have

developed.

I also owe special thanks to Dr. Christine Vogt and Kyriaki Kaplanidou of the
Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources for their help during analysis,
and to Dr. Bill Anderson of the Michigan Department of History, Arts and Libraries for

his advice and support.

Finally, I thank my wife, Amy, my parents and all the other friends and family who,

despite not completely understanding what I was doing or why, helped me just the same.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................ viii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................... ix
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. I
Introduction .................................................................................... 1
An Economic Justification for Heritage ................................................... 2
Heritage Tourism Defined ................................................................... 4
Background on Historical Inquiry ........................................................... 5
Authenticity and Heritage Tourism ......................................................... 6
Purpose of the Study .......................................................................... 8
Research Questions ........................................................................... 9
Scope of the Research and Delimitations .................................................. 9
Justification .................................................................................... 10
Definitions ...................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................... 13
Introduction .................................................................................... 13
Changing Historical Inquiry ................................................................. 13
History, Heritage and Authenticity ......................................................... 15
Historical Authenticity and Heritage Tourism Development ........................... 17
Collaborative Heritage Tourism Development ............................................ 20
Summary ........................................................................................ 22
CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODS .................................................................... 23
Introduction .................................................................................... 23
Case Study Design ............................................................................ 24
Sample .......................................................................................... 26
Data Collection ................................................................................ 27
Analysis ........................................................................................ 28
Potential Bias .................................................................................. 30
Pilot Testing of Interview Questions ....................................................... 32
Summary ....................................................................................... 33
CHAPTER 4

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF MANISTEE AND LUDINGTON .................. 34
Introduction .................................................................................... 34
Native Americans in Manistee and Ludington ............................................ 34
Lumber and Non-Native Settlement ........................................................ 40

Life Afier Lumber ............................................................................. 42

Lake Michigan as a Fresh Water Highway ................................................ 44
Growth of Resorts ............................................................................. 48
Early Tourism Development ................................................................. 50
Travel Promotion and a Natural Resource Focus ......................................... 54
The Beginnings of Heritage Tourism ...................................................... 57
Summary ....................................................................................... 60
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS ...................................................................................... 61
Introduction .................................................................................... 61
The Origins of Heritage Tourism Development in Manistee and Ludington ......... 61
Heritage Tourism as Economic Development ................................... 62
Beginnings of Heritage Tourism Development ................................. 65
Participant Involvement in Heritage Tourism Development .................. 68
An Appreciation for History ....................................................... 71
Summary .............................................................................. 72
The Current Heritage Tourism Development Process ................................... 72
The Need for Collaboration ......................................................... 73
The Leadership of Groups ............ , .............................................. 75
The Leadership of Individuals ...................................................... 76
An Appreciation for History ........................................................ 79
Summary .............................................................................. 79
The Current Heritage Tourism Landscape in Manistee and Ludington ............... 80
Products, Services and Experiences Currently Offered ........................ 80
Important Historical Topics ........................................................ 83
Representation of Important Historical Topics .................................. 86
Missing Historical Topics .......................................................... 89
Evidence From Site Text and Document Review ............................... 92
Summary .............................................................................. 95
Participant Conceptualizations of History and Historical Authenticity ............... 96
Defining History ..................................................................... 97
Connections to the Past .............................................................. 99
Sources of Historical Information .................................................. 102
Defining Historical Authenticity ................................................... 104
Evidence From Site Text and Document Review ................................ 107
Summary .............................................................................. 110
Importance of Historical Authenticity to Heritage Tourism Development ............ 110
Importance of Historical Authenticity ............................................. 111
Other Factors and Their Importance ............................................... 112
Authenticin Versus the Visitor Experience ...................................... 115
Examples of Authentic and Non-Authentic Attractions ........................ 117
Evidence From Site Text and Document Review ................................ 120
Summary .............................................................................. 122

vi

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION & DISCUSSION .......................................................... 124
Introduction .................................................................................... 124
Participant Definitions and Expressions of Historical Authenticity ..................... 125
Heritage Tourism Representation in Manistee and Ludington .......................... 128
Development of Heritage Tourism Products, Services and Experiences .............. 129
Other Factors and the Relative Importance of Historical Authenticity ................ 131
Comparison of Heritage Resource Managers and Economic Development
Professionals .............................................................................. 133
Comparing Participant Comments with the Current Heritage Tourism Landscape. 134
Limitations of the Study ...................................................................... 136
Suggestions for Future Research ............................................................ 137
Recommendations ............................................................................. 1 3 8
Concluding Thoughts ......................................................................... 139
APPENDICES ................................................................................. 142
Appendix A: Letter of Support from Dr. Bill Anderson ................................. 142
Appendix B: Contact Letter and Informed Consent Form .............................. 143
Appendix C. Script for Follow-up Phone Contact Prior to Interview ................. 145
Appendix D: Interview Questions ......................................................... 147
Appendix E: Interview Results by Individual Respondent .............................. 153

vii

Table 1:

Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4:

Table 5:

Table 6:

Table 7:

Table 8:

LIST OF TABLES

Products, services and experiences developed for tourists in

Manistee and Ludington .......................................................... 81
Important historical topics in Manistee and Ludington ....................... 84
Places where important historical topics can be experienced ................ 87
Topics missing from heritage tourism .......................................... 89
Participant connections to the past .............................................. 100
Most trustworthy sources of historical information ........................... 102
How to accurately portray the past .............................................. 105
Other factors important to heritage tourism development .................... 112

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location of Manistee and Ludington, Michigan .............................. 9

ix

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Introduction

American adults engage with history in a variety of ways: genealogy, books,
movies, television, and the intemet, as well as visits to museums, historical sites, cultural
fairs and festivals (Foner, 2002; Loewen, 1999; Rosenzweig & Thelen, 1998).
Recognizing the current and potential economic benefits of tourism, both heritage
resource managers and economic development stakeholders have advocated collaborative
partnerships to develop historical resources for heritage tourism. Despite these mutually
beneficial intentions, a number of philosophical tensions regarding the nature and
function of historic resources have hampered collaboration between heritage resource
managers and economic development stakeholders. At the core of this tension are
differing views about the importance of preservation of historic resources and their use as
a commodity within the tourism industry.

Discussion of historical resources in the tourism development process in this
study will focus on two different world-views: history as objective truth and history as a
process of social construction. These views represent the fundamental changes to
historical inquiry that have occurred in the past century that influence current
conceptualizations of historical authenticity. This study explores how heritage tourism
stakeholders conceptualize historical authenticity and its role and importance relative to

other factors involved in the tourism development process.

This chapter provides an overview of the development of the heritage tourism
industry and some of the issues surrounding its development in Michigan: an economic
justification for heritage, heritage tourism defined, a background on historical inquiry,
and authenticity and heritage tourism. The chapter also includes the purpose of the study,

the research questions explored and a justification for the project.

An Economic Justification for Heritage

As an important outlet for engaging with the past, heritage tourism has emerged
as an important segment of the United States (U .S.) travel market during the past decade.
Heritage travelers in the US have been Shown to stay longer at their destinations and
spend more money than other travelers (Travel Industry Association of America, 1998),
with “visiting museums and/or historic sites” cited as the third most popular activity for
US. domestic travelers (Travel Industry Association of America, 2003 ). In addition,
48% of small town/rural travelers in the US. reported visiting a historic site on their last
trip (Gallop-Goodman, 2001). In Michigan, tourism is a $10 billion per year industry
(Travel Michigan, 1999) and recent studies have shown that 28% of all travelers in
Michigan, and 80% of small town/rural travelers, visited a historic site on their most
recent pleasure trip (Herbowicz, 2001; Holecek, Spencer, Williams & Herbowicz, 2000).
In addition, Michigan museums have been shown to contribute an estimated 25,000 jobs
and $552 million to the statewide economy (Stynes, Vander Stoep, & Sun, 2003).

Preservationists and heritage resource managers have noticed the potential
economic benefits of heritage tourism during the past decade. The National Trust for

Historic Preservation, for example, initiated its Heritage Tourism Initiative as a means for

sustained economic development and urban revitalization strategies (Green, 1993).
Similarly, the American Association of Museums published Museums in the Life of a City
(1995) and Museums Count (1994), highlighting the economic impact and opportunities
for economic and social partnerships between museums and their host communities. In
addition, the positive economic impact of museums, historic preservation, cultural
activities and the performing arts has been well explored (Alliance for the Arts, 2001;
Listokin, Listokin & Lahr, 1998; Metro Chicago Information Center, 2001; New England
Foundation for the Arts, 1997).

In Michigan, a recent study commissioned by the Michigan Historic Preservation
Network (Clarion Associates, 2002) highlighted the positive economic impacts of historic
preservation in Michigan and the potential for preservationists to link historic resources
with the state’s natural resource-based tourism products. The Michigan Museums
Association (MMA) also examined the potential for a common agenda between cultural
resources and commerce, calling for partnerships between museums and the tourism
industry (MMA, 1997) and conducting a study about museum and tourism sector
collaboration (V ander Stoep, 1998).

In 2001 , the State of Michigan formed the Department of History, Arts and
Libraries (HAL), having a mission of “enriching quality of life for Michigan residents by
providing access to information, preserving and promoting Michigan’s heritage and
fostering cultural creativity” (Department of History, Arts and Libraries, 2002b: 1] 1). As
part of its mission to promote Michigan’s heritage and culture, the Maritime Heritage
Destination and Cultural Tourism Visitor Experience Pilot Project was developed. This

program consists of four Michigan communities that are dedicated to building creative

partnerships to collaboratively develop historic resources: Port Huron,
Marquette/Negaunee, South Haven and Manistee/Ludington (Department of History, Arts

and Libraries, 2002a).

Heritage Tourism Defined

Because heritage tourism potentially includes such a diverse mix of products,
services and experiences, defining it is not easy. As Hughes (1996) points out, some use
the term cultural tourism to include visits to historic buildings and sites, museums, art
galleries and the performing arts, while others use the term historical tourism to describe
these same activities with the exception of the performing arts. Hughes (1996) further
argues that cultural tourism should be expanded to include aspects of live entertainment.
As McKercher and du Cros (2002) state, “there are almost as many definitions or
variations of definitions of cultural tourism as there are cultural tourists” (p. 3). They go
on to note that this lack of clarity is attributed to the recent emergence of the cultural
tourism sector, the diversity of experiences attributed to it, and other self-serving
motivations. For example, politically motivated definitions and marketing-oriented
definitions tend to be very broad, they argue, in order to justify the importance of
resource management and future investment.

Prentice (1993) uses the term ‘heterogeneity’ to describe this diversity of heritage
products. He provides 23 distinct, yet related, classifications of heritage products,
services and experiences that include “pleasure gardens” and “countryside and treasured
landscapes” as well as “attractions concerned with primary production,” such as cider

mills, dairies and farms. The 23 specific classifications have been organized into three

general categories of heritage tourism: built heritage, cultural heritage and natural
heritage (Masherg & Silverrnan, 1996). For purposes of this research, heritage tourism
will be used broadly to describe aspects of built, cultural and natural heritage, but will
focus on products, services and experiences that emphasize the historical context of these

three realms (e. g., having some connection to the past).

Background on Historical Inquiry

When asked what the term ‘history’ means to them, most Americans conjure up
negative images of high school classes, lengthy textbooks filled with facts, and a general
lack of relevance to their lives (Loewen, 1995); however, studies indicate that American
adults engage with history in many ways, despite their previous negative experiences.
For example, Rosenzweig and Thelen (1998) reported that 57% of Americans visited a
museum at least once during the past year, with 80% of Americans considering museums
to be the most trustworthy source of historical information. Furthermore, their study
indicated that Americans felt most connected to the past when they were at a family
gathering (68%), visiting a museum (56%) or celebrating a holiday (53%). These results
demonstrate that American adults can find relevance and a connection to the past,
particularly through family relationships and visiting museums.

The findings of Rosenzweig and Thelen (1998) parallel a fundamental change that
has been occurring in the field of history during the past thirty years. Termed the “new
history” or “social history,” this current perspective replaces a white, male, heroic,
military perspective with one that includes the stories of people and groups previously

excluded, overlooked or ignored by historians, such as women or minorities. This

version of history celebrates the stories of everyday life, making the experiences of
ordinary individuals as relevant as those of politicians, military heroes or wealthy elites
(Appleby, Hunt & Jacob, 1994; Kyvig & Marty, 2000).

These changing historical perspectives are a result of changes in historical
inquiry, with the concept of objective truth being modified and challenged by social
constructivism. During the past century, the notion that historians are able to uncover
hidden truths through their study of historical sources has been replaced with an
acknowledgement that understanding the past is limited by the nature of the sources left
behind. Sources inherently are influenced by the social context of their creation, and they
become interpretations of this context, not simply statements of fact (Howell &
Prevenier, 2001). History in this sense is nOt just about sources of truth, but also subject
to contemporary interpretation by historians. As one of the historians of Colonial
Williamsburg said, “we could tell ten thousand stories about the past, but we only tell one

hundred” (Handler & Gable, 1997, p. 60).

Authenticity and Heritage Tourism
Despite calls for increased collaboration among heritage resource managers and
the tourism industry during the past decade, a review of literature reveals fundamental
tension between them (Ashworth, 1994; Garrod & Fyall, 2000; McKercher & du Cros,
2002). Considered together, one of the core sources of this tension about heritage
tourism is the definition, relevance and importance of the concept of historical
authenticity. In the process of creating a heritage tourism product that attracts visitors, it

is argued, the history of a site becomes distorted, and in some cases recreated into

something completely false (Cohen, 1988; Herbert, 1995). As a product created for
consumption, heritage is often differentiated from history, criticized as being contrived,
packaged and then marketed for particular consumer groups (Ashworth, 1994). As
Lowenthal (1998, p. 128) states, “heritage bends history in its creative commingling of
fact with fiction,” creating myths to serve particular elite groups and further their prestige
and position. The Wydah Galley, an 18th century shipwreck and the centerpiece of a
proposed pirate museum in Tampa, Florida, demonstrates this point. Ye Mystic Krewe of
Gasparilla, a local group consisting only of influential white male elites, promoted the
museum as a way to tie into their yearly Mardi-Gras—like pirate heritage celebration.
Public outcry arose when the role of the ship as a slave trader became known, and
eventually the project was rejected (Y elvington, Goslin & Aniaga, 2002).

Further demonstrating these points, studies that have examined heritage tourism
development have shown a clear link between decisions made during the planning
process and the lack of authenticity of the heritage product that is created for visitors.
Tilley (1997) showed how the Wala Island Tourist Resort in Malekula, Vanuatu (located
off the coast of Australia) selectively chose portions of the historical record that would
best attract their target market tourists from neighboring islands. Similarly, Waitt (2000)
described how deliberate decisions were made by heritage tourism developers in Sydney,
Australia to select parts of the historical record that would avoid issues of conflict,
oppression and racism that were authentic to the area in order to attract a certain type of
tourist. Barthel-Bouchier (2001) also described how The Amana Colonies (Iowa, US.)

deliberately ignored authentic aspects of their history, as well as recommendations of

historic preservationists, to develop a commercialized ‘German’ product to attract more
tourists rather than tell the authentic story of their culture.

It is this lack of authenticity that is most often associated with heritage production
(Ashworth, 1994; Herbert, 1995; Lowenthal, 1998; Prentice, 1993) and, while
discussions of historical authenticity are philosophical in nature, it has been shown that
an increasingly sophisticated and educated market of heritage tourists not only
recognizes, but expects and values, authenticity as part of their experience (Hargrove,
1999, 2002; McKercher & du Cros, 2002). AS part of the tourism development process,
authenticity is encouraged to highlight the distinctive and unique qualities of
communities, not only creating drawing power for heritage tourists, but also adding value
to their experience (Boniface, 1995; Gartner, 1996; Green, 1993). To facilitate future
collaborative heritage tourism development and create more historically authentic
experiences for visitors, it is important to explore the nature and role of historical

authenticity in the tourism development process.

Purpose of the Study
This study explores how stakeholder beliefs regarding historical authenticity
influence the heritage tourism products, services and experiences created for visitors.
More specifically, this study explores the value of historical authenticity and its relative
importance compared with other factors for developing heritage tourism products,

services and experiences.

Research Questions
Using a case study approach, the following research questions are explored:
1. How are heritage tourism products, services and experiences developed?
2. How is heritage tourism represented in the community?
3. How do stakeholders define historical authenticity?
4. How important is historical authenticity relative to other factors in the heritage

tourism development process?

Scope of the Research and Delimitations
This study is based on object-based authenticity (as objective reality or a process
of social construction), not based on activity-based authenticity that includes visitor
perceptions or actual experiences (Wang, 1999). This research focuses on the current and
potential heritage products, services and experiences created by stakeholders during the
tourism development

Figure 1. Location of Manistee and Ludington, Michigan.

process, not on the

 

 

 

Manistee I
(Manistee Co.) perceptions or actual
LAKE experiences of visitors
MICHIGAN .
who are consummg
Ludington
(Mason Co.) the products. HAL

Director Dr. Bill Anderson is from the Manistee and Ludington area, was President of
West Shore Community College and involved with the Uniqueness Committee in
Manistee, Michigan. Dr. Anderson was consulted to select a community that has had a

history of collaboration between heritage resource managers and economic development

professionals in the tourism development process. Based upon this criteria, the
communities of Manistee and Ludington, Michigan were chosen as the case study site for
this research. Although Manistee and Ludington are independent communities (Figure
1), they are examined in this research as a single case. This is based on their participation
in the HAL Pilot Project as a single collaborative entity for regional product development
and promotion. Because of the exploratory nature of the case study research design, the
results are limited to the specific case of Manistee and Ludington, although the data do

provide a basis for fixture research in other contexts.

Justification

Studies of heritage tourism have tended to focus on issues of economic impact or
visitor profiles for marketing purposes (Chandler & Costello, 2002; McIntosh & Prentice,
1999; Stynes, Vander Stoep & Sun, 2004; Wang, 1999). While important, these concepts
tend to overshadow the role and impacts of collaborative interactions between key
heritage tourism stakeholders on the products, services and experiences provided to those
visitors. With several notable exceptions (Dierking & Falk, 1997; Karp, Kreamer &
Lavine, 1992; McCarthy, 1992; Wireman, 1997), collaboration between heritage resource
managers and other relevant stakeholders, and especially their understanding of historical
authenticity, is relatively unexplored. In addition, while the philosophical tensions
between heritage resource management and tourism development have been discussed
and studied (Ashworth, 1994; Garrod & F yall, 2000; Herbert, 1995; Hewison, 1987;

Lowenthal, 1998; McKercher & Du Cros, 2002), tourism research dealing with

10

authenticity has focused primarily on visitors, and their perceptions and interactions with
the heritage product rather than on those involved in creating the visitor experience.

It is hoped that the results can be used to help facilitate the heritage tourism
development process in the future by providing a better understanding of the relationships
among and philosophical differences between cultural resource managers and tourism
development professionals. Further, results of this study should support the continuing
efforts of state historical agencies and tourism marketing agencies to encourage
collaboration between local heritage resource managers, their communities and the

tourism sector.

Definitions
Because of the variety of definitions for heritage tourism in the research and
popular literature, specific definitions for purposes of this study are provided here:

0 Heritage tourism: products, services and experiences developed to attract visitors
from outside the community to the places and activities that represent the stories and
people of the past, including built, natural and cultural heritage (adapted from
Masberg & Silverman, 1996; National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2003).

0 Heritage products, services and experiences: historic resources, including history
museums, historic sites and houses, historic districts and heritage routes, as well as
special events, festivals and fairs that are developed around historic themes through a

connection to the past (adapted from Gunn, 1994; Prentice, 1993).

ll

Tourism development process: community-based collaboration involving shared
decision-making among key stakeholders in planning and implementation (adapted
from Howe, McMahon & Propst, 1997; Jamal & Getz, 1995).

Stakeholders: individuals, groups and organizations directly involved in, or impacted
by, the tourism development process (adapted from Gray, 1989; Jamal & Getz, 1995).
Tourism planning based on authenticity as objective reality: planning in which
stakeholders involved in the heritage tourism development process use “an absolute
and objective criterion” (Wang, 1999, p. 351) provided by experts or parts of the
historical record, such as data, objects, pictures or stories, to establish historical
authenticity.

Tourism planning based on authenticity as social construction: planning in which
stakeholders involved in the heritage tourism development process construct
historical authenticity through their own, or others’ past or present experiences,

expectations, preferences, points of view and beliefs (Wang, 1999).

12

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

Historical research methods have received much scrutiny and undergone
significant change during the past century. The traditional view of history as objective
truth waiting to be discovered has been replaced with social constructivist views that
question both the validity of historical sources from the past and those who would study
them in the present. These changing views have not only influenced how history is
documented and studied, but also how the public interacts with the past at museums and
historic sites. Calls for collaboration between cultural resource managers and economic
development professionals are representative of this changing historical landscape.
Underlying the beneficial intentions of collaboration, however, are fundamental
ideological differences that have made their widespread use difficult.

This chapter summarizes the review of literature relevant to the study of historical
authenticity and heritage tourism deveIOpment. This includes an examination of changes
in historical research methods, the relationship between heritage tourism and historical
authenticity, and the nature of collaboration between historic resource mangers and

economic development professionals.
Changing Historical Inquiry

During the past century, there have been changes in methods of historical

research, and some have questioned the motivation and purpose for history to be written

13

at all. While the details and nuances of the development and change in historiography are
too complex for these purposes, an important trend has emerged that could impact the use
of historical resources in heritage tourism development. The notion of objective truth or
reality has been challenged by the idea that historians, and the sources of historical
information with which they work, have inherent biases that influence what can be
known about the past. Howell and Prevenier (2001) state that historians openly
acknowledge the limitations of their sources and that these sources, regardless of how
imperfect they are, are still the only means we have to explore the past. While sources
will not provide unbending truth, they still can be decoded by historians to better
understand past realities.

Appleby, Hunt and Jacob (1994) offer further insight into some of the
constructivist positions that have challenged the notion of objectivity. For example, they
describe the rise of skepticism, which questions the truth of statements, and relativism,
which states that truth is simply relative to the position of the person making the
statement. These subjective philosophical positions view history as a social construct,
created by the politics and power of historians, rather than as a search for objective truth.
Despite claims to objectivity, the previous domination of historical narratives by a white,
male, heroic perspective is seen to support this claim, serving more as a nation-building,
identity-creating or status quo-preserving device, rather than an objective source of how
things occurred in the past (Loewen, 1995; Lowenthal, 1998). As a result, much effort
has beenmade by historians under the social constructivist philosophy to study less
powerful, disadvantaged and exploited members and groups within society (Iggers,

1997).

14

History, Heritage and Authenticity

While historians are becoming more apt to recognize the limits of objective truth
in their field, some are nonetheless critical of the heritage industry as presenting false and
untrue stories. Heritage, argues Lowenthal (1998), which is based more on faith than on
fact, “passes on exclusive myths of origin and continuance, endowing a select group with
prestige and common purpose” (p. 128). Ashworth (1994) suggests that this is the result
of a selective process between competing messages:

At one level the heritage product is a particular experience, such as a museum

visit, but at a deeper level it is an intangible idea or feeling, whether fantasy,

nostalgia, pleasure, pride and the like. The inescapable consequence of this is that

both what is sold and what is bought contain messages. These messages stem

from the conscious choices of resources, products and packaging, which are

performed on the basis of sets of subjective values, consciously or not, of those

exercising these choices. (p. 20)
The end result of this process, he argues, is a heritage product that has a meaning specific
only to its intended audience and separate from its actual, tangible artifacts. This
meaning can be manipulated in endless ways to cater to any potential audience.
Similarly, Schouten (1995) argues that history is not an unmovable truth at a particular
point in time, but rather an evolving conception constructed within the present. As an
interpretation of the past with present purposes, heritage products and how the public
interacts with them will change over time. In their study of Colonial Williamsburg,
Handler and Gable (1997), echo this sentiment:

The Colonial Williamsburg we discovered in the field continued to be a place that

downplayed class conflict, denigrated those who complained about their lot, and

celebrated upscale consumerism, linking the latter to enduring ideas of American

virtue as if prosperity were a kind of grace, a Sign and reward of the virtuous. (p.
221)

15

According to Handler and Gable, authenticity is an unattainable present-day myth.
Despite attempts to bring in a more democratic form of social history, as evidenced by
manure in the streets and interpretive themes centering on women and slavery, they
conclude that the actual product at Colonial Williamsburg is a Republican Disneyland.

Countering these arguments against heritage as inherently inauthentic, self-
serving fabrications, heritage resource organizations that have advocated partnerships
with heritage tourism have been explicit in their calls for authenticity. The National
Trust for Historic Preservation (Green, 1993), for example, cites authenticity as a way to
promote the true story of an area by giving the destination real value and appeal.
Similarly, the Michigan Historic Preservation Network (Clarion Associates, 2002)
suggests that authentic heritage tourism shOuld focus on the unique or distinctive
characteristics and stories of a place. While she does not explicitly define authenticity,
Hargrove (1999, 2002) describes it in terms of objective truth, describing it as a
significant or distinctive asset, something real and tangible that visitors can experience
that is supported by historical fact. Visitors to heritage sites across the United States, she
argues, have come to value and expect authenticity as part of a meaningful, quality
educational experience. In calling for a focus on authenticity, McKercher and du Cros
(2002) clarify this point by saying, “the days have well and truly passed where low-
quality experiences can satisfy the gullible tourist” (p.127).

Within the context of heritage tourism, Wang (1999) provides an important
differentiation between the competing definitions of authenticity. Authenticity in tourism
can be applied to both the visitor experience (activity-related authenticity) and the toured

objects themselves (object-related authenticity). Where Wang’s existential definition of

16

authenticity deals with the activities or experience of the visitor, both objective and
constructive definitions of authenticity focus more on objects, or the heritage tourism
product that has been developed. Because the goal of this study is to better understand
the role of authenticity in the heritage tourism development process (creating objects or
products for consumption), Wang’s objective and constructive definitions of object-

related authenticity are used as the basis for exploring stakeholder beliefs and opinions.

Historical Authenticity and Heritage Tourism Development

In his analysis of The Rocks, a maritime heritage destination in Sydney, Australia,
Waitt (2000) concluded that experiencing history was an important motivation for
visitors to the site, but their perceptions of historical authenticity were not accurate.
Despite the fact that the site appeared authentic to visitors, what they were actually
consuming was a commodified version of the past, created by the Sydney Cove
Redevelopment Authority to intentionally overlook the conflict and oppression faced by
indigenous peoples, Chinese laborers and women. The representation of Sydney’s
maritime heritage at The Rocks has been criticized for being patriarchal, Euro-centric and
obsessed with creating a nation-building identity, such as the first church, the first village
and the first fortified position in Australia. Waitt’s analysis Shows a reliance on a social
construction of history, in this case created to serve political and economic goals.
Despite ample evidence in the historical record of overcrowding, hardship, disease,
pollution, and impoverished housing, The Rocks was redeveloped with sandstone lanes,

cobbled streets, and terraced cottages having polished brass door knockers. In this case,

17

objective historical authenticity was not considered as important as the political and
economic factors of redeveloping the waterfront for tourists.

Similar conclusions were reached by Barthel-Bouchier (2001) who examined the
development of The Amanas, a German heritage Site located in Iowa. The decision of the
town to consider making their town’s heritage a tourist attraction led to a lengthy
planning process, which included hiring a team of historical preservation consultants.
Despite the consultants’ recommendations, the town embarked on a path that resulted in
an increase of commercial enterprises, including three Christmas gift shops and a
welcome center that sells trinkets not made locally, along with six bed-and-breakfasts and
a large hotel. Barthel-Bouchier concludes that the town put more emphasis on the
economic benefits of attracting and servicing visitors, deliberately abandoning the
objective historical authenticity of the communal religious character of their past, to
create a more marketable version of German heritage.

The authenticity of historical information used for tourism development is also
examined by Tilley (1997) in his study of the Wala Island Tourist Resort in Malekula,
Vanuatu, off the coast of Australia. He demonstrated that the second-hand information
used to recreate the village, as well as the historical information used to provide detail
and context to the dance performance, were not authentic. While the dance performance
itself was passed down through oral tradition, the costumes were fashioned based on
photographs from an anthropological study conducted in 1913 on neighboring islands
representing different cultures and traditions, and the dancing ground itself bears no
resemblance to the actual ancient dancing grounds found on the island. In this case, the

villagers responsible for developing the heritage product left out, ignored or replaced

18

objectively authentic aspects of their history to create a satisfying experience for their
visitors, one that placed more importance on reinforcing the marketing brochure images
of a traditional and isolated culture.

In each of the above cases, factors other than historical authenticity took more
precedence in the tourism development process. Even in cases in which historical objects
have survived or enough evidence exists in the historical record to recreate them, other
factors such as visitor expectations, damage to fragile resources and serving economic
and political goals of the host community need to be considered. As part of the heritage
tourism development process, therefore, it is important not only to state what parts of the
heritage product are historically authentic, but also to examine why these aspects are
included. As Hollinshead (1996) points out, tourism development stakeholders must not
only ask if the stories about the past are true, but also examine who and what is silenced
or excluded by the selected narrative. It is necessary to explore the factors considered
more important by stakeholders when certain aspects are excluded. In this respect, it is
necessary to not only examine how definitions of historical authenticity are at work in the
process, but also to examine the collaborative interactions, relationships, beliefs and goals
of the stakeholders involved. Better understanding how these factors are at work in the
heritage tourism development process could potentially help to provide the more
authentic experiences that visitors have been shown to value, and contribute to other

values, such as economic development, simultaneously.

l9

Collaborative Heritage Tourism Development

Much of the literature in the tourism field about collaboration theory and
partnerships deals with private and public partnerships, particularly those involving
federal and state agencies responsible for managing natural resources, rather than on
organizations and sites representing heritage resources (Bender, 1998; Howe, McMahon
& Propst, 1997; Selin, Schuett & Carr, 1997). It has been argued that part of the reason
state and federal agencies have taken interest in collaboration involves the changing
government fiscal policies of the 19805 and 1990s. The social welfare philosophy of
local government directly providing leisure services gave way to an era of fiscal
reductionism, calls for increased budgetary efficiency and the adoption of a marketing
orientation by concerned taxpayers and lawmakers (Burton & Glover, 1999). Planning
and management is no longer the function solely of government providers, but has
become a process that focuses on key issues based upon community needs (Veal, 1999).

This philosophy is also evident in heritage resource management, with marketing,
tourism and economic development partnerships often being offered as a solution to the
fiscal demands of heritage resource management (McCarthy, 1992; Wireman, 1997).
Wireman suggests partnerships with economic development stakeholders as a means for
museums to attract more visitors and increase revenue while at the same time providing
firnds to better fulfill educational, curatorial and collection development roles. These
collaborative intentions are complicated by differences between cultural resource
managers and tourism professionals. Tourism is part of the private sector, with a focus

on issues of economics, marketing, visitation and profit-making. Cultural resource

20

managers tend to be part of the public and non-profit sectors and focus more on their
collections, conservation for intrinsic value, and education. These different emphases
have complicated collaborative tourism development efforts between these two groups
(McKercher & du Cros, 2002). Similar findings were documented by Garrod & Fyall
(1999), who found that heritage resource managers in the United Kingdom considered
roles such as conservation, accessibility and education most important, while providing a
quality, satisfying leisure experience and interactions with the local community (issues
fundamental to tourism) were considered least important. Aas, Ladkin and Fletcher’s
(2005) study of collaborative heritage tourism development at a world heritage site found
further evidence of this lack of cooperation. In this case, they found that those involved
with tourism development were actually dOing more to try to raise funds to preserve
potential tourist sites than were heritage resource managers.

It could be that heritage resource managers are considering collaboration and
partnerships with tourism as a means to an economic end, despite the tension between
this orientation and their more traditional roles. It is important not only to explore the
motivations of heritage resource managers for collaboration with tourism professionals,
but also to understand how these motivations relate to other factors involved with the
process. Examining stakeholder beliefs in a community where collaboration exists
between these two groups should help us to understand how conceptualizations of history

and historical authenticity influence the heritage tourism development process.

21

Summary

The study and documentation of history has undergone significant change during
the past century, moving from the belief that historians can uncover objective truth to one
that accepts the inherent biases of the social processes that create historical sources and
the historians who study them. One result has been more attention given to the
marginalized members of society whose stories were previously ignored or obscured by a
white, male, heroic historical perspective. A review of literature examining heritage
tourism development and historical authenticity shows a consistent criticism of the lack
of authenticity in heritage tourism experiences, products and services.

This study explores stakeholder beliefs of historical authenticity and its
importance to determine if these views have an impact on the heritage tourism products
and services provided. Are the products and services on the landscape consistent with
their definitions of historical authenticity, or are other factors having more influence on
the process? By using a triangulated research design that explores stakeholder beliefs
about history and historical authenticity, reviews the historical record and documents
what is being offered to tourists, themes and categories of meaning emerge that help us
begin to understand these complex relationships and how they impact the heritage

tourism landscape.

22

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODS

Introduction

The Michigan communities of Manistee and Ludington have been selected as case
study sites for this research from among the participants in the Department of History,
Arts and Libraries (HAL) Cultural Tourism Visitor Experience Pilot Project. In order to
participate in the HAL project, these communities had to demonstrate a commitment to
creative partnerships for developing historic resources as well as provide financial
assistance to the program. Because the purpose of this research is to explore
collaborative heritage tourism development among multiple stakeholders, including both
economic development professionals and heritage resource managers, participation in the
HAL project makes these communities appropriate cases.

The case study approach uses a triangulated mix of methods to explore the
research questions. Individual in-depth interviews with stakeholders involved in the
heritage tourism development process are supplemented with a document review,
including primary and secondary historical inforrnationoabout the communities, planning
documents, marketing and promotional materials and other relevant secondary sources
such as newspapers, magazines and electronic media. In addition, tour guide training
manuals, interpretive materials and exhibit texts are documented by the researcher to
identify existing and planned heritage products, services and experiences.

This chapter describes the research methods used for the study. The case study

design is described, including a justification for its use and discussion of potential bias.

23

The data collection and analysis process is described, along with an overview of the pilot

testing used prior to beginning the data collection phase.

Case Study Design

Qualitative research has been characterized as having multiple techniques for
sampling, data collection, data management and analysis. The specific combination of
techniques is dependent upon the goals, objectives and research questions involved, with
particular emphasis on having an iterative or flexible research design (Crabtree & Miller,
1992). Qualitative methods are considered especially relevant for examining complex
real-life situations, where the boundaries between relationships, linkages, processes and
the phenomena in question are not clearly evident (Marshall & Rossman, 1999; Yin,
1994). Exploratory research designs utilize qualitative research methods to investigate
new or little-understood phenomena by identifying relevant categories of meaning,
describing the meanings, variations and dimensions of concepts and by generating
explanations or hypotheses for future research (Crabtree & Miller, 1992; Marshall &
Rossman, 1999).

Triangulation, defined as “varieties of data, investigators, theories, and methods,”
(Berg, 1995, p. 5) can be applied to both quantitative and qualitative research. Denzin
(1978) encourages triangulation involving multiple data collection procedures, theoretical
perspectives and analysis techniques, because this combination provides a more complete
answer to research questions. The main assumption for supporting the use of
triangulation is that the weaknesses, limitations and threats to validity that exist in each

method can be counterbalanced by the strengths of other methods (J ick, 1983). It also

24

has been suggested that triangulation is an important characteristic and strength of the
case study method, which includes multiple sources of evidence that have “converging
lines of inquiry” (Yin, 1994, p. 92). Using multiple sources of information to explore the
same research questions, as in case studies, helps address potential problems with
construct validity by providing several different views of the same problem.

Furthermore, issues of reliability can be addressed by using multiple sources of
information, creating a comprehensive database, and establishing a chain of evidence that
connects research questions, protocols, data analysis and conclusions for future
researchers to examine independently.

The case study method used for this research combines the following for
comparative analysis of content: individual in-depth interviews with heritage tourism
stakeholders; a document review of planning documents, media coverage of the process,
promotional materials of the developed heritage products and services, and primary and
secondary sources of historical information about the communities; and documentation of
the heritage products and services that exist on the landscape. By using these multiple
sources of information to explore the same research questions, a more accurate and
complete picture of the case is achieved than could be acquired independently. At the
same time, each source provides a means for verifying, refuting or building upon the data
and information uncovered in the other sources.

The research questions proposed here deal with a complex organizational process
involving multiple stakeholders that requires a depth of understanding not possible
through quantitative survey methods. The use of qualitative case study research methods,

including document review, participant observation and in-depth individual interviews, is

25

appropriate for this research because it provides the detail necessary to explore
stakeholder definitions of historical authenticity, the value of historical authenticity in the
process, and the importance and relationships of historical authenticity to other factors
involved in heritage tourism development identified by stakeholders. This allows for an
initial understanding of these complex interactions and provide variables, concepts and

categories for future research.

Sample

Participants for the individual interviews were obtained through a snowball
sampling technique. An initial list of key informants was developed with Dr. Bill
Anderson, Director of the Department of History, Arts and Libraries. The sample
included a total of 17 people, consisting of six heritage resource managers, eight
economic development professionals and three other stakeholders: Heritage resource
managers included people who worked directly for or with the historic resources of the
area; economic development professionals worked for the Chamber of Commerce,
Convention & Visitors Bureau or private businesses; and other stakeholders included
those from local government and other tourism interests that were not heritage resource
managers or economic development professionals. From this initial list, four people did
not participate and one additional potential participant was provided who also did not
participate. The final sample included six heritage resource managers, five economic
development professionals, and two other participants.

Potential participants were contacted initially through a letter of introduction and

support by Dr. Anderson (Appendix A) and then were contacted by mail (Appendix B) to

26

request their participation in the study. A follow-up phone call verified their willingness

to participate and to identify additional stakeholders for participation (Appendix C).

Data Collection

The purpose of the interviews was to determine the individual perceptions of
participants in the heritage tourism development process in Manistee and Ludington, their
views on historical authenticity and its importance in the process, and how they believe
authenticity has been included or excluded from the products and services developed.
The interview contained structured questions and planned follow-up questions asked of
all participants; however, the researcher had the option of asking unplanned follow-up
questions specific to each participant. The structure of the interview questions followed
the guidelines of Spradley (1979) as described in Crabtree and Miller (1992): descriptive
questions are broad and open-ended, with the goal of encouraging rich, contextual stories
that are driven by the participant; structural questions are used to provide focus by
determining what is included within this context; and contrast questions are used to
determine what is excluded, as well as provide insight into the relationships that exist
between concepts (Appendix D). The interviews were conducted over several days in
September and December of 2003. Participants were given a copy of the release
statement that they signed and returned to the researcher before the interviews and each
was asked to give additional verbal consent on tape prior to beginning the individual
interview. Thirteen interviews were conducted, including six with heritage resource

managers, five with economic development professionals and two with other

stakeholders.

27

The purpose of the document review of historical sources was to determine the
breadth of heritage resources and stories particular to each community and provide a
basis for evaluating what was included or excluded in the tourism product. Because
secondary works can introduce bias, this review included both primary and secondary
historical sources. While the scope of the project precluded in-depth collection and
analysis of primary historical sources, they were utilized when possible to help generate
broad historical context and identify historical topics that could be developed as heritage
tourism products and services. Secondary works obtained fiom on-line catalogs at
Michigan State University (MAGIC) and the Library of Michigan (ANSWER),
supplemented by local works that surfaced during the interviews, provided further broad
context.

Planning documents, marketing and promotional materials were examined to identify
how the beliefs of stakeholders revealed in interviews were evident in the heritage
tourism products, services and experiences. They also provided insight into the relative
importance and relationship of historical authenticity to other factors involved in the
heritage tourism development process. The document review included: Thirteen
secondary sources, eleven primary sources, five newsletter articles, two press releases
and six websites.

Documentation of heritage products, services and experiences focused on the
objects, landscapes, interpretive themes and messages provided to tourists to determine if
they confirmed or contradicted the views of interview participants and the context
provided by the document review and historical analysis. When available, training

materials used by individual sites were examined, along with exhibit texts and

28

promotional materials. Site visits were documented by taking photographs, both digital
and film, for later analysis. This involved visits to 13 historical sites where 939 digital

photographs were taken, including 307 of exhibit texts or historical markers for analysis.

Analysis
Interview participants each were given an arbitrary code to help preserve
confidentiality, composed of a number following the generic abbreviation “ML”
(standing for Manistee/Ludington). Interviews were audio recorded using a tape recorder
and then transcribed by the researcher for later analysis. Once transcribed, a copy of the
transcribed interview was sent to the participant, along with a letter asking them to verify
the accuracy of recorded information (Appendix E). Upon receipt of corrected
transcripts, or upon verification of their accuracy if they were not returned, analysis
began. Analysis primarily involved thematic text analysis through text coding as
described by Crabtree and Miller (1992), with the goal of organizing the large volume of
text from the interviews into categories of meaning. Analysis of the transcribed
interviews followed this process:
0 The transcribed interviews were printed and read twice by the researcher to
develop general familiarity with participant responses.
0 These initial readings led to development of categories of meaning that were ‘cut
and pasted’ electronically into Microsoft Excel from the transcribed interviews.
(Excel was chosen to aid in analysis because fiscal limitations prevented the

researcher from purchasing a quantitative data analysis software package.)

29

o The quotes that were pasted into Excel were identified by: participant code
number, stakeholder category, the interview question it was answering, the page
number from the interview, the quote itself, and the category of meaning it was
assigned. Using the ‘sort’ function in Excel, the data were organized both by
question number and by category of meaning for further analysis and refinement
of ideas.

To reduce potential researcher bias, a second neutral expert also reviewed the results and
was asked to provide alternative categories of meaning for comparison.

Planning documents, media accounts of the tourism development process,
marketing and promotional materials (both hard copy brochures and electronic materials
on websites), and training materials for interpreters were collected on the intemet, at
libraries and during site visits in Manistee and Ludington in June, 2003. Hard copy
materials were transcribed into electronic format, and then Microsoft Excel was used to
sort and analyze the data using the same process as used for the individual interviews.
Primary and secondary historical sources were used to develop a general narrative of the
development of the area (Chapter 4 of this document), describing the stories and events
evident in the sources.

Analysis of the individual products and experiences focused on identification of
historical topics, the definition of historical authenticity evident at the sites, and the way
these topics were presented to visitors. Digital images of exhibit texts gathered during
the site visits in June 2003 were transcribed and analyzed using the same content analysis

techniques as used for the document review and stakeholder interviews. These data were

30

used both to verify what was discovered in the interviews and document review, and to

identify gaps that existed between them.

Potential Bias

The possibility of bias exists in all three components of the study (stakeholder
interviews, document review and participant observation). As suggested by J ick (1983),
the triangulated mix of methods employed should help reduce the bias in or weaknesses
of each component and the threats they pose to validity. Although certain categories of
meaning were apparent in data from all three sources, categories of meaning from one
data source were not automatically used as a basis of analysis for the other sources.

Specifically, interview questions addressed the potential bias of leading the
participant in a certain direction by utilizing open-ended questions with participant-driven
context and meaning. The interviews also followed a semi-structured approach, in which
every participant was asked the same questions and structured follow-up questions, while
participant-specific follow-up questions were asked when appropriate. Wording of
questions in the interview was refined during pilot testing to avoid confusion during data
collection. While a second neutral review of the raw data was not performed, a second
neutral review of the results of the study was conducted to provide comments and suggest
alternative categories of meaning. Because secondary historical sources could include
the bias of historians, or reflect power and influence in society, primary sources were

used when possible to verify and validate their contents.

31

Pilot Testing of Interview Questions

The interview questions and consent form were tested during a pilot phase in

March and April, 2003. Four participants, two tourism development specialists and two

heritage resource managers, were interviewed to get feedback about specific questions, to

verify that the questions were appropriate in answering the research questions, and to

further clarify word choice, definition of terms and question order. As a result of these

four pilot interviews, the following changes were made to the consent form (Appendix

B), follow-up phone call script (Appendix C) and interview instrument (Appendix D):

Throughout the interview, the phrase “heritage tourism products, services and
experiences” was changed to read: heritage tourism.
After the consent statement, the following definition of heritage tourism was
added: Before we begin, I wanted to define what is meant by heritage tourism.
When the term heritage tourism is used in this interview, it refers broadly to all of
the products, services and experiences dealing with this community ’s past that are
available to visitors. This includes historic resources, such as museums, historic
sites and houses, historic districts and heritage routes, as well as special events,
festivals and fairs that are developed around historic themes through a
connection to the community ’s past.
Before the first set of questions, this statement was added: First, I would like to
learn about you and how you got involved in heritage tourism in this community.
Question 8a was added: What do you think is needed to accurately portray the
past? Prompts: Historical information? Historians or other trained

professionals? Community members?

32

0 The amount of time to complete the interview as stated in the contact letter was

determined to be two hours.

Summary

A triangulated qualitative research design using a case study approach was chosen
to explore the role and importance of historical authenticity in the heritage tourism
development process in Manistee and Ludington. This design is appropriate because the
research problem addresses a complex organizational and social process, dealing with
diverse stakeholders and their beliefs. The exploratory nature of the design is also
appropriate given that the role of historical authenticity in the tourism development
process is a relatively unstudied phenomenon. By interviewing stakeholders involved in
the tourism development process, as well as reviewing the historical record and
documenting what heritage products and services are actually presented to tourists,
themes and categories of meaning emerged. Ultimately, these methods provided an
initial understanding of the role and importance of historical authenticity relative to other
factors involved in the heritage tourism development process in the case communities of

Manistee and Ludington, Michigan.

33

CHAPTER 4

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF MANISTEE AND LUDINGTON

Introduction

Rather than present an all-inclusive overview of the history of Manistee and
Ludington, the purpose of this chapter is to provide a brief summary of the historical
topics identified by participants and a historical literature review. These topics were
derived fi'om the interviews with study participants, as well as by a literature review of
primary and secondary sources of historical information that were available through the
Library of Michigan and the Michigan State University Library. Topics identified by
participants as less developed in the region’s heritage tourism are also included in this
historical overview to provide a more complete picture of the history of the area, and to
allow comparison with more developed historical topics in the region’s heritage tourism
system.

The historical topics in this overview include: Native Americans, the lumber era
and non-native settlement, maritime commerce on Lake Michigan, growth of resorts and
early tourism promotion, and the beginnings of heritage tourism These topics are

presented chronologically, including a discussion of the topics as they exist today.

Native Americans in Manistee and Ludington
With the retreat of the glaciers from the last great ice age about 10,000 years ago,
Michigan again became inhabitable by humans. During the past 2,000 years, Native

American communities developed and thrived in Michigan. The first to occupy the land

34

was the Hopewell culture, which mined and traded copper as far away as the Gulf of
Mexico, introduced agriculture to the state, produced decorated pottery and musical
instruments, used ceremonial burial mounds, and created large 120-acre garden beds in
symmetrical geometric patterns (Dunbar and May, 1995).

After the decline of the Hopewell and at the time of European contact (ca. 1600),
nine upper Great Lakes tribes representing three major linguistic groups - the Huron,
Iroquois, and Algonquin — lived in the region now known as Michigan. The Algonquin
linguistic group represented seven of the nine tribes in the upper Great Lakes, including
the Odawa (Ottawa), a group of about 3,000 people who lived in the area of Northwest
Michigan where Ludington and Manistee exist today, and were dependent more upon
hunting and fishing than on agriculture. Another group represented in the area was the
Chippewa, also of the Algonquin language group and noted for their dependence on
hunting and gathering, as well as for being highly skilled at fishing (Dunbar and May,
1995)

Early in the eighteenth century, the Ottawa pushed down the coast of Lake
Michigan into northwestern lower Michigan, until Ottawa villages stretched from the
Straits of Mackinac to Little Traverse Bay. Continued southward expansion of the
Ottawa, at the expense of the Mascouten who inhabited the area, resulted in development
of major villages on Grand Traverse Bay, at the mouths of the Manistee and Muskegon
rivers, and all the way to the Grand River valley (Cleland, 1992: p. 147). As discussed
later, the resulting conflict between the Ottawa and the Mascouten has become one of the

few stories of the Native American people of this region to be promoted through tourism.

35

The nineteenth century is characterized by a continuous pattern of treaties and
land cessions by the native people of Michigan. Beginning with the Treaty of Greenville
in 1795, land was ceded in southern Michigan, northern Ohio and Indiana. Culminating
with the 1836 Treaty of Washington, these land cessions paved the way for Michigan’s
statehood in 1837 and opened the southern part of the state for non-native settlement.
With the Treaty of Detroit in 1855, two-thirds of the lower peninsula of Michigan had
been ceded by the Ottawa, Chippewa and Pottawatomi (Cornell, 1989). An account of
this period by the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians characterizes this as a period of
speculation, corruption, land squatting and illegal harvesting of timber on the part of non-
native settlers in the Manistee area. Before the treaty of 1855 could be ratified, they
state, over 3,000 acres of reservation land were Sold off to lumber interests. By 1900,
nearly all of the reservation land set aside for the Ottawa had been lost
(Gdoshkwaanagana Reservation: Part 1 of 4, Reservation History Series, June 2004;
Gdoshkwaanagana Reservation: July Issue, Part 2 of 4, Reservation History Series, July
2004).

Contemporary accounts of Native Americans in Manistee and Ludington, written
during or just after the period of white settlement and industrial development (ca. 1850-
1890), are somewhat sketchy and reflect the bias of those writing them. Salt City of the
Inland Seas (1899), for example, a text containing over seventy pages, contains only two
paragraphs about the Native Americans in the area, under the heading “Passing of the
Red Man” (p. 3). This account estimates the native population to be about 1,000 at the
time of contact and refers to the Native Americans as “the untutored children of the

forest” (p. 3). It goes on to describe how the reservation that was set aside for them in the

36

Manistee River valley, extending 22 miles inland, was dismantled and the tribe scattered
after 1849. Two settlements stayed on, one near Eastlake across Manistee Lake and one
that was eventually displaced by the Louis Sands lumber mill. Kawaxicum was
mentioned specifically as the “last chief” of the Chippewa who had lived and died here,
his remains being buried near Arcadia.

Accounts of the Native Americans in Ludington are also sketchy. An individual
who receives particular mention in the accounts of Native Americans in Ludington is
Leading Thunder, given the name Good John by the white settlers of the area. The death
of Chief Sagemaw in 1845 helped to scatter the Ottawas living near Ludington. Leading
Thunder was one of the few Ottawa who remained in the area, settling on a farm and
converting to Christianity. He is credited with passing on the stories of the missionary
efforts of Father Marquette, and detailing the location of one of the crosses put in place
by early missionaries to mark the site of his death. (Anderson, 1933; Hanna, 1955). “The
death of Leading Thunder,” said Anderson (1933), “symbolizes the disappearance of the
Indian from this territory foreverrnore” (p. 30). Hanna (1955) concludes that “the Indian
such as the white man found here a century ago has disappeared from this region. The
few who remain in this county have received schooling and, for the most part, are
respected and useful members of this community” (p. 4).

In the Survey of Indian Groups in the State of Michigan, Holst (1939) reported
that “in general, they live within a 25-mile belt of land bordering the lake coasts of the
state” (p. 9). The Ottawa were reported to live in settlements that stretched from the
Mackinac Straits to Muskegon, much as they did at the time of contact with white

settlers, but in far fewer numbers. Holst reports 420 families of Ottawa and about 1,900

37

individuals at the time of the survey, most of them living within “walking distance of the
water” (p. 10). Further evidence of dispersion and assimilation is seen in this document.
Holst Specifically reports that “Northeast of Ludington is a widely scattered group with
no community center. They are taking their place with other citizens [emphasis added]”
(p. 13). He goes on to describe the families south of Ludington, saying that “this widely
scattered group have homes and land above the usual standard of the Ottawa settlements.
Mrs. Pawnishing in Crystal Valley farms 55 acres” (p. 13). In all, the communities
surrounding Manistee and Ludington were home to twenty families of Ottawa in 1939,
according to this survey.

The developing tourist industry of Northern Michigan in the late nineteenth
century did provide a market for handicrafts such as baskets, clothes hampers, corn husk
mats, utility baskets of split ash, souvenir boxes and beadwork. Compared to the time
and skill needed to produce these items, however, the artisans were not well compensated
(Cleland, 1992). In her account, We T 00 are the People (1938), Louise Armstrong
describes many of the people she encountered, the city of Manistee, and the surrounding
countryside in the course of her work at the Relief Office during the Great Depression.
She describes how two Native American women stopped making baskets for the tourist
trade after seeing that the baskets they received twenty-five cents for were being sold for
a dollar and a half to tourists.

Hiawatha pageants were also an outgrowth of the northern Michigan tourist trade,
riding on the success of Longfellow’s (1855) Song of Hiawatha and the romance of the
north woods. The Grand Rapids and Indiana Railroad, for example, promoted and held

one of the most well-known pageants at Round Lake between Petoskey and Harbor

38

Springs, featuring Ella Petoskey, the granddaughter of Chief Petoskey. Pow Wows also
had an eye toward tourists, not only as a way to sell handicrafts but also to provide what
the tourists of the day expected - war dances, feathered bonnets, and Indian princess
contests. (Cleland, 1992) The very first Manistee Forest Festival, which Louise
Armstrong played a prominent role in developing, contained an element of this romantic
Hiawatha image of the Native Americans. Instead of having a festival queen, her
husband suggested that a local Indian girl be chosen for the part, and after a young couple
agreed, Manistee had its own Indian ambassadors for the new event. The couple was
taken to a convention where the Indian Princess, dressed in “a costume of white leather
with scarlet lacings” and her husband in “colorful lumberjack regalia,” promoted the
coming festival by radio, speaking Ottawa while her husband translated to English. The
festival featured an Indian Village where beadwork and baskets would be sold at the
“trading post” (p. 446).

Thetwentieth century also saw repeated efforts on the part of the Little River
Band of Ottawa Indians to gain federal recognition, reassert treaty fishing rights and to
develop casino gaming. In the first part of the century, Native Americans who did
participate in commercial fishing conformed to the licensing practices of the State of
Michigan, along with their Euro-American counterparts. It wasn’t until the 19608 and
19705, with the development of the sport fishing industry in Michigan, and increasing
restrictions on gear and target species by the Department of Natural Resources, that the
Native Americans reaffirmed their treaty rights to fishing. While winning many of these
battles in federal court, fishing rights have been a contentious, cross-cultural issue

involving state and federal government agencies, Native Americans, commercial fishing

39

interests, and the sport fishing industry that continues today (Chiarappa and Szylvian,
2003).

During the past twenty years, casino gaming has also become part of the Native
American culture in Michigan, starting with bingo halls and evolving into large casinos
featuring hotels and live entertainment. The Little River Casino & Resort in Manistee
has developed into a major attraction for the region and a source of revenue for the Little
River Band of Ottawa Indians. In June of 2004, tribal members attended a rally to
oppose the expansion of casino slot gaming in Michigan (which was voted down by
Michigan residents in November of 2004) and were also considering applying for per
capita distribution of gaming revenues with the Secretary of the Interior for 2005

(RaciNO Rally in Lansing, June 2004; Outlook from the Ogema, June 2004).

Lumber and non-Native Settlement
The following description of Manistee (H.R. Page & Co, 1882) demonstrates the
importance of lumber to the economic development of the region:
It must be remembered that the forest of pine was the magnet that drew the first
settlers to this region. It was the ax of the logger that sounded the first notes of
industry awaking the echoes in these forests, and the sawmill first chorused the
coming of civilization and progress. This branch of industry has brought
Manistee to its present healthy proportions, built its palatial residences and solid
business blocks, and made it what it is today. (p. 51)
The first mill was built in Ludington in 1848, but lumbering did not begin in earnest until
1869 when the Pere Marquette Lumber Company began operating in the area, a business
deal in which James Ludington sold off his lumbering interests to several other lumber

barons, including D.L. Filer of Manistee. (H.R. Page & Co., 1882) At the time the Page

(1882) history of Mason County was written, the lumber industry was in full swing in

40

Ludington, and the statistics of the US. Census reinforce their characterization of
development. The US. Census reported 4 lumber establishments in Mason County in
1860, with that number rising to 9 in 1870, and 20 in 1880.

US. Census statistics list 33 lumber establishments in Manistee County in 1860,
20 in 1870, and 28 in 1880. Manistee, at least in sheer volume of establishments, was
involved earlier in the lumber trade. Again, it was not until about 1869 that the lumber
industry came into its own in terms of production supported by statistics. Beginning in
about 1869, statistics were kept by the respective companies and reprinted in the HR.
Page & Co. (1882) history of Manistee County. The amount of lumber produced by
Manistee lumber interests rose from 125 million board feet in 1868 to nearly 225 million
in 1881. Shingles were particularly important to Manistee, with over 620 million out in
1881, leading H.R. Page & Co. (1882) to assert, “the shingle mill product of Manistee
probably exceeds that of any other point in the world” (p. 52).

The Michigan State Gazateer and Business Directory (R.L. Polk & Co., 1879)
demonstrates the importance of lumber to the region. The 1879 description of both
Manistee and Ludington illustrates the dominance of lumber. Of Ludington it states that
“lumber, lath and shingles are largely manufactured” (p. 762). A more complete
description is given of Manistee in 1879: “Lumber in its various forms is the principal
article of export, there being 24 saw and Shingle mills in and about the city, most of them
located on an expansion of the river, known as Manistee Lake. It is the largest shingle
manufacturing point in the northwest, turning out an average of 2,000,000 per diem”

(p.770).

41

Ludington area mills reached their peak of production in 1891, with a steady
decline occurring thereafter (Hanna, 1955). The decline of lumber as an industry was
echoed throughout the state, with a steady decline that persisted into the 20th century.
Michigan led the nation in lumber production in 1880 with 4,172,572 M. feet B.M.,
accounting for nearly 25% of the entire US. lumber production. This continued until
1900, when Michigan was usurped by Wisconsin as lumber interests migrated west in
search of new supplys of their resource. From 1900 to 1913, Michigan’s annual lumber
production dropped from 3,012,057 to 1,222,983 M. feet B.M. (Atwood, 1915) The
Michigan State Gazateer and Business Directory, published by R. L. Polk & Company,
provides a similar description of the rise and fall of the lumber industry in Ludington and
Manistee. The 1885 edition states that “150,000,000 feet of lumber, 100,000,000
shingles and 15,000,000 lath are being produced in Ludington annually” (p. 965). By
1899 those numbers had dropped to 50,000,000 feet of lumber, 40,000,000 shingles and
15,000,000 lath, and by 1905, statistics for the lumber industry are no longer given as

part of either town’s description.

Life After Lumber
By 1895, the decline of lumber and the growth of new industry is evident in both
cities’ descriptions in the Polk directory. Of Ludington, it says that “under the vigorous
management of its progressive businessmen the development of Ludington has taken a
fresh impetus and many new interests have been located in the city” (p. 1,132). Of

Manistee, it states that “lumber and salt are the principal industries. It is located in the

42

famous Northern Michigan Fruit Belt, and the surrounding agricultural region is rapidly
advancing. Valuable farming lands are selling rapidly” (p. 1,152).

With the decline of lumber in northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula,
railroad companies looked for ways to supplement their declining passenger and height
traffic. Four regional development bureaus were formed to help sell cut-over land for
new agricultural development, promote recreation and tourism opportunities, and
promote settlement and development in general. (Myers, 1998) Formed at Traverse City
in 1910, the West Michigan Development Bureau was an outgrowth of railroad company
efforts to promote land sales in the region for industry and agriculture, along with the
recreational opportunities of the Lake Michigan shoreline. The poor quality of cut-over
lands for agricultural development led many of the members to rely increasingly on
recreation and tourism for their incomes, and by about 1930, the West Michigan
Development Bureau was dissolved and the West Michigan Tourist and Resort
Association became the primary destination marketing organization for the region.
(Myers, 1998)

Promotional literature of the 19203 included notes about the industry,
infrastructure and agricultural opportunities in the region. An agricultural product that
received Special mention in the region was fi'uit, a commodity that was promoted also to
summer resorters. Ludington-on-the-Lake and Vicinity describes the area as “one of the
finest fi'uit sections in Michigan. All kinds of small fi'uits, apples, peaches, pears, plums,
cherries, etc., are successfully grown and marketed through Ludington by rail or water.”

Manistee in Summertime goes into a bit more detail about the region and how it is suited

to agriculture of this sort:

43

Lake Michigan is a vast natural reservoir of heat during the winter months,
tempering the winds so that the mean temperature on this coast runs fiom eight to
ten degrees warmer each winter than on the opposite shore. In this great thermal
belt, 20 to 25 miles in width, peaches, cherries, pears, plums, and all the small
fi'uits reach their greatest perfection, and produce the firm that has given
Michigan her world-wide reputation for ‘Fruit with Flavor.’ Hundreds of tons of
fruit are shipped annually out of the three great harbors of the county, Manistee,
Onekama, and Arcadia. (p. 12)

“In June,” it also describes, “the air is redolent with the smell of wild strawberries. In

July and early August the woods resound with the merry laughter of huckleberrying

parties” (p. 5).

The Third Annual Report of the Secretary of State of the State of Michigan,
Relating to Farms and Farm Products (1882), demonstrates this development of fruit
growing in the region. Apples were the dominant fi'uit in terms of acreage with 940 acres
in Manistee County and 913 acres in Mason County devoted to apple orchards in 1880-
81. Peach orchards accounted for 107 acres in Mason County and 13 acres in Manistee
County in that year. By 1900, as reported in the T wenty-Third Annual Report of the
Secretary of State of the State of Michigan, Relating to Farms and Farm Products (1901),
acreage devoted to peach orchards had grown to 2,556 acres in Mason County and 1,547
acres in Manistee County. Apple orchard acreage rose to 356 acres in Manistee County
and 1,833 acres in Mason County.

Today, according to the United States Department of Agriculture’s (2002) Census
of Agriculture, Manistee and Mason County farms engage primarily in forage crops, such
as hay, grass, silage and greenchop. 56% of Manistee County’s farms engaged in forage
crops, along with 47% of Mason County’s farms. Aside from forage crops, hits and

vegetables are the principal crops in Manistee and Mason Counties in terms of production

rankings. Michigan Agricultural Statistics (2005) Field Crop County Estimates show that

44

Mason County ranked in the top five principal Michigan counties for production of tart
cherries, asparagus and snap beans. Manistee County also ranked in the top five for

asparagus. Just as in the early years of tourism and resort development, fi'esh fruits and
vegetables are still marketed to tourists. The brochure Northwest Michigan 's Finest: A
Guide to Farm Fresh Fruit and Vegetables, for example, features 12 farms and markets

where visitors can experience this aspect of the region’s heritage.

Lake Michigan as a Freshwater Highway

The Flint & Pere Marquette Railroad first arrived in Ludington in 1874 and
reached Manistee in 1881. Because of this relatively late arrival compared to their
settlement, the ports of Manistee and Ludington and water-based transportation of goods
and services played an important role in their respective development. Even with the
development of the railroads, cross-lake transportation by steamer had a competitive
advantage over the amount of time required to travel by rail around Lake Michigan
through Chicago. As a result, lines from Milwaukee to Manistee and Ludington were an
important feature of the age of steam on Lake Michigan. Nathan Engelmann brought the
first regular steamboat service to Manistee as early as 1869, which developed further
around the grth of the lumber and salt industries in the later part of the nineteenth
century (Hilton, 2002).

Lumber and salt were the major exports from Manistee and Ludington during the
last part of the 19th century. The Report on Transportation Business in The United States
at the Eleventh Census: 1890, Part 11, Transportation by Water (Eleventh Census of the

United States, 1894) provides some comparative statistics on shipping in the Great Lakes.

45

In 1890, Manistee and Ludington shipped 162,222 tons of salt, accounting for 64% of the
252,837 tons of salt shipped from all of the Great Lakes ports combined. Manistee’s
105,001 tons of salt shipped accounted for only 18% of its total height movement,
however, and Ludington’s 57,221 tons represented just 16% of its total height
movement. Shipment of lumber accounted for 79% of all freight movement through the
port of Manistee, and it was second only to Muskegon for lumber tonnage shipped among
Lake Michigan ports. Similarly, lumber accounted for 74% of Ludington’s fi'eight
movement. Manistee ranked 4Ill among Great Lakes ports in lumber shipped in that year,
with 477,785 tons. Ludington ranked 8th among all Great Lakes ports, with 258,520 tons
of lumber shipped. Taken together, salt and lumber shipments accounted for 97% of total
freight movement in Manistee, and 90% of total freight movement in Ludington reported
in the 1890 census.

With the development of the car ferry in Ludington, it began to surpass Manistee
as the dominant maritime port between the two. For example, by 1910 Manistee shipped
only 300,000 short tons compared to the 1.2 million short tons shipped out of Ludington
(Report of the Chief of Engineers, US. Army, 191 1). Separate statistics were kept for the
car ferry traffic, and in 1920 they accounted for 84% of the roughly 1 million short tons
Shipped fi‘om Ludington that year. (Report of the Chief of Engineers, US. Army, 1921)
Operating a total of 13 ferries between 1897 and 1947, the Flint Pere Marquette Line
made over 160,000 crossings and carried an estimated 75 million tons of freight across
Lake Michigan. (Chavez, 2003)

Absorbed by the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway in 1947, the last two large coal-

buming passenger ships in the United States were built, Badger and Spartan. By the

46

19703, rail ferry operations began to be abandoned for more economical all-rail routes.
An attempt to resurrect the industry was made by Glen Bowden of Ludington and other
investors in 1983. The Michigan-Wisconsin Transportation Company operated Badger
and City of Midland 41 for seven years, until 1990 when Badger made the last freight
crossing between Ludington and Kewaunee. In 1992, Badger was refitted to operate
solely in the tourist trade as part of the Lake Michigan Carferry Service. During site
visits in June of 2003, Badger was celebrating its 50‘” anniversary of operation on Lake
Michigan. (Chavez, 2003)

A similar fate awaited City of Milwaukee, a car ferry of the Ann Arbor Line which
ran out of F rankfort-Elberta to Wisconsin. Unlike Badger, which continues to operate in
the new role of ferrying automobiles across thelake, City of Milwaukee no longer
operates but sought and was granted National Historic Landmark status. The Society for
the Preservation of the S. S. City of Milwaukee began a journey in the 19808 that continues
today in Manistee to preserve and maintain the ship “as an educational and historical
artifact, and to preserve, collect and maintain objects of educational and historical
significance that pertain to the maritime industry of the Great Lakes region and this area.”
(S.S. City of Milwaukee, 2003) In April of 2003, the society was granted a $1.3 million
loan to acquire existing motel and marina property adjacent to US-31. The motel and
marina will operate in concert with the ship to provide lodging, dining and shopping
along with meeting educational and historic preservation goals (USDA Approves Loan to
Purchase Permanent Home, June 2003).

Increasing maritime commerce and lake traffic required the development of aids

to navigation to avoid the shoals and sandbars along the Lake Michigan coast. A reprint

47

of a letter from Eugene Allen, Collector of Customs for the District of Michigan, listed
60 shipwrecks that occurred between 1848 and 1882 off of Big Point Sable or the
Ludington vicinity, with a total loss of 146 lives. (H.R. Page & Co., 1882: 47) The
schooner Neptune is credited as the first shipwreck in the vicinity of Big Point Sable and
Ludington, sinking in 1848 with a loss of 37 lives and a cargo of construction materials
for nearby logging camps. Shipping interests and the growth of the lumber industry led
to the building of the lighthouse at Big Point Sable, which was first lighted November 1,
1867. While lights throughout Michigan are being decommissioned, just as the
Ludington North Breakwater Light was in 2005, the Big Point Sable Light is still owned

and maintained by the US. Coast Guard and is accessible through Ludington State Park.

Growth of Resorts

According to Hanna (1955), Ludington was not a destination for summer resorters
during its peak lumbering days, noting that “no one had cared to build a summer home
near whining saw mills and the raucous lumber traffic on Pere Marquette Lake” (p. 59).
This characterization is supported by Hudson’s (1898) publication Michigan, a Summer
and Health Resort State, a report commissioned by the state legislature that catalogued
and described summer resort destinations, including methods of access via train or
steamboat connections. In the Manistee and Ludington areas, only the Epworth League
Assembly received mention, reinforcing Hanna’s assertion that Manistee and Ludington
were not as well developed as resort destinations at that time compared to the

descriptions evident in the 19203.

48

The Epworth League Assembly was a cooperative effort between Ludington and
the Flint & Pere Marquette Railroad. Early attempts to develop a hotel and cottage
destination at the site, using a structure originally built to house James Ludington’s labor
force, ended with the destruction of the property and establishment of a city park. In
1894, with donations from the Flint and Pere Marquette Railway and other citizens, a
youth organization from the Methodist Episcopal Church developed the Epworth League
Training Assembly on this now popular picnic spot. An auditorium, hotel and cottages

were constructed and direct access to Ludington was provided through regular train
service. (Hanna, 1955, p. 59) The development of this site was a direct effort on the part
of the Flint & Pere Marquette Railroad to help promote the region’s development. Two-
hundred-forty acres and $21,000 were given to Start “a viable community that would
grow and develop; whose efforts would enrich the area by presenting spiritual and
cultural offerings to the people of Ludington and environs for a period of not less than
two weeks of each summer during the following fifteen years” (Truxell, 1994, p. 2). As
Epworth developed, the building of cottages was encouraged by railroad promotional
materials as summer residences, and as investment rental properties for Ludington
residents. By 1903, it had grown to the point that the Postmaster at Ludington was
delivering mail twice daily to each of the ground’s 90 cottages (Truxell, 1994).
Ludington-on-the-Lake and Vicinity described Epworth as “mainly of an elevated wooded
tract containing 200 summer homes, ranging from modest cottages to homes of luxury.
There is a modern hotel, tea pavilion and auditorium for lyceum attractions” (p. 3). The

PUblication also boasted of the city water and electric lighting that was available.

49

Manistee In Summertime described some of the other resorts along Portage Lake
and Bear Lake. On Portage Lake, the Portage Point Inn was the premier destination at
this time, including a nine-hole golf course, tennis courts, casino and dance hall, a
playground and a beach. Red Park and Wick-a-tee-wah are also mentioned as
destinations for summer cottage rentals. On Bear Lake, the Log Cabin Inn and the
Pleasant View resort received mention, Pleasant View being “famous for its chicken
dinners” (p. 35).

Within the City of Manistee, the Hotel Chippewa became the primary hotel
destination. Several wooden hotels were built, rebuilt and destroyed by fire until the red
brick structure of the Hotel Chippewa’s predecessor, the Dunham House, was completed
in 1878. A veranda, hot and cold running water in a bath on each floor, and access to the
municipal trolley line that ran just outside the hotel, made it a desirable destination in
1896. In 1918, further renovations saw a name change to the Hotel Chippewa. By 1960,
a centennial publication celebrating the lumber industry and the history of the hotel was
published, and renovations of that year built a Logging Wheel Room to celebrate
Manistee’s lumbering past and the Overpack logging wheel in particular.

While a few cottage destinations continued to advertise or receive mention, by the
19603 and 703, the motel became the dominant form of accommodation in the Ludington
and Manistee area. Motels experienced rapid growth after WWII. Aided by the efforts
of MSU extension publications and trade journals, motels were constructed that allowed
owners to monitor the arrival and departure of guests, used construction techniques to
control sound, and addressed sewage disposal, water supply and food service issues.

Their location on major highway routes, along with these developments, made them more

50

attractive than the small town hotels originally constructed to service railroad or
steamboat passengers. (Gunn, 1952) The Hotel Chippewa in Manistee declined to the
point that by 1980, it had closed its doors and the Manistee County Historical Society
was lamenting the potential loss of the hotel (Harold, 1980). If preserved, it was argued,
it could provide the western terminus of the celebrated commercial district on River

Street.

Early Tourism Development

The transportation infrastructure developed for lumber and other industry in the
region helped bring visitors to the region. The directory published by R.L. Polk &
Company (1905) notes that Ludington was developing a reputation for summer resorting:

Within recent years it has acquired a wide reputation as a summer resort,

thousands from all over the country being annually attracted to Epworth Heights,

situated two miles north of the city, and extensive resorts laid out on the shores of

Sable or Hamlin lake, four miles north, to which the Ludington & Northern R.R.

runs hourly trains. (p. 1,415)

It also includes a description of this developing industry in Manistee, saying that “Red
park is a delightful cottage summer resort situated nearby, and Orchard Beach and
Casino, at the western terminus of the street railways are very popular" (p. 1,433).

While railroad and passenger steamers continued to provide a means for visitors
to come fi'om Chicago, the development and importance of automobile tourism in the
first part of the 20th century is also evident from the sources. Chicago was a prime
market for visitors coming out of the city to summer resorts on the eastern shore of Lake

Michigan. Promotional literature from the 19203 in both Ludington and Manistee

demonstrate the importance of this developing form of travel and recreation.

51

Both Manistee and Ludington publications contained special sections highlighting the
route from Chicago to their respective cities. Manistee in Summertime highlights the
West Michigan Pike, giving motorists from Chicago directions, details about what they
would encounter and exact distances of travel in a road log. The publication also points
out activities and scenic drives, promoting a route north of Manistee to Arcadia and
Onekama, as well as a longer scenic trip to Traverse City that provided a “wonderful
scenic view of Lake Michigan, Bar Lake, and Portage Lake” (p. 11). Ludington-on-the-
Lake and Vicinity also points out the availability of the Pere Marquette Line Steamers
that could transport the vehicles back across Lake Michigan to Milwaukee, Kewaunee or
Manitowoc for the return trip home.

Special services began popping up on the landscape that catered specifically to the
automobile tourist. A3 evidence to this growing automobile culture in America, the
Michigan Agricultural College Agricultural Experiment Station published a series of
bulletins under the title of Rural Landscape Series during 1924. Rural Highways
explains, “the wide-spread use of automobiles, the rapid extension of well constructed
highways, and the resultant popularity of touring and camping, are all beginning to
awaken us to an appreciation of the real value of our native landscape” (p. 3). The
bulletin suggests that “rural highways should be designed and their environment
developed to make them pleasing and interesting,” not only by developing pleasing
landscaping and providing necessary services, but also by “the removal of unsightly

objects, the abolition of the roadside dump and the bill-board nuisance” (p. 8).

52

Another publication called Tourist Camps described the development of this new form of
recreation:

The rapid increase in popularity of touring and camping as the best means of

seeing and enjoying the beauty of the open landscape has led to a general demand

for tourist camps. Every progressive community needs a well planned and
developed camp ground to capitalize properly upon the opportunities presented by

this newer phase of vacationing. (p. 1).

The bulletin provides insight and advice for selecting appropriate locations for camps,
along with suggestions on necessary services, such as water supply, sewage disposal,
lighting, fireplaces, waste receptacles and picnic tables.

Another outgrowth of automobile tourism and touring the rural landscape was
roadside stands and markets. In 1926, the Michigan State Department of Agriculture
began a roadside market certification program, providing placards for roadside markets to
display, proving that the owner “has subscribed to an agreement as to keeping his place in
the best of condition”(p. 133). The Michigan State Department of Agriculture, in its
Third Biennial Report (1928) also included special notes about summer resorts and the
growth of roadside markets catering to motorists. The report made several observations
about the summer resort season in Michigan:

Estimates run as high as 300,000 people and the money which they spend

$200,000,000. If this is true, our tourist crop is the largest and most profitable

one enjoyed by the people of Michigan. For this reason the supply of foods and
soft drinks is of great importance. Our inspectors busy themselves for a month or
more previous to the opening of the summer season in looking over places where
foods and drinks are manufactured, sold or kept for sale, and in safeguarding in
every way, not only the health and well-being of our tourist guests, but also to

insure their enjoyment and their hearty commendation and appreciation of the
treatment which they receive among our people in these particulars. (p.132)

53

Another Michigan Agricultural College Agricultural Extension Bulletin of 1929 dealt
exclusively with roadside markets. “The phenomenal growth of roadside marketing,” it
states, “has been due in part to the diversity of agricultural and horticultural products
raised in Michigan, to the building of improved roads, to the numerous automobiles and
the heavy tourist travel” (p. 1 ). This bulletin describes the results of a study of over 500
roadside markets in Michigan during 1926 and 1927, examining the habits and
preferences of roadside market patrons, along with recommendations as to which
products to sell and the location of the market. The study concluded that the most
popular regions for roadside markets were those that produced certain types of
agricultural products. Specifically, fruits, vegetables, flowers, honey and eggs,
supplemented by select manufactured goods, were mentioned by the report. Sweet
cherries and bottled soft drinks constituted nearly half the sales at roadside markets
included in the study, and it was noted that markets in the popular Chicago-market
destinations of southwest Michigan sold over half their fi'uit directly to customers at
roadside markets, and also purchased another third fi'om neighboring farms to sell.
While not on the same scale as in southwest Michigan, as the fruit region developed in
Mason and Manistee Counties, fruit became part of the tourist experience, as described
earlier in promotional literature of the 19203. This was true not only at summer resorts,

but also along the highways catering to the automobile touring visitors.
Travel Promotion and a Natural Resource Focus

The natural resources of the region were a primary focus of early tourism and

resort development efforts. Getting out of the congested and polluted city and out into

54

the countryside was a primary travel motivation in the late 19th and early 20th century for
visitors to Michigan’s western shore. Ludington-on-the-Lake and Vicinity describes this
type of travel motivation:

Ludington is just far enough from Chicago to take you into entirely different sort

of surroundings and climate but still not too far distant to make the trip tiresome

or expensive. Bear in mind that it is the change of scenery and climate that really
does you the most good after the long winter’s work and worry in a busy

city. . .tlre air is clear, light and invigorating and entirely free from the soot, smoke

and dust that the average city dweller has to breathe the year around. (p. 2-3)
Early promotional publications, along with promoting the industrial and economic
potential of the area, focused on the natural assets of the region, including the scenic and
natural wonders of Lake Michigan as well as recreational opportunities such as fishing
and canoeing along rivers and other inland lakes.

Manistee in Summertime (1920) describes “the beauty of the northland, the wide
sweeping views of miles and miles of rolling orchard and wooded upland, broken by
crystal gems of lakes or of swift running trout streams, with majestic Lake Michigan
always on the horizon. . . .” (p. 2). It goes on to describe the sunsets of the area:

For the sunsets on Lake Michigan, viewed from the great Portage range that lies

just north of Manistee, are one of the wonders of America, one of the things one

must have seen to be truly able to say that he knows the glories of this country.

Scores of cars are parked nightly during the summer months on the elevations of

the Pike and the crossroads facing the lake, and a chorus of ‘Oh’s’ and ‘Ah’s’

greets the traveler as bewildering and entrancing variations of color follow each

other in swift succession until the last broad streak of scarlet melts into azure. (p.

4)

Ludington State Park was opened in August, 1934, the result of over a decade of
planning, land acquisition, public awareness and firnd raising. Formed out of what Korn

(1989) called “community harmony” (p. 95), the park was a combination of private fund-

raising, public awareness, county and state land purchases. P.J. Hoffrnaster and

55

Genevieve Gillette were instrumental in acquiring land, raising funds and bolstering
public sentiment toward the park. Community involvement continued into the 19503,
when hundreds of volunteers would come out for the annual Operation Facelift and ready
the park for its summer season. Ludington State Park figures prominently as a natural
resource destination in the promotional literature. Calling it the “Queen of Michigan’s
State Parks,” the Mason County Visitors Guide (1960) describes “3600 acres of majestic
forests and fabulous sand dunes [where] one finds the North at its best” (p. 12).
“Wandering through these shady acres,” it states, “one will see endless numbers of Deer,
Squirrel, Grouse and song birds by the hundreds. Anywhere you wander, there is nature
at its finest — unspoiled and free” (p. 9).

This natural resource focus continued into the 19603 and 19703. The welcome and
introduction to the 1970 edition of the Mason County Visitor ’s Guide, for example,
speaks of being “blessed with Michigan’s finest beach [with] long stretches of soft,
sunbaked sand. . ..” (p. 4). It goes on to claim “some of the United States’ best hunting,
fishing and relaxing territory to be found, [with] 2000 miles of trout streams where
brown, rainbow and brook trout lurk waiting to be caught, [and] over 40 lakes. . .available
for fishing, boating and water skiing” (p. 4). It goes so far as to call itself, “Salmon
Country” (p. 5). Welcome to Manistee County (1966) has a similar natural resource
focus. “The summer visitor has access to miles of clean, white sand bathing beach along
Lake Michigan and at many smaller lakes nearby, where fishing, bathing and boating
may be enjoyed. In addition, golf, tennis, horseback riding and sightseeing assure fun

and pleasure for every member of the family” (p. 1). This publication goes on to list two

56

beaches, five parks, and three sites for scenic beauty. Pictures of these types of activities

and attractions dominate the publication, along with information about the local industry.

The Beginnings of Heritage Tourism

The history and heritage of Manistee and Ludington were not a primary focus of
travel and tourism promotion efforts during the first half of the twentieth century, as was
the case with most of the state of Michigan. This began to change during the tenure of G.
Mennen Williams, Governor of Michigan from 1948-1960. He formed a committee that
published the Report of the committee appointed by Governor G. Mennen Williams to
study the means by which the state ’s historic resources can be utilized by the tourist and
vacation industry. The plan made several recommendations, including the marking and
registration of historic sites, using a standard marker design and guidelines to be provided
by the State Historical Commission. It was suggested that identifying and marking sites
be the responsibility of “local historical societies, chambers of commerce, and other civic
organizations.” Emphasis was placed on “a method of distinguishing historic sites of
merely local interest and importance from those having a state-wide interest. Only the
latter are of significance for the tourist industry.” This criteria would be used to mark
sites that could be designated on state road maps, “to which the tourist will be directed”
(p. 2, ‘fl 6). A general edict for the “development of historic resources” (Report of the
committee. . ., p. 3, 1] 8) that followed this criteria of statewide interest was suggested:

Your committee believes that a vitally important part of this program should be

the development of many historic resources in the state to make them more

attractive to tourists. Such development may be promoted by both state and local

agencies. Where local groups undertake such projects, they should be provided

with technical advice and assistance by the State Historical Commission. (Report
ofthe committee..., p. 3, 1] 8)

57

Specifically, forty-one historic Sites from across the state, but located near or on the
major state trunklines, were recommended to be designated state historic sites. “Local
groups should be urged to mark them, if they are not already marked,” the report
suggested, “and to develop them as tourist attractions” (Report of the committee. . ., p. 3,
1] 4). Two sites in the Manistee and Ludington area were mentioned as part of these
original forty-one sites. One, already marked at the time of the report, was two miles
south of Custer on US-10, an “Indian battlefield” that was the site of the battle between
the Mascouten and the Ottawa. The other site mentioned in the report was at the north
city limit of Manistee, described as “the beginning of the Chippewa Trail” (Report of the
committee. . ., p. 5, 1] 6). At the time of site visits in June of 2003, a marker dated 1903
and commemorating the Native Americans was located next to a barbecue stand on the
Manistee River. During the summer of 2004, a new stone marker had been placed
commemorating the local Elks, and the other marker had been returned to its original
location near the north city limits.

Historic resources do not receive mention in promotional literature in Manistee
and Ludington until the 19603. The Mason County Visitors Guide (1960) illustrates this
point. A portion of the introduction to the guide contains a reference to the Indian battle
that took place south of Custer. “So fierce was the battle that it never ceased until the
victors drove their conquered enemies into Long Lake where all perished. In proof of the
authenticity of this tale, many early white settlers dragged skeletons and Indian relics
from the lake” (p. 2). An entire page is dedicated to the Hamlin Historical Marker,

placed under the recommendations of the Govemor’s report:

58

A feature in observance of Michigan Week in Mason County in May of 1957 was
the placing of a marker at the Ludington State Park on Hamlin Lake. This was in
commemoration of the lumbering village of Hamlin which stood there some two
hundred years after the famous missionary, Pere Jacques Marquette, first white
man to set foot on that territory, died near there in 1675.
The description goes on to recount the destruction of the village by flood, when the dam
gave way and “washed the small hamlet out to sea” (p. 14). Another page of the Mason
County Visitors Guide (1960) goes into detail about the Pere Marquette Shrine located
south of Ludington:
Here, high on a hill overlooking the blue expansive waters of Lake Michigan, a
new towering steel cross was erected on the 100‘h anniversary of the founding of
Mason County. It replaces a rustic cross that for many generations had marked
Pere Marquette’s death Site. The new cross is illuminated by night and can be
viewed hour the city of Ludington and from the scenic drive. (p. 18)
A short paragraph is also dedicated to the “oldest house in Mason County,” the home of
Burr Caswell, famed first white settler of the county, which was “erected fiom driftwood
gathered from nearby waters and fiom refuse from the numerous sawmills that edged the
lake. Strong of beam, the house has stood the ravages of time for 100 years. ...” (p. 21).
This home became the focus of early efforts to develop Historic White Pine Village,
located just south of Ludington, in the 19603 and 19703.
Only two historic sites are mentioned in Welcome to Manistee County (1966).
One is the Udell Rollways, “a favorite spot for campers and fishermen,” it says, “so
called because lumbermen once rolled logs downhill to the Manistee River here” (p. 2).
During a site visit in summer 2004, no interpretive information was available at the Udell

Rollways site, but a picnic area and pavilion exist as they did at that time. The Manistee

County Historical Museum is also listed under the heading Summer Plant Tours, along

59

with Morton Salt Company, Century Boat Company, Sand Products Corporation, Lake
Bluff Arabians Stables, and St. Mary’s of Mt. Carmel Shrine.

Continuing development of historical attractions for tourists is evident in the 1970
edition of the Mason County Visitor ’s Guide, which makes reference to some historical
attractions. A small ad giving the location of the Historical Society Museum at 305 East
Filer Street, along with hours of operation, invites visitors to see “interesting exhibits of
Indian Lore, early shipping and lumbering”(p. 7). The Pere Marquette Shrine continues
to be the primary historical topic promoted at this time. It receives an entire page,
describing how “while exploring the Mississippi and taking Christianity to the Indians,
Father Marquette became violently ill. . .they got as far as this small peninsula before he
died” (p. 11). The Indian Battle also received an entire page in this edition, which
describes the events leading up to the battle, going into detail about the battle itself. “The
battle raged for 3 or 4 days, turning the river red with the blood of fallen bodies. Rushing
water swept the dead toward Lake Michigan” (p. 31). While it states that “numerous
mounds in Mason County still remain as silent evidence of this fierce battle,” no
indication of their location is given. Even a description of the Pere Marquette River,
aimed at fishing, canoeing and recreation, contains a somewhat historical perspective
regarding the lumber industry and maritime commerce:

As civilization took over, the Pere Marquette was used for a main artery of the

once bountiful logging days. Great rafts of pine swept downstream to Pere

Marquette Lake at its mouth. Here the logs were cut at mills then loaded on great

sailing schooners to be shipped to growing Midwest ports such as Chicago and

Milwaukee. The waters of this great river still Show the signs of the logging era.

Sunken pine trees still line the bottom in many spots along its 100 mile length. (p.
15)

60

Summary

As will be shown in the results section, the lumber industry and maritime
commerce, along with their accompanying period of prosperity and economic
development, were the dominant historical topics identified by study participants as
important to the history of Manistee and Ludington. As evidenced by the historical
literature review, these topics are supported by statistics and other primary or secondary
sources of historical information that are readily accessible. Other historical topics were
identified by participants as important to the region, but not as developed in current
heritage tourism development efforts, such as the stories of the salt industry, Native
Americans, agriculture and the fi'uit industry, or the growth of tourism and resort
development. These topics were also readily identifiable in the historical literature
review conducted for this study.

Early tourism promotion efforts focused on the natural beauty and resources of
the region, building on the infiastructure and transportation provided by railroad and
regional economic development interests. As heritage tourism began to be promoted on a
statewide level in the 19503 following the efforts of Governor Williams, historical
attractions did begin to receive mention in promotional literature of the region. While not
organized on a regional scale, Manistee and Ludington began to develop historical
museums, mark historical sites and promote them in their tourist literature in the 19603
and 19703. It wasn’t until the 19803, however, that organized heritage tourism

development began in Manistee and Ludington.

61

CHAPTER 5

RESULTS

Introduction

This chapter presents the results of the interviews in five major sections: the
origins of heritage tourism development in Manistee and Ludington; the current heritage
tourism development process; the current heritage tourism products, services and
experiences; participant conceptualizations of history and historical authenticity; and the
importance of historical authenticity to heritage tourism development. Within each
section, general results to interview questions are reported, along with themes that were
identified in the content analysis. When appropriate, connections are made to the site
visits and document review. Within quotations, emphasis (in italics) has been added by

the authOr to highlight certain ideas within the quotes.

The Origins of Heritage Tourism Development in Manistee and Ludington

Each interview began by discussing the early stages of heritage tourism
development in Manistee and/or Ludington and how participants got involved.
Participant responses demonstrate that these early efforts were spurred by an overall
economic downturn in the area and were characterized by a lack of collaboration. The
leadership of specific individuals and organizations played a key role in these early
efforts. There is also evidence of an appreciation for history and the historic resources of
the area, although the data is not clear whether this existed broadly during the early stages

of development or is a more recent development with current stakeholders.

62

Heritage Tourism as Economic Development

Economic downturn was cited as one of the factors contributing to development
of historic resources for tourism. The comments of one participant are particularly
revealing:

Unfortunately, after what I refer to [laughs] as the industrial non-revolution,
which was probably back in the late ‘803, industry started leaving Manistee. Of
course the whole economy and the whole structure of industry changed, and
towns like this were no longer attractive when companies started looking at a
more global kind of industrial base. So, many in Manistee weren’t interested in
tourism, they weren’t interested in culture; all they were interested in were
factories. That’s the future of Manistee — the factories — that was their line.
Several things started about the time I came here, 12 [or] 13 years ago that
changed the thinking to a degree, but for many, many years, Manistee was a town
that hated itself. It was a lot of hand wringing, it was a lot of ‘woe is me,’ it was
‘what are we going to do without these factories?’ (ML-12, p. 3)

Another participant explained a different dimension of the economic theme surrounding
the development process. Historic resources were not static in their view; rather, they
were something that had to be discovered and developed for economic gain:

I am not a historian by nature; I appreciate history, but I am not a historian. I
don’t have near the love for history that Bill Anderson does, for example. I get
excited about the business opportunity that is associated with this. It’s like having
a natural asset, an asset that has been the product of people and the environment
for many, many years. It’s there, you know? It’s in the ground and you have to
find it where you can mine it. And to capitalize on it: first of all you have to get
people believing that there is something in the ground that’s worth mining, and
then invest in it, and develop it. If we’re able to do that in the long term, then I
think we’re going to have some outstanding attractions. (ML-13, p. 7)

Money, more specifically the lack of it, was another apparent component of the economic
development theme. One participant described their experience with finding funds to
advertise and promote tourism attractions:
Somewhere along the way, the CVB got started, [but] prior to that there was no
money for promotion, because the Chamber [of Commerce] just struggles to make

their own ends meet. There’s very little money left over for promotion, and the
CVB has funds specifically for promotion. So, somewhere along the way, the

63

CVB formed and I’m thinking that must have been the mid-‘903 and got up and
running. So all of a sudden, there were advertising dollars available and that
made such a difference. (ML-11, p. 9)

The Uniqueness Committee also was mentioned as part of the early economic
development efforts using historic resources. One participant stated that “the whole idea
[of the Uniqueness Committee] was just to develop a theme and stick with it and use it
for tourism and economic development” (ML-7, p. 2). Another participant described
how the overall downturn in the economic situation in Manistee influenced creation of
the Uniqueness Committee:

It all began with the Uniqueness Committee, which was born out of Manistee’s
economic situation. Big factories were closing. People were leaving. It was the
kind of thing where, when the kids get out of high school all they can think of is
getting out of Manistee. . .there [was] nothing here that made people feel there was
a future, you know? It was like a lot of kind of rust belt towns; the economic base
was shifting, and the population base was shifting. (ML-9, p. 17)

Another participant went into detail about the economic situation of the 19803 and how
this spurred interest in finding new economic development strategies through tourism:

In 1981, when much of Michigan had a real downturn in the economy. . .we were
majorly affected here. So prior to 1980 we were focused on industry. Industry
was all that many people thought of [and] then the bottom really dropped out of
the economy, [because] close to 2,000 jobs were lost. . .and I can remember at that
time, the only promotion of Manistee, as a tourist destination, were very small ads
in some state publications. Very little had been done. Coho fishing was big, but
as far as history, nothing. (ML-11, p. 2)

Tourism, and specifically the historic resources of the area, began to be viewed as a
means to help with the dwindling industrial economic conditions of the 19803:

You get to a point where suddenly here’s this new idea, where tourism can be an
economic development strategy. And everyone sees, you know — our industrial
base, manufacturing base, is dwindling—there’s no question about that. We’re
moving to a service type of economy. Here is a real opportunity, [so] what can
we really do to amplify that? And maritime heritage pops up as an opportunity.
(ML-13, p.5)

Beginnings of Heritage Tourism Development

As the historical overview shows, organized development of the region’s historic
resources was not apparent prior to the 19803. While current heritage tourism
development efforts in Manistee and Ludington began in the 19803, one study participant
was quick to point out, “that’s a chicken and an egg question.” As this participant
explained, there were development efforts prior to the 19803 that did not fall within the
current conceptualization of heritage tourism:

The community wanted to start appreciating and sharing with the tourist a

historical museum starting in 1936. And grandchildren of the founders of the

community [of Manistee] did that and ultimately created a historical museum.

Their efforts led to a professionally staffed museum in 1960, [the Manistee

County Historical Society Museum]. And there was no other professionally

staffed museum in northern Michigan, certainly not north of Grand Rapids or

Lansing or Flint. (ML-4, p. 3)

Similarly, in Ludington, there were efforts to develop and share the area’s historic
resources prior to the 19803. The Old House Remembers (Hawley, 1968) recounts the
life of Mason County’s first courthouse, the Burr Caswell home. The home became the
centerpiece of what would become Historic White Pine Village, beginning with the
purchase of 2 1/2 acres by the Mason County Historical Society on Lakeshore Drive and
the restoration of the building. In addition, the booklet contains a description of twenty-
one historic sites along Lakeshore Drive. “The Historic Mile is a highway, eight miles
long known as South Lake Shore Road, reaching from the Ludington harbor channel
south to Summit Park at Bass Lake” (p. 30). Descriptions of the sites are followed by

several maps marking the location of each site, serving as a guide for motorists. A reprint

of the text is still available for purchase in the Historic White Pine Village gift shop, but

65

none of the markers described in the booklet existed on the landscape at the time of this
study. According to staff at White Pine Village, the markers were an idea that was
abandoned once the village became a reality, and it is not clear if they were ever placed
on the landscape.

Historic homes were also part of the early efforts to develop historic resources for
visitors to the area. Several interview participants mentioned historic home tours as
being one of the first efforts that led to organized heritage tourism development. In 1974,
the Manistee County Historical Museum published Old Homes Tour, a booklet
containing a map and description of forty-one historic homes in Manistee. The Mason
County Historical Society published a similar booklet in 1988, Historic Homes of
Ludington and Scottville. containing descriptions of 37 buildings in Ludington and
another 10in Scottville. Similarly, the Lakeside Club began publishing booklets
describing the history and architecture of residences featured on its tour of homes in
Manistee.

Heritage tourism development as it exists today has its roots in the past 20 years.
In Manistee, a major part of the early development of historic resources was the
designation of the downtown area as a national historic district:

The 1970 effort was to fix up commercial buildings, and an individual in the mid-

19703 restored five commercial buildings. [And then], the community about 1980

contracted for a major economic development study that again identified the

historic buildings as the biggest asset — the community downtown — and that
resulted in a national historic district. And between that, and again, some efforts
by myself and other people, we ended up with design review in the national
historic district by the mid-‘803, which got everybody moving in the same

direction. (ML-4, p. 3)

In Manistee, part of the cohesion of the current heritage tourism development

began with the Uniqueness Committee, part of the Chamber of Commerce. As one

66

participant recalls, it began as an informal group of citizens who wanted to help find
ways to preserve and promote their community:

My understanding is, before the Chamber actually had this Uniqueness
Committee, there were just a group of people in the community. . .that just knew
that Manistee was a gem. They were proud of it [and] there were probably about
ten or twelve people. It was like couples that were doing it like other couples do
card games or something, you know? They would have a meeting over at
somebody’s house once a month and say, ‘what can we do. . .?’ So they kind of
started their own little Uniqueness Committee, and [eventually] that ended up
getting under the umbrella of the Chamber. (ML-6, p. 8)

Another participant described the collaborative, community-based nature of the early
efforts of the Uniqueness Committee in Manistee:

The impression that I get is that, especially initially, it was kind of farmed out
beyond the scope of the actual committee members to the community based
organizations, both the church and the civic clubs and also the historical museum
and its membership. And I think a lot of the people on the Uniqueness Committee
had their own — were often affiliated with other organizations in the community,
whether it be a church or a museum -— [and they went] back and empowered their
own group or another group to participate at some level with [the Uniqueness
Committee’s] effort. (ML-9, p. 20)

One of the main goals of the Uniqueness Committee in Manistee was to identify a theme
for the community to help guide tourism development efforts. The Victorian era and the
maritime roots of the community were identified for this:

Manistee developed its Victorian Port City theme through the energy of Dr.
Anderson. They did a study [in] another community where [a theme was
identified and developed] and they felt it would be advantageous to Manistee to
have a theme, and start developing programs and activities around that theme.
And, so, I think that began probably about 15 years ago. And I think it was that -
under his direction, and identifying Manistee as the Victorian Port City -— that
people began to get on board with recognizing that we have something here in this
community that other people are interested in, and that we need to find ways to
share that with visitors. (ML-10, p. 2)

67

Participant Involvement in Heritage Tourism Development

Some participants took the initiative to get involved in the heritage tourism
development process in Manistee and Ludington as a result of their work or professional
interests. “It’s part of my job,” said one participant, “see, my job involves the historical
museum and I recognized early on that tourists are a portion of our market” (ML-4, p. 2).
Another participant described how their organization saw tourism as important:

In terms of museum management, [we] saw the interrelationship between tourism

and the management of historic and cultural resources and we wanted to have a

very proactive relationship in terms of the people in the tourism industry. And

that was manifested by a direct business association — [an] affiliation with the

Chamber of Commerce and the business community. (ML-9, p. 3)

Other participants began their involvement with heritage tourism by volunteering
and being active in community events:

[I] volunteered, [and] I’m also a member of First Congregational Church, one of

our top historic sites in Manistee. I’ve always been interested in the past myself,

so I’ve spent a fair amount of time in the historic museum. . ..I always try to

participate in community events, and especially ones that have to do with heritage
and history. (ML-7, p. 2)

Another participant also got involved in tourism development by volunteering:
When I first came here, we had lived here about two or three months and I wanted
to get involved in something. At the time, Sherry Worm was Chamber Director
[and] she said they had a committee called the Uniqueness Committee. And what
the Uniqueness Committee did was try to focus on the historic heritage of
Manistee, and the Victorian theme that they had, and try to market our community
on those concepts. And that’s how I first became involved. (ML-6, p. 2)

Two other participants got involved initially by volunteering, but eventually were offered

positions with historic sites or organizations involved in the process. One participant

described this process:
About fifteen years ago, I was asked to be a volunteer on the Board of Directors,

which I accepted. And then I became President and I was President for a few
years, and this job opened up. While I was President of the board we had always

68

talked about how we would like to expand the services and expand what was
going on here [at this site], so when the job of ExeCutive Director opened up [1
took it]. (ML-8, p. 1)

Another participant described a similar experience:

I’ve lived here about 40 years, not all my life. I always had a deep interest in
history, and I was involved on a volunteer basis for a number of years. Then in
1990, I became Administrative Assistant at the Chamber [of Commerce], and then
I became Executive Director. (ML-l 1, p. 1)

Most of the participants were recruited specifically because they already were
involved with certain historic structures that had been identified as potential tourist
attractions:

I was approached by the Chamber of Commerce — [by] Dave Yamell at the
Chamber of Commerce - and 1 spoke with the head of the [Department of
History, Arts, and Libraries] in Michigan, [Dr. Anderson]. But I was approached
by a number of people because it is a historic building and so forth. And, it’s
probably one of the biggest tourist attractions we have, and so that’s how I got
involved. (ML-8, p. 2)

Another participant recalled being recruited to help start the Victorians In Person
interpretive group:

About ten years ago we formed a group called Victorians in Person, interested in
perhaps making Manistee a destination point for travelers; trying to keep them
here, and giving them a little bit of history about the community itself. And that
was done at the urging of our Uniqueness Committee in Manistee, which is an
arm of the Chamber of Commerce. And the head at that time was Dr. Bill
Anderson. So, with a little bit of arm twisting from Bill, we formed a group that
puts on shows, we call them vignettes — little pieces of Manistee history — from
the turn of the century. We wear period costumes; some of them are authentic,
some of them are concocted. And we put on shows basically for tourists. So I’ve
been functioning with that group for the past ten years. (ML-10, p. 2)

“Well, being part of the [S.S. City of Milwaukee] carferry, I guess kind of gives you a lot
of sunshine in the local area,” said another participant. “1 think the carferry is a very well
known tourist attraction, and being involved with the carferry and being involved with

marketing the carferry specifically, [is how I got involved]” (ML-13, p. 2). Another

69

participant who owns a historic home recalled being approached to get involved with
heritage tourism:

When the Uniqueness Committee was formed, various people that I knew were

involved, [and] they were trying to capitalize on the Victorian theme in Manistee.

They started what they call ‘two-bit tours’ every Wednesday and Saturday in

June, July and August. And it was 1 till 4 those two days, and so as soon as I

came up here, they said ‘we’ve got these tours: it’s the three churches, the

theater, the fire house, and the downtown museum, but we don’t have a residence
and people are always asking for a residence. Would you agree to have it open

for tours now?’ And so that’s how it started. (ML-5, p. 3)

As some of the previous participant quotes demonstrate, Dr. Bill Anderson
(Director of the Michigan Department of History, Arts and Libraries at the time of the
study) played a central role in getting both volunteers and those already involved in
tourism professionally working together to develop heritage tourism. This is true of both
when heritage tourism was just developing in Manistee and Ludington and the current
HAL Pilot Project. One participant was approached to get involved in the Pilot Project
because of their expertise:

Bill had asked me to serve on two of the pilot program [teams]. These were an

array of folks that went out to look at various communities across the state who

had agreed to participate in the pilot project. So, I was on the team that looked at

Marquette and South Haven, and then subsequently came back and did follow up

work in the Ludington-Manistee area.” (ML-1, p. 2) ‘

Another participant had a similar experience, stating that “actually Bill Anderson has
been instrumental in really developing this whole heritage, cultural tourism concept, and
I’ve known Bill since we moved here” (ML-12, p. 1). “Working with Bill Anderson for
many years” was a major factor in another participant’s involvement. “He’s a personal
fiiend of mine,” this respondent continued, “and I hold him in high regard both
personally and professionally. And when he suggested that maybe I be involved, I

certainly wanted to do that” (ML-13, p. 2).

70

An Appreciation for History
Appreciation for history, combined with the resources that existed in the towns,
was another theme that was apparent in responses to questions about early tourism
development and participant involvement. One participant described the preservation
efforts of the town:
We’ve really gotten involved in preserving heritage here, and you’ll see that in a
lot of things we do. We don’t just tear the buildings down. You could never
replace that firehouse. Did it cost us a few bucks? Probably, but not anymore
than having to build a new one, and it’s a solid building. I mean it’s beautiful,
you know? (ML-2, p. 5)
Another participant also mentioned the Manistee Fire Hall while discussing preservation
efforts in the community:
The firemen are so proud of the building and they love to give tours, which is
really unusual for a town this size, our firemen are paid (normally they are
volunteer). We have this wonderful building that has been restored. And part of
the firemen’s job description when they’re hired on is to give tours to people. Not
only bus tours, but people can come in and take a tour, and they can do it anytime
except during meal time or emergencies. (ML-11, p. 4)
Another element of this historic appreciation that was mentioned specifically was the
annual building recognition program. “There was already an appreciation for the
buildings, and people started taking much better care of the buildings,” said one
participant, “and an awards program was developed to recognize historic preservation,
and that awards program is very much a force today and it still has a significant impact”
(ML-4, p. 2). Another participant spoke in more general terms about the concept of
preservation and the appreciation the community has for its historic structures:
It’s a good thing in terms of sound development to have some treasures, some
monuments in your town on a local scale. I consider it extremely healthy that
Manistee has the Ramsdell Theatre and reveres it; the Tiffany Windows [in the

First Congregational Church]; and the storm walk to the lighthouse. These are all
things that are identified and are valued in the community. (ML-9, p. 16)

71

Summary

With organized identification and promotion of historic sites statewide in the
19503 (as described in the Historical Overview), Manistee and Ludington began to take
similar steps at a local level. Historic sites, museums, and historic home tours began to
be developed and promoted in tourist literature. In Manistee, what began as a group of
involved citizens led to creation of the Uniqueness Committee, an arm of the Chamber of
Commerce devoted to identifying resources and developing the area as a tourist
destination. Participants became involved in heritage tourism development at different
stages of the process in both communities, some from the very beginning and others more
recently. Some participants volunteered at historic sites or were involved with other
community organizations that eventually led to paid positions. Others became involved
by virtue of their employment at historic sites or other economic development
organizations, such as the Chamber of Commerce or Convention and Visitors Bureau.

Three primary themes were identified during analysis of this portion of the
interview: a lack of coordination and the need for collaboration between groups and
individuals in the process; an emphasis on poor economic conditions leading to
alternative economic development strategies such as heritage tourism; and an overall

appreciation for history and the historic resources in the communities.

The Current Heritage Tourism Development Process
As the discussion of early heritage tourism development efforts demonstrates, this
was a collaborative process between individuals and organizations in the communities.

In discussing the current heritage tourism development process in the communities, it

72

became apparent that this collaborative process did not always exist. Participants
described a history of tension and a lack of collaboration between individuals, groups and
the two communities. In trying to develop a more coordinated, collaborative heritage
tourism development effort, groups and individuals played key leadership roles in this
process. As in the preceding section, participants again demonstrated an appreciation for

the historic resources that were in the communities.

The Need for Collaboration

A lack of collaboration, and the need for more coordinated heritage tourism
development efforts, was apparent in participant responses. One of the participants
commented on how there was a need for collaboration and to think less about
competition:

There has only recently been a cohesion of various constituents in the area. . ..

The cultural tourism constituents in the area have only recently realized that they

are going to need to pull together [because] the genesis of this was all out of

individual venues and creating their own products without the benefit of any
unification, certainly without any coordination or partnering between venues and

constituents” (ML-1, p. 3).

In addition to individual venues working without coordination, there was also
evidence of competition, some of which has historical roots in the communities. One
participant described how the regional community college even stirred up competitive
feelings:

West Shore [Community College] is half way between Ludington and Manistee.

In fact, Manistee people will tell you it’s closer to Ludington and that’s sort of

been a point of contention through the years. And Manistee and Ludington have

sort of been competing communities in terms of athletics and all sorts of things.

So cooperation has been difficult at times. That was one of the main things that
Bill Anderson worked on when he became President [of West Shore Community

73

College], was to sort of use the community college to glue the two communities
together. (ML-7, p. 4)

This lack of coordination and history of competition was something that another

participant recognized as a significant problem in beginning the HAL Pilot Project:

We’re down to individuals who each have vested interests in their own venues or
organizations. So, I think that’s been the problem in the area — as I’ve discovered
is the problem in most areas - that there hasn’t been a coordinated, concerted
effort to create a unified umbrella, brand or marketing approach to the cultivation
of historical tourism in any of the areas. But certainly that’s been the case in the
Ludington-Manistee area. (ML-1, p. 4)

Encouraging collaboration and providing organizational cohesion became part of the

process in Manistee and Ludington. As the HAL Pilot Project began, part of this process

was to bring a more regional focus to heritage tourism efforts.

It was definitely not regional [before the Pilot Project] because at that point it was
more like — we want [the tourists] here. We want them here; not in Ludington,
not Traverse City. But that has changed, that has changed of course. People
realize we need to promote the region. [Where] one area has one thing to offer,
somebody [in another part of the region] has other things to offer. (ML-11, p. 8)

The cohesive and collaborative role of the Pilot Project also was described by another

participant:

They’re all very eager to see how they can fit into the grander scheme of things,
so that each piece of the jigsaw puzzle can come together in the most effective,
efficient way. I think my impression has been, not just in the Ludington-
Manistee area, but in the other areas that participated in the pilot project, that
people are extremely eager to begin the process of partnering and coordinating
and working together. So, they’re seeing the value to synergy, and this kind of
symbiotic relationship that can develop between organizations. (ML-l, p. 4)

“It’s not right out there on the front page,” explained another participant, “but as you get

a little more attuned to the community, [you realize] a lot of people adhere to the concept

that heritage tourism is a good thing for Manistee and are willing to do some things to

help” (ML-9, p. 21 ).

74

The Leadership of Groups
When discussing the heritage tourism development process that has been used
most recently, participants discussed a variety of organizations that were involved.
Harbor Village, a private business, put in money to publish brochures. Harbor
Village was a big promoter and for them it was a partnership. In order for them to
sell condos, they had to sell the community. [So], Harbor Village was a big
partner, [and] service clubs were [also] a big partner. The Rotary Club put in
money for publications when there was no other money, and of course they are
very active in promoting the area in general. (ML-l l, p. 9)
In Manistee, the Uniqueness Committee of the Chamber of Commerce was again
mentioned as an important part of this process. “The Chamber of Commerce, the whole
Manistee economic development thing [has been important],” said one participant, going
on to mention “the Convention and Visitor’s Bureau, [and] there is an element of the
chamber called the Uniqueness Committee. This is a group that looks at what we have
here and how that can be better developed” (ML-12, p. 4). Another participant also
discussed the role of the Uniqueness Committee:
I think that it was basically organizations trying to get the word out in whatever
manner, and I go back to the Uniqueness Committee. [They were] meeting on a
regular basis, working closely with the city, [and] trying to sell the locals, because
promoting tourism was a complete turnaround. Before [tourism], it was so
focused on industry. (ML-11, p. 7)
Another participant also commented on the various organizations and government units
that provided leadership in the process:
A lot of the leadership belongs to the historical museum. . ., the downtown
development authority and the city of Manistee itself. . . .The director of the
historical museum I believe is the person who. . .signs off on it to make sure that
it’s authentic to the time period. So. . .the city [has] worked together, downtown

development authority, historic museum, [and] the Chamber of Commerce
through various committees. (ML-7, p. 3)

75

Another participant echoed these comments, reiterating the planning, leadership and ideas
that came out of the Uniqueness Committee:
I think it’s safe to say that it happened under the auspices of this Uniqueness
Committee. They certainly tried to provide the leadership, [to] provide the think-
tank meeting monthly [for] developing ideas and finding somebody to pursue
them. So there was a significant leadership role by this committee and, as I said
earlier, there are a number of projects that they started that are ongoing; the
Historic Preservation Award [and] the [Victorian Sleighbell Parade and Old]
Christmas Weekend being the significant things. (ML-4, p. 4)
Another participant described the efforts and leadership provided by civic groups in
Manistee. This person recalled how, during the early years of the Manistee effort to fix
up their historic downtown district, the J aycees started a committee to help with the
process. “Tuesday Committee, I think is what they were called, and every Tuesday they
had their meeting and they’d go to some building and you know, they’d say ‘this thing’s

falling apart, let’s fix it’” (ML-2, p.7).

The Leadership of Individuals

Individuals from within and outside the community were involved in the heritage
tourism development process in Manistee and Ludington. “Bob and Jan Kenny were
involved in that and they were Victor and Victoria, since they adopted the Victorian Port
City theme,” said one participant. “They would frequently march in parades in costume,
and they would go out of town. They were both retired, and they did it simply for the
love of the community” (ML-12, p. 4). “They tried to draw directors, executive directors
and board members from the various entities that they identified would be part of this

movement,” explained another, “and I think they did a pretty good job of that. They’ve

76

also drawn upon educators from [West Shore Community] College who are interested in
history, so it was a pretty large range of people” (ML-3, p. 10).
Another participant described the breadth of participation that was coordinated
through Dr. Anderson when he was President of West Shore Community College:
The people who are most and best involved in anything are those with a vested
interest. And the leadership came from the [West Shore] Community College
President, [Dr. Anderson], and in my own case I was running a museum and
needed attendance, so my interest was through that. The Chamber of Commerce
Executive Director was very heavily involved, the City Manager who was very,
very good on community economic development was very heavily involved in
recognizing that tourists in the community would bring dollars. And [we] threw
as much city government resources at the project as was possible. There was a
Mayor that was involved. Initially, we had a cultural person. . .who was involved,
and there was a cooperative extension agent whose ultimate responsibility was
community economic development who was involved initially. (ML-4, p. 5)
Some experts were called upon because of their knowledge of history, while
others were consulted for their experience with heritage tourism. “Steve [Director of the
Manistee County Historical Museum] had been very active in promoting heritage
recognition for our community,” said one participant. “He has been, as I said, a great
resource to help those of us that are interested in pursuing that. He also gets the group
together to set up the historic building brochure every spring, so he’s kept an active,
active role” (ML-10, p. 5). “Steve Harold seemed to be the point man,” said another
participant, “and he was very quickly recognized as the authority in terms of Manistee’s
history” (ML-9, p. 20). “That, I would say, would probably land in Steve Harold, the
director of our museum,” said another, adding that “he has a wealth of knowledge” (ML-
2, p. 8).

The museum publishes a weekly article in the local newspaper to help raise

awareness of Manistee’s history. The article features a reprint of articles from

77

newspapers detailing events in Manistee’s history. “Steve I think has done in hindsight a
pretty good job,” said one participant of this effort, “because he knows enough about
Manistee, and part of that is because he’s read every newspaper published [laughing]
since the dawn of time in Manistee” (ML-9, p. 20). Another participant described how
essential the newspapers were to obtaining information about their history to share with
tourists:

I’d say that would just be Steve. He’s really the only person we’ve much
connection with in that regard, and he had a person that was doing research on old
newspapers at the museum. [And this was especially useful for] this church,
because we have so little of our own history [to draw fi'om] . . . .Steve would make
a point when he was researching through old newspapers, if he would run across
something that pertained to this church, he would share that information with us.
And so a lot of the history that we share as tour guides with our tourists has come
fiom Steve Harold and from old newspapers. (ML-10, p. 5)

Another part of the process was to involve experts from outside the community to
provide training for heritage tourism stakeholders. A series of seminars was provided to
organizations and individuals in the community:

We brought in a lady from thousands of miles away who had many years of
experience, 30 years of experience, with a themed community. ..[and] she spent
two days. . . [explaining] how [her] themed community had worked and been
developed: she met with cultural leaders, she met with bankers, she met with
town leaders, the planning commission people, she met with the hotels and the
restaurants and so on. There were specific sessions targeted for each of those
groups, and the Uniqueness Committee invited members of those communities,
both individually and as a group, to all these seminars to see how others had done
it. (ML-4, p. 5)

With the development of a more regional focus, these workshops also involved members
of neighboring counties:
My first experience with the Uniqueness Committee in terms of what it’s doing
now, is when they held this regional workshop on heritage tourism. They had a
couple of really good guest speakers, one of whom was managing statewide

historic resources in Pennsylvania and I believe the other was fiom the National
Trust for Historic Preservation. There was -— and much to their credit, it wasn’t

78

[just] for Manistee — they really worked hard to get Benzie, and Mason, and I
believe Wexford Counties involved. (ML-9, p. 19)

An Appreciation for History

As in the first part of the interview, there was again evidence of an appreciation
for history and the historic resources of the area. One participant mentioned that “right
now I’m taking a course and it’s quite popular. [There are] probably about 30 of us that
are taking a history of Manistee course at the museum on Wednesday nights” (ML-7,
p.4). This participant also mentioned the building recognition program, and how it was
members of the community who made the program succeed. “We have several people
around Manistee who own a number of rental homes and who have jumped in to this with
both feet and their homes have taken on this Victorian look,” the participant said. “And
individual home owners [deserve credit], people who go the extra mile when it comes
time to paint, or do something. They check things out to see what they can do to make

the house look more [Victorian]” (ML-7, p. 6).

Summary

Participants made it clear that heritage tourism development in Manistee and
Ludington was a collaborative process involving private and public sector stakeholders.
Outside experts were brought in as part of the regional focus of more recent heritage
tourism development to conduct workshops and training. In Manistee, the Uniqueness
Committee has been less active more recently, in part because of the time and resources
being devoted to the HAL Pilot Project. The Victorian Sleighbell Parade and Old

Christmas Weekend and the awards given out during Historic Preservation Week were

79

examples of Uniqueness Committee efforts that still continued at the time of the study.
Private interests and community economic development motives were cited as a main
impetus for heritage tourism development and participation in the HAL Pilot Project.
Themes identified during analysis of this portion of the interview included: the
need for a collaborative approach to regional efforts, including the challenges to
achieving this; the leadership roles of groups and individuals; and an interest and

appreciation for history and historic resources.

Current Heritage Tourism in Manistee and Ludington
When asked what products, services and experiences had been developed for
heritage tourism, participants generally listed the historic sites and major festivals.
Several themes were apparent as they described these, including the concept of
developing a cohesive theme for the region and creating an engaging visitor experience.
Participants also were asked about important topics, stories, people and events fiom the

region’s past and whether or not they had been developed for tourists.

Products, Services and Experiences Currently Ofi’ered

Table 1 shows the distribution of responses to the question about what products,
services and experiences had been developed for tourists. Historic homes and buildings
were most frequently mentioned, with the Ramsdell Theater and churches (such as the
First Congregational Church in Manistee) receiving particular mention. Both the
Manistee County Historical Society Museum and White Pine Village were mentioned by

multiple respondents. It is also noteworthy that the special events and festivals in

80

Manistee received multiple responses, showing the broader definition of heritage tourism
in the area. Many responses were unique to individual participants, such as the Manistee

Symphony Orchestra or the Kaleva Bottle House.

Table 1. Products, services and experiences developed for tourists in Manistee and Ludington.

 

See E. = economic ,
I-IRM = heritage resource manager , and O = other stakeholder.

Typical of responses was the following, which described sites in general terms
and listed many sites that visitors could experience. “The White Pine Village is one of
the key players in the area, and this is the repository for the [Mason] County Historical

Society. They have approximately 30 buildings and lots of materials that have been

81

donated over the course of the years,” said one participant, who then continued by listing
individual sites that were available:

First Congregational Church in Manistee, the Ramsdell Theater, there are a

number of Victorian homes there, and Victorian home tours that are available for

cultural tourists, historical tourists in the area. [And] there are a number of
festivals, in both Ludington and Manistee, but I’m thinking specifically of the

Victorian Sleighbell Parade in Manistee, the Port City Days and they have another

festival there at the national park. (ML-1, p. 3)

In addition to listing sites or events, some participants answered the question in
terms of a theme that had been, or was being, developed for heritage tourists. Some
participants mentioned the lumbering and maritime aspects of the past:

Well, certainly the one thing has been, what theme do we give the region and

probably the two most tossed around was lumbering, because that was what

started the whole western Michigan growth, and maritime [because] we’re on

Lake Michigan shoreline and maritime was part of lumbering. [It] was part of our

history from day one almost, when the schooners were coming up the lake and

people were exploring this area. (ML-3, p. 9)

“Of course we’ve got the Coast Guard station, a wonderful Big Point Sable lighthouse
that has a gift shop,” said another participant. “Other than that, we have White Pine
Village, which has a maritime heritage component to its venue there. So I would say,
there is enough product taken together to really be part of what you might call a maritime
heritage destination” (ML-13, p. 7).

Several participants also mentioned things that had been developed but were no
longer part of the heritage tourism system. “We had the baseball team develop [in
Manistee], although since then, it no longer exists” said one participant (ML-6, p. 7).
Another participant described how the Victorian theme had been abandoned for some of
the events that were originally developed with it in mind. The Victorian Port City

Festival was again mentioned specifically:

82

The Victorian Port City Festival actually falls short, I think, of capitalizing on the
Victorian Port City theme. At one time, our VIPs were involved and we would
host the promenade, which encouraged people to dress Victorian and then we

would describe their costumes and they would do a promenade across a stage. It
got so that [the VIPs] were basically the only ones dressing. (ML-10, p. 4)

Important Historical Topics

As Table 2 shOws, the most frequently cited historical topic was the lumbering
history of the region, with ten of thirteen participants mentioning it. This was followed
by maritime history and the salt industry, as well as the historic homes and buildings of
the area and the Great Fire of 1871. Participants usually conceptualized the lumbering
history and the maritime history of the region as being part of the same concept:

The lumbering industry was a very important part of this whole area, and they
harvested the huge white pines in this area, and Manistee and Ludington were
both part of that. They brought them to the waterfronts, right where we sit here,
and there were big saw mills. They turned them into lumber products and they
put them on clipper ships, sailing ships and they’d sail it out of here for Chicago
[and] Milwaukee and it was used to build those huge communities. Well, that
maritime component of that all focused on this waterfront created a tremendous
history. (ML-13, p. 10)

Another participant also made the connection between the lumber and maritime aspects

of the region’s past:
I think the lumber era, of course, has to be a primary interest, both to us today and
to the tourists with whom we share our stories. It was rather dramatic when you
think about the change that took place in this area in a short time strictly because
of the white pine. This community was settled very rapidly, and it was so rich in
forestry. And because of the natural harbor, it was easy for them to fell the trees
and transport them to the water, get them out onto Lake Michigan and down to
Chicago. (ML-10, p. 8)

“Two things,” said another, “it’s the maritime connection — that’s the most important —

and then the lumbering industry, which the two are really inextricably bound up together”

83

(ML-1, p. 7). Another participant had similar droughts on the importance of lumber and
maritime as important historical topics to the region:
I believe lumbering is the main underlying [topic]. Lumbering is what brought
the white people to this area, lumbering is what made the area develop. . .and then,
an offshoot of that is the rich, rich maritime history of the area. So I think we are

right on with those two in whatever combination that you want to use them. (ML-
3, p. 13)

Table 2. Important historical topics in Manistee and Ludington.

HRM
5

3

ethnic stories

1

l
0

 

= economic
HRM = heritage resource manager , and O = other stakeholder.

Another participant described how the shipping and industrial aspects of Manistee were
all tied to the waterfront and initially to lumber:

The community developed as an industrial community, and the community still
recognizes itself as industrial first. The industry was, of course, lumbering. It
was the initial‘industry and [Manistee was] the third largest lumbering site in
Michigan. That’s a major factor in the history, and with that comes the maritime
community, and then the story of salt. . ..But around that you have a community; I
mean you have people, you have a town, you have subdivisions, you have
churches, you have the entertainment, it’s all here. But the reason for the
development goes back to the lumber. (ML-4, p. 9)

84

The lumbering era was identified by another participant as a watershed era in the history
of the region. It was used as a way to separate the booming development of the late
nineteenth century with the subsequent bust and redevelopment of the early twentieth
century and beyond:

There’s that relatively short boom era, but then there’s the next 100 years or so

with real struggle with things going down hill, with the thing that brought

Manistee its riches, the lumber, disappearing. There were quite a few efforts to,

and actually fairly successful, to keep this community viable with other industries

and other resources, but things never were quite the same. I guess those are the

two stories, the one is just the relatively short boom era and then the next 100

years or so of trying to find out what you do now that the main resource [lumber]

is gone. (ML-7, p. 9)

Related to lumber, another topic mentioned by several participants as important
was the series of fires that burned most of Manistee in 1871. Participants often tied the
fire in Manistee to the famous fire that burned Chicago at the same time. “[Lumber]
helped build Chicago after the fire,” said one participant. “Tons, probably thousands of
tons of lumber went from Manistee to Chicago, after the great fire to help rebuild that”
(ML-12, p. 8). The fire was seen as an important part of Manistee’s character by other
participants, demonstrating its fortitude and pioneering spirit of survival. “Manistee was
destroyed by fire and they turned around and rebuilt the community,” explained one
participant, “[and] that had a lot to do with Manistee’s history. That was devastating for
the community to have that big fire, and they rebuilt and became the Victorian Port City
out of that” (ML-2, p. 12). “When the great fire of Chicago happened in 1871, I guess it
was October, it also happened in Manistee,” said another participant. “There were

actually about four or five fires that night that burned a lot of the city. But. . .within like

six months, everything was completely rebuilt” (ML-7, p. 9).

85

In addition to the main topics of lumber and maritime, Table 2 shows that several
other topics also received mention by participants. One participant mentioned several
different categories of people that were important to the area:

Of course there is a huge, indigenous people, native people story that needs to be
told in the area. I mean we are, after all, at the center of a great Native American
population. So, there’s that story, the story of the farming communities here, the
ethnic mix of the area, the great influx of people from the Scandinavian countries,
from Sweden and Norway and Finland, the German, Polish connection here is
huge, 30 there’s [also] the ethnic mix story. (ML-1, p. 7)

In the context of resort tourism development as an important historical topic, one

participant compared Manistee and Ludington in the following way:
I think that Ludington has a much better sense of itself as a tourist town, if you
look at Epworth Heights [or] Hamlin Lake. That area was developed in the
18903-tum of the century as a very popular Chicago resort area. So, they know
the resort people, they know the resort culture in Ludington. And, tourism in that
regard is no stranger to Ludington. Manistee did not have, to my knowledge, that
type of summer resort community. Manistee was much more industrial, it was
considered a little dirty, a little gritty, [and] had a lot of commercial traffic. (ML-
9, p. 27)

Industry was mentioned by another participant as an important aspect of Manistee’s past,

perhaps one that did not represent its current situation:
Well there was in the more recent past an industrial community here. Manistee
was quite an industrial community up until probably 20 to 25 years ago when that
sort of drifted away. So, it probably at that time was identified as a small

industrial city. [Now] we’ve become more of a tourist area and a retirement
community. (ML-10, p. 9)

Representation of Important Historical Topics
After being asked about what they felt were important historical topics,
participants were asked to describe places where these topics had been developed for

heritage tourism (see Table 3). The Manistee County Historical Society Museum and the

86

Table 3. Places where important historical topics can be experienced.

 

= economic ,
HRM = heritage resource manager , and O = other stakeholder.

historic homes and buildings in the area were the most frequently mentioned places for
visitors to experience the important aspects of the region’s history. White Pine Village,
the Ramsdell Theater, S. S. Badger, S. S. City of Milwaukee and the area’s churches also
received multiple mentions by participants.

The museums of the area (Manistee County Historical Society Museum and
White Pine Village) were mentioned as places to learn about the important historical
topics listed by participants. “Again, the museum,” said one participant, “that, to me, is
always the place to start is the local museum, and ours is very good” (ML-8, p. 9). “Once

again the museum;” said another, “the [Manistee County Historical Museum] has a

87

phenomenal record of all elements of the history here” (ML-12, p. l 1). “[White Pine
Village] has done an excellent job: of beginning to record our history, to have the
artifacts, to give you a feel of what our heritage has been” (ML-13, p. 11). “The museum
is the best living resource,” stated another participant (ML-10, p. 9). “The historic
museum downtown has lots of photos and information,” said another (ML-7, p. 10).
Along with the museum, participants mentioned other sites where visitors could
experience the important historical topics they mentioned. “Well, like our City Hall,
[and] our library,” said one participant. “We print those out on our walking tour
brochure” (ML-6, p. 14). Another participant also mentioned the individual buildings in
Manistee and reinforced the need for information or interpretation about the sites:
What they need to do actually is — if they visit these buildings — there are tour
guides there that give them information about the specific building. If they go
over to Manistee county transportation [they can] take a tour on the trolley and
they can get general information there. [And they can visit] the museum for
general information. Also, we didn’t talk about the [Huron]-Manistee National
Forest — which is a partner of the whole thing — and there is a ranger station out
south of town that has information on the national forest. . .. (ML-11, p.13)
After first mentioning the museum as a starting point, another participant pointed to “The
[S.S.] City of Milwaukee from that element of history [and] the [S.S.]Badger in
Ludington. I know that they have tons of information about that” (ML-12, p. 10). “On
the water, we have the Big Point Sable [lightlrouse],” said another participant (ML-13, p.
11). Another mentioned some of the historic structures in Manistee, saying “I think there
are five churches on the historic structures [brochure] open in July and August. Of

course, churches are open every Sunday to the public” (ML-4, p. 11). “Certainly

Riverwalk,” said another, “there are signs along the Riverwalk that [describe] important

88

little things that happened there, that used to be there, and some still are there” (ML-9, p.

28).

Missing Historical Topics

After describing places where visitors could experience the important aspects of
the area’s past, participants were asked if there was anything missing from the region’s
historical tourism. Table 4 shows the distribution of responses to this question, with the
story of the salt industry and the Native American culture of the area being cited by
multiple participants. Aside from these two responses, however, participants all
mentioned something different as being missing.

Table 4. Topics missing from heritage tourism.

1

l
in E. = economic
HRM = heritage resource manager , and O = other stakeholder.

 

Salt, identified by participants as an important aspect of the region’s past (Table
2), also was mentioned by multiple participants as missing from the heritage tourism

landscape. As mentioned in the historical overview section, plant tours were a common

89

part of Manistee’s industrial past and were promoted to tourists (Welcome to Manistee
County, 1966). “Morton’s Salt, which was bought out by another company, a holding
company, used to have tours,” said one participant. “Hardy Salt used to have tours, but
Hardy Salt, of course, is closed. Morton Salt is struggling, and I don’t think they give
tours any more. I don’t think any of the companies in town give tours” (ML-8, p. 10).
“I’m an advocate for local industry opening their doors for tours,” said another
participant. “I think Manistee should have an opportunity to let the public see how salt is
still processed, and learn a little more about that legacy.” This participant explained how
there was information about the salt industry available at the Manistee County Historical
Museum, but “you’re not going to be exposed to anything that directly lets you know
about that legacy here in Manistee, other than seeing maybe pictures, and saying ‘oh,
what are all those towers sticking up in the background?”’ (ML-9, p. 28).

The Native American culture of the Manistee and Ludington region was also
identified by multiple participants as missing from heritage tourism. The following
exchange shows one participant’s thoughts on why this had not been developed:

I think largely because the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians has only recently

— in the greater scheme of things, the last ten years, maybe twelve years — gotten

its national recognition as a tribe. So locally speaking, it has only been in the last

few years that the tribe has been nationally recognized, so there hasn’t been much
impetus on their part to get that story told. The tribal council, from the Little

River Band of Ottawa Indians, is committed to getting that story told, and they are

in the process now of developing programs that will help keep the language alive

and help keep the traditions alive within their own communities. (ML-1, p. 9)
Another participant also shared insight into why the Native Americans were not part of
the heritage tourism system in Manistee and Ludington:

They have jointly and severally written one history of Michigan from their point

of view, but most of the other Native American history of Michigan has been
written by whites, sometimes with the assistance of Indians, sometimes

90

not....Some of the Indians have expressed an interest in a museum and
interpretation of their history, and 1 think a number of tribes have historians on
their payroll, but to a large extent they have devoted efforts to preserving cultural
knowledge at this point and collecting material rather than public interpretation.
(ML-4, p. 12)
Although they were promoted and had been developed for tourists, the historic homes
and buildings of the area were seen as needing more development. “More history about
River Street,” said one participant. “What the buildings were used for back in 1870 [and]
who built it and that kind of thing. That would give you more flavor when you went
down River Street. . .I think it would help tourists a lot” (ML-8, p. 10). Another
mentioned the need for more access to historic homes. “Although a tourist can do a
walking tour and look outside homes or outside buildings,” this participant explained,
“depending upon when they’re here, they can’t gain access inside. And I think you lose a
lot when you can’t gain access inside” (ML-6, p. 15).
Negative or dark history was also missing, according to some participants,
prompting them to question the need to include them for the sake of historical accuracy:
It is my understanding, and this may be inaccurate, but it’s my understanding that
there were more bars and brothels than there were churches here. If that in truth
is the way that it was, I think there’s an element that should [pauses] provide more
information about that instead of just ignoring it. I mean, we have lumbermen all
over the place here, many of whom were married, many of whom were not. What
do they do on the weekend? They weren’t golfers! (ML-12, p. 12)
Another participant also explained some of the debate surrounding what types of exhibits
to develop and what historical topics or events should be included:
The museum community does a lot of debating about how they should interpret
history, especially during that debate five years ago, and there was a thought at
the time that museums had never committed, had never interpreted the very, very
negative aspects of the community. For instance, we don’t do exhibits about mad
rapists. We don’t do exhibits about murderers and mayhem. There have been

exhibits about riots, where you have communities where riots are a significant
part of the communities’ sociological heritage, they may have exhibits about

91

tllrzim. But to target [exhibits] for those kind of things is rarely done. (ML-4, p.
Evidence fiom Site Text and Document Review

Results from visits to individual sites and the document review support participant
interview results regarding heritage representation in Manistee and Ludington. Important
historical topics mentioned by participants, such as lumbering, maritime commerce and
the historic buildings and homes of the region were supported by site text and the
document review. Participants said that Native American culture and the development of
resorts and tourism had not been developed for tourists. This was supported by visits to
sites and the document review.

Lumbering and maritime commerce were prominent in promotional materials.
The Historic Manistee County, 2003 Building & Walking Tours brochure states that “the
business of cutting trees led to a period of unprecedented prosperity that lasted well into
the 20th century. The port of Manistee hustled for many years with daily visits from a
variety of freighters.” Similarly, the Ludington Area Visitor’s Guide, 2003-2004
described Historic White Pine Village as “a testament to the lumbering era that was a
major influence in Ludington's early days.” “Her natural harbor made Manistee one of
the largest shipping ports on Lake Michigan,” states the brochure First Congregational
United Church of Christ. The brochure Manistee Riverwalk Net Shed and Historical
Markers describes the historical significance of Manistee’s maritime commerce and also
makes a modem connection:

In the first half century that Manistee existed as a village and then a city, all

activity focused on the river -- it was the transportation center of the community.
Eventually several hundred boats carried at least 3,000 cargoes a year from the

92

local port. Because of its industrial beginnings, Manistee has continued to attract
and retain maritime-based industries. (p. 5, 1] 3)

Historic Manistee, The Victorian Port City also describes the current connection of
Manistee to Lake Michigan, saying that “Great Lakes freighters are a common sight in
downtown Manistee as they enter and leave the city's deep water port, bringing cargoes
of gravel, stone, coal and other products needed by the area's industries.”

Interpretive text at sites in Manistee and Ludington also supported the importance
of lumber and maritime commerce described by interview participants. A display at the
Ludington State Park Visitor Center describes how “the land we know today as
Ludington State Park, was changed forever with the arrival of the logging era in the mid
18003.” A panel on the Manistee Riverwalk goes into detail about one particular aspect
of the lumbering industry in the area:

Throughout the entire lumbering era in Manistee from 1841 to 1927, shingles

played an important role in the industry. The Stronach family carried shingles to

Milwaukee in 1843 with a small boat to raise money for emergency food supplies

after an exceptionally long winter. By 1875 shingle mills were operated in

Manistee by Peters & Blacker, D.W. Lewis, G.M. Wing and Chapin & Lewis in

what were later called ‘The palmy days when shingles were king, and the shingle

weavers made money galore and spent it with a lavish hand.’
Another panel on the Manistee Riverwalk also describes the maritime history of
Manistee:

In the days of the pioneers who first arrived in Manistee, marine transportation

was the only method of easy shipping to and hem the city. Initially everyone

depended on freighters, the schooners which carried lumber to Chicago, for both
passenger and packaged freight traffic.
The maritime nature of Manistee was mentioned also at an informational kiosk about the

historic homes and buildings of the city. The caption beneath one of its pictures stated

that “the Manistee Harbor pictured is the Manistee harbor in 1880 with intense activity of

93

pleasure boating, commercial fishing, schooners, steamers, and lumber fieighters.” The
Manistee Riverwalk features prominently in the Historic Manistee, Victorian Port City
brochure. Under the heading “blessed with water everywhere,” it says, “few can resist a
stroll down the Manistee Riverwalk in this historic little city. Following the curves of the
Manistee River, the Riverwalk winds through the center of town and out to Lake
Michigan.”

The historic homes and buildings that were considered important by interview
participants also were evident in promotional materials. The Manistee County Visitors
Guide, 2003-2004 invites visitors to “walk in Manistee’s Past,” listing 11 historic homes
and buildings that can be experienced. (pp. 20-21) Similarly, a brochure for Historic
White Pine Village describes itself as a “community of twenty-one buildings on twenty-
three acres dedicated to preserving and presenting Mason County’s history.” Under the
billing, “Manistee. . .Rich in history and architecture,” Historic Manistee County, 2003
Building & Walking Tours provides a map, list and description of 41 historic homes and
buildings for visitors to see in the city of Manistee. Separate brochures also were
available for the First Congregational United Church of Christ, the Manistee Fire Hall
and the Ramsdell Theatre describing the history and significance of these particular
buildings. An informational kiosk located at the end of River Street also contained
pictures and information about historic homes in Manistee.

Participants’ views that the Native American culture had not been developed for
tourists also was supported by site visits and the document review. While some
interpretive materials existed about the Native Americans in the area, they were not well

developed interpretive stories. Typical of this was a panel at the Ludington State Park

94

Visitors Center, which said “Ludington State Park was no doubt a fi'equent hunting,
fishing and camping location for Native Americans. Though no permanent settlements
have been found, artifacts tell a story of hunting and gathering in the woods, dunes, river
and lakeshores.” The Manistee County Historical Museum had a dugout canoe, an
“Indian Trade Gun,” and some pottery on display, but the interpretive text provided was
similarly fact-based, with little thematic development. Some interpretive text seemed to
specifically exclude the Native American culture from the definition of history in the
area, such as the Historic Manistee County, 2003 Building & Walking Tours brochure
that states “Manistee has a rich history, dating to the very early days of the lumber
industry.” Similarly, Historic Manistee, The Victorian Port City describes how “the

county’s history is carefully documented fi'om the time of the first white settlers in 1835.”

Summary

Historic homes and buildings were the most fiequently cited heritage tourism
products, followed by churches and museums. Lumber was the most frequently cited
important historical topic (by 10 participants), followed by maritime and salt (five
participants), historic homes and buildings (four participants) and the Great Fire of 1871
(three participants). The Manistee County Historical Society Museum was the most
frequently cited place to experience these important historical topics by participants (11
responses), followed by the historic homes and buildings (eight responses). Salt was the
most frequently cited historical topic missing from the current heritage tourism (four

responses), followed by the Native Americans (three responses).

95

Site visits and the document review supported participant comments that lumber
and maritime were important historical topics to the region. These were the most
apparent topics in promotional literature and developed visitor experiences. Topics cited
as missing, such as Native Americans and the salt industry, were not mentioned as
frequently at sites and were notably absent from the promotional literature and other

documents.

Participant Conceptualizations of History and Historical Authenticity
Participants were asked questions about their conceptualizations of history,
preferences about sources of historical information and their definitions of historical
authenticity. History was defined as both a process of research and preservation as well
as a tool or guide for making decisions. Participants defined history in terms of objective
reality through historic structures or tangible artifacts, and emphasized the importance of
historians in the heritage tomism development process. At the same time, they

acknowledged the limitations and biases of historians and historical information.

Defining History

Because of the open-ended nature of the question, participants all gave unique
answers; nevertheless, some patterns were identified in their responses. Some
participants conceptualized history as a point in time or as a process of research or
collecting and preserving information. “It’s simply our past,” said one participant (ML-
11, p. 10). Another said that “history is just anything that has happened prior to today,”

(ML-6, p. 10) while another said, “to me history means looking bac ” (ML-8, p.6).

96

Another described history as “the study of past events in life” (ML-4, page 6). “It’s
everything that is in the past,” said another (ML-5, p. 9). Another participant saw history
as a process, such as “identifying stories of the past and identifying what were the people
and the dates” (ML-10, p. 6). Another participant said, “history would be the systematic
and recorded development of people, places, institutions, and organizations” (ML-1, p.
5).

Others made a connection between the present and the future. “History to me is
any element of who we are and what we are, as an individual and as a society, that has
been carved by something that has happened in the past” (ML-12, p. 5). Another
participant said that history was “a platform from which to understand the things around
you and then to make decisions about how yOu will interact with your surroundings and
how you will proceed into the future” (ML-9, page 23). “It’s all that has occurred in the
past,” said another, “that has led us to where we are in the present, and as a marker to
where we can hope to go in the future” (ML-l , page 5).

Other participants, while making a connection between the past and the present
and future, saw history as a tool or guide for making these decisions. “I think it gives us
a sight to say, ‘do we want to be there? Do we want to go back to that?’ and [helps us
decide] where we can go,” said one participant (ML-2, p.8). Another participant went
into more detail describing history as a tool:

I always say that history happens every day when I’m talking to students. History

is what has taken place [and] we have to look upon history in order to plan for the

future. It’s a valuable tool, and we just need to record [it]. We need to preserve

what has happened. (ML-3, p. 11)

Another participant had similar thoughts on using history as a tool for making decisions

about the future:

97

You have the ability to review those things that have happened prior to today,
either for curiosity, personal interest vieWpoint, or to try to find out how things
have evolved today. Or perhaps to learn from it; to see if there were some
mistakes made, [or] benefits developed that you could look at and learn from and

apply to today. (ML-6, p.10)

One final conceptualization of history also involved a connection of history to the present
and future, but this perspective was more in terms of the economic opportunity that it
provided through heritage tourism:

Well, I already confessed to you that I’m not a history buff, and I apologize for

that because I’m part of a business that has a wonderfirl heritage and history. And

I would like to say to you that I am a real student of history in general and [of this

site in particular], but I’m just not. I know enough to appreciate it, but I’m not a

historian. I’m probably an entrepreneur type person, and to me I see this history

as an opportunity to create conunerce, to create jobs, [and] to build it into a

significant economic force. (ML-13, p. 8)

Participants also made some comments about the subjective nature of history and
revisionisrn, discussing specific sources of historical information and citing examples
from the community. Media outlets, such as television, were especially criticized by
participants. “Programs, shows and so forth are usually prepared more to sell themselves
than to doing the true history in many cases,” said one participant (ML-3, p. 12). “I
consider movies to be about as bad as can be,” said another (ML-5, p. 10). Another
participant described how the media represented the subjective nature of history:

My perception is that there’s a serious gap between the reality of history and what

the media decides that history is. ...I don’t give much credibility [to that]. It may

be accurate, but I see what the media does to distort the truth in so many ways,
that it seems to me that they could find it quite easy to distort the truth of history

for sensationalism, for a good story that would sell well. (ML~1 3, p. 9)

Other participants discussed the subjective nature of history and historians as well:

Have there ever been historians who didn’t have an ox to gore or an axe to grind?
Isn’t all history subjective? Some historians are better than others, but it’s always

98

with a point of view. So it’s not that all history is suspect, but it has got to be
looked at in the greater scheme of things. (ML-1, p. 6)

Another participant echoed this sentiment:

There was an article on Book TV. . .about history books that are used in

classrooms in school, and how they gloss over certain things. And I don’t know if

anyone could ever be very objective in any aspect. You always try to tailor it to
your own interests, what you perceive, or how you [want things to come out.

(ML-5, p. 10)

Related to the subjective nature of history, other participants discussed the
concept of revisionism, specifically mentioning the book We T 00 are the People by
Louise Armstrong:

Someone who handled some of the federal programs for the county of Manistee

back in the ‘303 during the Depression [Armstrong], wrote a scathing portrayal of

Manistee called We T 00 are the People and it’s to the point you can’t get a copy

of it at the library without leaving a $50 deposit. But as scathing as it was, there

was something interesting in there. (ML-12, p. 7)

Another participant also mentioned the work of Armstrong:

lt described the people, the ethnic groups and it was during the depression period,

so it talked about. . .WPA, [and] it talked about the Indian roles in the

community. . .. People could identify, not names, but people. Locals could

identify who the people were and they were really upset with the way people were
portrayed. (ML-l 1, p. 12)

Connections to the Past

Another way of understanding participant conceptualizations of history was to ask
them to describe a time when they felt connected to the past. As shown in Table 5, the
only response cited by a majority of the participants dealt with being around or inside of a
historic building or structure. Five participants also mentioned being around family or
seeing family photographs, with four participants mentioning touching, using or seeing

historical artifacts. Other responses included attending community events or festivals,

99

visiting a museum or talking with someone who was at a particular historic site in the
past.

Table 5. Participant connections to the past.

1

who
Note. See results by individual respondent in Appendix E. ED = economic development ,
HRM = heritage resource manager , and O = other stakeholder.

 

Being around or inside of a historic building or structure was mentioned by the
majority of participants. One participant described their connection to the past in the
following way:

Oh, my connections to the past are always with locations. The first time I was

ever aboard a schooner that was over 150 years old, I spent three hours getting

connected to the past. ..It was the Alvin Clark in Menominee. I sat in the hold for
three hours. [laughs] So [pause]. But again, sitting on a boat that I have written

[about] for the first time, is a significant connection to the past. (ML-4, p. 7)
Another described a connection through the First Congregational Church in Manistee,
saying that “I remember there were many times in my years there that I would just sort of
bask in the historical essence of it, understanding that you know I’d be looking down at a
congregation wearing polyester, where 100 years ago [they would have been] wearing,
you know, frills and so on” (ML-12, p. 6). “I think truthfully every time I walk into this

_ building in the morning to come to work [I feel connected to the past],” said another

participant. “That’s one of the greatest feelings in the world, is to come into this old

building” (ML-8, p. 6). “I will go into a historic building and look at it and it’s so

beautiful,” said another, adding that “if I had a fortune, this is where I would leave my

money” (ML-11, p. 10).

Another participant described being connected to the past by seeing a shipwreck:

Probably one of the most pivotal was when somebody told me there was a
shipwreck visible down on a stretch of beach I used to walk on a lot as a
youngster. I knew a lot about maritime history in terms of reading and going to
the local history room and studying things, but I had never actually seen a
shipwreck. I was taken down to the end of the pier and I was told, if you look off
the end of the pier you’ll see it. I didn’t think there were shipwrecks in shallow
water, so I was like, yeah, right. I leaned over the pier and looked down and I
could see these black wooden planks and the ribs of the ship, and it was just sort
of breathtaking, you know? (ML-9, p. 25)

Connecting to the past through family was the second most mentioned item by
participants. One participant remembered visiting his family as a young boy:

[I have] vivid memories of sitting in the kitchen with my great-grandmother and
talking about the past [and of] going into that smithy shop and actually touching,
feeling, handling the tools that my great-grandfather had forged himself on the
forge that still stood there in the middle of the snrithy shop. (ML-1, p. 5)

Another participant described putting together a family history:

I put together a book of photographs and scripting of our farm, from my great
grandfather’s purchase of 40 acres in 1876 to what it was in 1976. And I
compiled three of those, one for my dad and mom, one for my sister and her
husband and one for my family, because we were all in partnership at that time.
And that book will be here after none of us are here, and that book will at least let
someone hopefully within the family realize what the first hundred years of the
farm was. (ML-3, p. 11)

Another family connection to the past dealt with hunting, an annual family event:

Yesterday my son and I went out in the woods. I’ve hunted with my father, deer
hunted with my father, since I was 14. And my son started (he’s 19 now), so he’s
hunted with us for five years. And yesterday we went in the woods and we went
to my son’s blind and we were coming back to go to my blind and [we went by]
where my father hunts. And I stopped there and I said, ‘it’s gonna really be
different this year without grandpa there,’ because my dad just simply can’t go

101

anymore. . .. To me that’s a part of history. . .and I don’t think I’ll ever forget that.
(ML-2, p. 9)
Sources of Historical Information
Table 6 shows the distribution of participant responses regarding what sources of
historical information they considered most trustworthy. Historians and other experts
were the most frequently cited, followed by primary sources of information, and
museums. Three participants responded by saying that multiple sources of information
were needed.
Table 6. Most trustworthy sources of historical information.
Number
ED
4

l
l

 

Note. See results by individual respondent in Appendix E. ED = economic development
HRM = heritage resource manager , and O = other stakeholder.

Among responses that considered historians or other experts the most trustworthy
source of historical information was this one:
Well, I can tell you this, I probably put right at the top - I’m very fortunate
because I’ve got the good friend Bill Anderson, who has completely researched
the history of this area and written a book about it. So, I know he is meticulous in
his approach to recording history, and so he is the number one source for me in
this area. (ML-13, p. 9)
“Historians,” said another. “We have some historians here that can tell you some stories,
and some of them are very good and they have very knowledgeable research” (ML-2, p.
10). “If you have people who are individuals you trust with their accuracy, such as Steve

Harold, I think that is always a good source,” explained another participant, “somebody

who has no axe to grind, somebody whose only motive is illustrating what actually

102

happened, and whose only motive is the truth” (ML-12, p. 7). “Obviously historians, but
then again you want to check their credentials and see where they are getting their
information from,” said another participant (ML-3, p. 12). This comment also mentions
the next most frequent response by participants — the need to use primary source
materials. The following response helps explain the view that historians are only as good
as the information they are using:

I am a very bottom line factual person, so to me the things that mean the most are

the printed material, but not necessarily a book somebody’s written. What to me

is more important is say, photographs, newspapers, those type of things that were
actually produced back in the period I’m looking at. That to me is the most

trustworthy. (ML-6, p. 12)

“Well, certainly any kind of historical document, book, newspaper, anything like that,”
said another participant (ML-2, p.7). “Original source material, of course: diaries,
letters, journals,” said another (ML-1, p.6).

Museums were another source mentioned by participants. “Certainly the
historical museum, and Steve Harold,” said one participant (ML-12, p. 7). “I guess I’m
one of those ‘see it to believe it’ people, but I do trust the museum probably more than
any of those other sources,” explained another participant. “I think some of the other
sources have a tendency to embellish the truth, but with the museum the facts are right
there and it’s usually laid out in pictorial [form], or [using] the written word. It’s a little
bit more reliable” (ML-10, p. 7). “Again, the museum,” said another, “that to me is
always the place to start is the local museum, and ours is very good” (ML-8, p. 9).

Several participants also mentioned the need to examine multiple sources to make

sure that information is trustworthy. “I tend to feel that there is no really good source,”

said one participant, “but you should have many and you should investigate them

103

thoroughly” (ML-5, p. 10). “I guess I would put a lot of different things together, and
maybe that comes from the journalist idea of several different sources,” said another
(ML-7, p. 8). “I would say it’s difficult to assign a single source,” said another
participant. “What I’ve learned over the course of my research is that, even the most
quote/unquote trusted sources will have flaws, and that history rewrites itself as time goes

on” (ML-9, p. 25).

Defining Historical Authenticity

In addition to their conceptualizations of history, participants also were asked
what they felt was needed to accurately portray the past. Table 7 shows the distribution
of responses to this question. Historians were the most fi'equently cited, with oral history
and primary sources of information following. Several participants made a distinction
between doing the historical research to provide the authentic information, and the need
to develop and market an experience to visitors.

Most participants mentioned a reliance on historians or the local museums for
providing accurate historical information. Primary sources and oral history also were
considered important to accurately portraying the past. “I do think we need to try to be as
accurate as we can,” said one participant, “and I’m more comfortable relying on museum
information, newspaper articles and our own history from within that we have pretty well
determined is about as accurate as we can make it” (ML-10, p.11). “The accuracy of
what we’re going to present has to come fi‘om the historians, and the pioneers, the
archival materials and so forth,” said another participant, adding that “we need the history

to be documented so that it continues to be accurately portray ” (ML-3, p. 17).

104

Table 7. How to accurately portray the past.

0

for
to be benefit 1

 

E. ED = economic
HRM = heritage resource manager , and O = other stakeholder.

Some participants made a distinction between the materials needed to accurately
portray the past, and developing it for visitors, pointing out that it takes a variety of
stakeholders. “It takes a tremendous amount of work by a multitude of people,” said one
participant. “Historians to provide accurate source material, artifacts, photographs and
people who can interpret the photographs, educators, [and] public relations people to get
people to come to the facility to see it” (ML-4, p. 13). Another participant described the
need for multiple stakeholders as a process of balancing accurate and inaccurate historical
information:

In my experience I’ve learned that every place that you would go to develop

[historic resources] is inherently flawed in one way or another, and that [what is

needed is] a homogeny of balance. The community-based individual that wants

to tell the story or get the message out is real and impassioned and genuine. You
often get the folk spin on it, [so] it may not be the precise history, but this is how
the history has been handed down, and this is how the story is told and there’s
value to that. There’s also value in having a professional historian meticulously

research that event, and find out that the event as it’s interpreted two or three
generations later has taken a little twist. (ML-9, p. 29)

105

Other participants mentioned the importance of interpretive information or
demonstrations to help provide accurate historical information to the visitors, including
the need to have trained interpreters. “Well, I think the people who give these tours,
before they give the tours they should have some sort of formal instruction,” said one
participant (ML-5, p. 14). Another participant made similar comments, pointing out that
the people providing the tours are mostly volunteers:

The ideal thing would be, I think, for everybody who is involved in some aspect

of it to have a training session in it periodically, because you need to refresh

yourself all the time, you really do. And when you work with volunteers, like
when you go to a lot of the historic buildings you know they’re volunteer people,

and I really think people should have training periodically. (ML-11, p. 17)

These comments demonstrate participant concerns over the quality of the heritage
tourism products, services and experiences. Some participants specifically mentioned the
visitor experience and the need to engage visitors. “I guess it’s like ‘if you build it they
will come,”’ said one participant, “now we just gotta get the word out, and we need to
market it somehow, and maybe get some things that are a little more interactive” (ML-2,
p. 18). Although the experience needs to start with authentic historical materials, said
one participant, the next step is to create a more engaging interpretive experience:

And now I think, the whole question is, how can we package that to help others

experience the past in a way that they will want to do that? It’s no longer a static,

read a sign underneath [an artifact], that catches everyone’s attention. They want
more action, they want more involvement, [and] they want interaction. So that’s
what we need to do, it appears, to get the next generation involved in the past.

(ML-3, p. 17)

Another participant mentioned the use of interpreters to help provide that interaction and

engagement:

1 think for a tourist what you need to do then, because people learn differently or
accept information differently, you need to have like the printed word, like I’ve

106

said for me in the museum, but I think that you need, for the application process
sometimes you need people depicting it in a way that is enjoyable for consuming
information. (ML-6, p. 17)
Another participant also mentioned the use of costumed interpreters as a way to engage
visitors, describing a community member who dressed in Victorian clothing and
impersonated William LeBaron J enning at the First Congregational Church and several
homes in Manistee. “What people like are the stories,” this participant explained, “[and]

again it gets to stories and to get people involved in the story, just like a television series

[would do]” (ML-7, p. 7).

Evidence from Site Text and Document Review

Data collected during the document review and the site visits also provide insight
into conceptualizations of history and historical authenticity in the current heritage
tourism system in Manistee and Ludington. Evidence from site text and documents
supports participant conceptualizations of history as relying on facts and dates. This
evidence also shows how historical significance was assigned by stating that something
was “the first” or “the best.” The document review and interpretive information at the
sites reinforce participant concerns about offering a static visitor experience by having
them simply stand in front of artifacts with labels. Some interpretive texts were simply
labels, and some were labels plus limited information. Typical of these were a panel in
the Manistee Fire Hall that said “Valve-Type Fire Nozzle-Safety equipment in an 18703
playhouse included this valve-type nozzle,” and another at White Pine Village that said
“Time and strike, split column, Seth-Thomas clock, 1886-1888.” Similarly, the visitor

center at Ludington State Park had several labels beneath Native American artifacts:

107

“Late Woodland Pottery 800-1600 A.D.,” “Boreal Archaic Points 5000-500 B.C.,” “Late
Woodland Points 800-1600 A.D.,” and “Mears’ lumber mills cut 15 million board feet
per year and employed about 60 men.”

Some signs at the sites went beyond simple labels and provided extensive
information, perhaps to the point of being too much information. In the S. S. Badger
museum, under the heading, “Some Interesting Details,” was the following:

The ships are air-conditioned and equipped with the latest safety devices

including radar, radio direction finders, ship-to-shore telephones and many water-

tight bulkheads. The bows of the ships are reinforced to serve as ice breakers
during the winter months. The SPARTAN and BADGER have 30 miles of wire
and cable and eight miles of pipe. They also contain 1,387 light fixtures, 410 of
which are fluorescent, and 330 electric motors ranging from 1/64 HP to 60 HP,
and two generators 500 KW each.
Another plaque in the S. S. Badger museum named the ship’s engines a historic
mechanical engineering landmark:

The two 3,500 HP steeple compound unaflow steam engines powering the SS.

Badger represent one of the last types of reciprocating marine steam engines.

Built by the Skinner Engine Company, most unaflow engines are single

expansion. These feature tandem high and low pressure cylinders separated by a

common head. The Badger’s four Foster-Wheeler type D marine boilers, which

supply 470 psig steam to the engines are among the last coal-fired marine boilers
built.
Similarly, a Michigan Historical Marker states that “by 1930, nine boats made up the
Ludington fleet. During the peak season of 1955, the ferries carried 205,000 passengers,
71,000 automobiles, and 141,000 freight cars in nearly 7,000 crossings.” Another
Michigan Historical Marker in Manistee describes the Manistee Fire Hall: “Constructed
of brick, cut stone and French plate glass, and trimmed with galvanized iron, this

Romanesque Revival-style building was constructed by the local firm of Brownrigg and

Reynolds at a cost of $7,516.”

108

This level of factual detail also was evident in brochures and promotional
materials. “The beams sixty feet above you were formed on the site using twenty-six to
twenty-eight wood larninations strapped together with iron.” (First Congregational
United Church of Christ) “Bernan's design created a red brick edifice with an ornamental
tower and a grand portico,” states another brochure. “The stage house rises 85 feet and
measures 60 feet wide by 26 feet deep with six elevators and three trap doors.” (It ’s a
Centennial Celebration at the Ramsdell Theatre [1903]) The brochure promoting the
Manistee Fire Hall goes into great detail regarding the architecture of the building:

The Manistee Fire Hall is a two-story, cross-gabled, Romanesque Revival-style

building and rests on a fieldstone foundation. It is flanked by a two-and-one-half

story copper domed tower. . .Round arch and paired vertical lights punctuate the
second story, while the attic story holds a round oculus and decorative gabled

pedirnent.

Connections to famous people were evident in promotional materials and site text.
“Among the many who trod the boards was James Earl Jones, who grew up in the area.
Restoration is ongoing and Jones narrates a video in support of the restoration project.”
(Historic Manistee, The Victorian Port City) Historic Manistee County, 2003 Building &
Walking Tours describes a home, “built in 1885 by a prominent local lawyer, A. V.
McAlvay, who went on to become Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court.” A
brochure, First Congregational United Church of Christ, features William LeBaron
J enney, “a noted Chicago architect of the time [who] was known as ‘the father of the
skyscraper’ because of the steel fi'arnework he designed that made tall buildings
possible.” The brochure also notes that “our two treasures are windows fi'om the studio of

Louis Comfort Tiffany. . . .”

109

Summary

Participants defined history as a point in time or as a process of research,
collection and preservation. History also was seen as a guide or a tool for making
decisions in the present about the future. Participants cited feeling connected to the past
most frequently by being around or inside a historic structure (nine participants),
followed by being with family or seeing photographs of family (five participants), and
touching, seeing or using artifacts (four participants). Historians or other experts were
considered the most trustworthy sources of historical information (six participants),
followed by primary sources (five participants) and museums (four participants).
Similarly, historians and museums were cited most frequently (nine participants) as being
needed to accurately portray the past.

Evidence from site text and documents supports participant conceptualizations of
history as relying on facts and dates and interpretive information at the sites reinforces
participant concerns over a static visitor experience standing in front of artifacts with

labels.

Importance of Historical Authenticity to Heritage Tourism Development
In addition to questioning participants about how they conceptualized history and
historical authenticity, they were asked about the importance of historical authenticity for
heritage tourism development relative to other factors. Participants felt that authenticity
was an important factor in heritage tourism development. The visitor experience,
economic issues such as generating revenue, visibility of the site, and accessibility were

mentioned as important factors as well. Participants further differentiated between

110

authenticity and other factors, especially in terms of providing an entertaining and

engaging visitor experience.

Importance of Historical Authenticity

Without exception, all of the participants felt that historical authenticity was
important to the heritage tourism development process. “I think it’s extremely
important,” said one participant (ML-l3, p. 14). “I’m a stickler for facts, probably more
so than some, so I think it’s very important,” said another (ML-l 1, p. 17). “Heritage
tourism is vital to communities like this,” said another, adding that “it is my personal
wish that if we are doing it inaccurately, then perhaps there should be more accuracy put
in” (ML-12, p. 13).

Some participants made a direct connection between historical authenticity and
providing a quality experience for visitors. “I think it’s extremely important,” said one
participant, “[and] it’s becoming more and more important for this area [because] we
have become actually a destination point for some tour groups” (ML-10, p. 11).
“Completely important,” said another participant, “because like I say, I think people will
feel cheated if they find that what they’re seeing is not the truth” (ML-7, p. 13). “I think
that in bringing tourism to the community, people want to know that they’re not getting
some dog and pony Show,” said another. “Sooner or later you run into somebody that
knows a lot, and they say, ‘no, that’s all baloney,’ and that comes back to haunt you”

(ML-2, p. 19).

Ill

Other Factors and Their Importance

Table 8 shows the distribution of responses about what other factors are important
to the heritage tourism development process other than historical authenticity. The
visitor experience and economic issues, such as generating revenue, were mentioned by
the majority of participants. Other issues such as visibility and accessibility (both public
access to the site and handicapper issues) also received multiple responses.

Table 8. Other factors important to heritage tourism development.

1
l
O
0

for the kids"
1
= economic
HRM = heritage resource manager , and O = other stakeholder.

 

Some participants differentiated between historical authenticity and the visitor
experience. One participant described how, despite being important to the historical
record, the research library at the White Pine Village in Ludington was not a draw for
tourists. “People are not going to flock to see research, or pay big dollars [laughs] -
that’s not a tourism thing to do,” the participant said, going on to explain the struggle
with how to bring alive the floating of logs down the Manistee River:

How do you recreate that without making it fake? So, I’m going to be looking at
how authentic is it in the experience. We don’t want to create an experience just

112

for the sake of creating an experience, it’s gotta be accurately portrayed. So that’s
going to be a struggle especially for me, because I’m going to be looking for how
do we do it that it will seem really real. (ML-3, p. 17)

Another participant made a similar distinction between experiences at museums versus
entertaining experiences designed to attract tourists:

My view is that it will depend on the product in large measure. When people go
to a play, or when they read historical fiction, their expectation is different than
when they go to a museum, or to an historical site where that history is being
interpreted. We’ve come to expect certain fast and loose telling of stories in
entertainment-oriented products, and I think that’s fine. It’s a bargain that you
make with the devil, in order to attract people to the historical story being told it
has to be made as entertaining as possible, and that means there is certain
embroidery that has to go on. (ML-1, p. 11)

Another participant had similar thoughts, describing how there was a need to make the
experience fun in order to attract and retain tourists:

You need to engage them somehow, and sometimes you’re not going to engage

them with the pure authentic form. You are going to have to make it fun, you are

going to have to maybe embellish a story of something that happened years ago,

or create a potential fantasy situation of maybe what could have happened on a

ship, or something like that to engage the tourist and have them want to be part of

the experience. (ML-6, p. 18)

In addition to creating an engaging experience to attract visitors, the majority of
participants also mentioned the importance of economic issues. One participant
described this concept by using the research library at White Pine Village as an example:

Our research library provides the greatest resources for people to seek out and

find history of this area. But in order to keep the research library open, we have

to have something that attracts people to pay admission to generate enough
revenue for us to even stay in existence, because a research library on its own will

never generate huge amounts of revenue. (ML-3, p. 18)

Another participant described heritage tourism in terms of historical assets, saying that

“these assets have got to be turned into attractions, and that’s where the rubber meets the

road, [because] turning an asset into an attraction requires money” (ML-l3, p. 12).

113

“Money is unfortunately, or fortunately depending upon how you look at it, at the center
of everything,” said another participant. “There has got to be the resources available to
make that kind of development possible” (ML-1, p. 10). Another participant saw
generating revenue as being a key way to involve local businesses in heritage tourism.
“Probably the best way to get things going is to get individual businesses to do it,” the
participant said, “and therefore it would have to generate some kind of revenue” (ML-7,
p. 14).

Economic issues also were mentioned when discussing the importance of
historical authenticity. One participant mentioned how it was important for non-profit
organizations to work with private sector business interests in order for heritage tourism
to succeed:

I think there’s got to be an interweave of both for profit, [and] not for profit, [of]

people who are in the business of selling. In terms of the development of cultural

tourism, there’s got to be an interweave of the for profit and the not for profit.

The two have got to work more closely together than perhaps they’ve ever

worked in the past. (ML-1, p. 13)

“History for history’s sake is great,” explained another participant, “but in the United
States it has to be history’s sake for a buck or it doesn’t matter” (ML-9, p. 13).

Having historic sites be in accessible locations that were visible to the visiting
public also was mentioned. One participant described possible plans to develop a
maritime museum in Ludington using the old US. Coast Guard Station building that was
going to be replaced with a new one. “I think the concept of us having a downtown
location for a maritime museum will expose us to more people, [and] it could be a help

on the revenue side,” the participant said (ML-3, p. 18). “The SS. City of Milwaukee is

going to move,” said another participant. “They bought a hotel, because they need more

114

visibility. Yeah, they’re in Manistee and we have some shipping history, but they’re on a
dead end street [where it is difficult to find them]” (ML-2, p. 19).

At the level of individual sites, participants also shared their experiences making
decisions about how to preserve or develop the sites with historical authenticity in mind.
The First Congregational Church, for example, was planning to put in an elevator. “This
is one of the reasons we are trying to promote our elevator,” this participant explained,
“so that it does make it easier for everyone to reach the sanctuary” (ML- 10, p. 11).
Another participant described how compromises needed to be made between authenticity
and the function of the resource, in this case an educational one:

I think in the interpretation of history we often have these compromises because

it’s impossible, either for money or space or something else, to do an exact

replica, and if you can tell the story with a very carefully done similar replica to
what the original might have been, and [this is true] in both this case when the
building is half size and the [Riverwalk] netshed where the building is probably
about half size. To people looking at it, it might look crowded because it’s only
half its size, but at the same time if you put everything in it, you’re able to tell the

story to the vast majority of the audiences. (ML-4, p. 14)

Authenticity Versus the Visitor Experience

The importance of the visitor experience was evident in participant comments
regarding the importance of historical authenticity. There was emphasis on avoiding bad
experiences, both in terms of authenticity (not having a fake story or information) and
providing an engaging experience rather than a stale or boring one. “We can’t make it all
real straight and stiff, or it becomes boring,” said one participant, “so we do try to

interject a bit of humor and a few little human interest stories” (ML-10, p. 12). “Most

people can see through fake things quickly, so you might as well forget about that,” said

115

another (ML-3, p. 17). Another participant commented on how historical attractions
needed to live up to a certain standard in the minds of the visitors:

I think it is bad for heritage tourism for people to feel they’ve been duped, to have
something billed as a historical attraction and to show up and, you know it’s a
bunch of reproductions and hoopla over you know just to get there and basically
spend your money on cotton candy or whatever. That’s bad for the industry.
(ML-9, p.33)

Another participant described how amplified music (or anything electronic) is not
allowed in the Sleighbell parade in Manistee, because “you try to keep everything the way
it would have been back at the turn-of-the-century” (ML-7, p. 13). Another participant
explained how a tourism experience needed to be different than a history classroom:

I think that you need to make a fun, enjoyable experience out of heritage tourism.
I think it’s not like a history class. People are not there to study, people are there
to be entertained. They are there for an experience for an amount of time, and I
think whoever is there needs to do whatever they can to make sure they have a
pleasurable time. So, I guess I would say the bottom line is, it’s not a history
class. Maybe facts interwoven, but not a test. (ML-l 1, p. 17)

Some participants pondered the amount of authenticity that was needed to create
an enjoyable experience. One participant felt that there are some things you are better off
not knowing:

I have three small children. One son, I accompanied him on a field trip to Grand
Rapids last year, and we went to the museum there — I can’t think of the name of
it offhand, but it’s a wonderful, major attraction down there — one of the displays
they had was the history of the vacuum cleaner, and they had a five gallon jar
filled with what comes out of a vacuum cleaner bag. It gave you the chemical
breakdown of what’s in that. Bugs, dust mites that you know, are all over every
piece of —- this [hitting couch cushion] is filthy with dust mites, you know I could
steam this damn thing every day and there would still be little organisms that you
know, pound on it and see the dust come up. If a couch is two weeks old it
happens. What’s in there? Dust mites, skin that we slough off. How much
accuracy do I really want? [pauses] There is a balance of accuracy and what
keeps us sane. Unfortunately, I can’t get that image of that five-gallon jar filled
with household dirt out of my mind. It’s accurate but we don’t need to know that.
It’s sort of like, you should never watch automobiles or sausage being made — you
just don’t want to know. (ML-12, p. 14)

116

While there was clearly an emphasis on considering embellished stories or fantasy
situations to create a more interesting experience, another participant commented on how
folk stories, although not authentic from a professionally researched standard, are
authentic because they are part of the fabric that makes up the heritage and culture of an
area:
One of our museum members wrote a book called The Memos of Betsie Bay. It’s
that individual’s personal memoirs — it’s the stories as they were told to him, and
collectively it creates a wonderful image — a nice picture. And it is defined now,
the books been out there twenty years now, [so] it has now affected the way the
communities on Betsie Bay think about themselves and how they present
themselves. If you were to look at that book in terms of historical accuracy it
would be flawed. So you know the question might be asked, is it right to allow
something that’s flawed to be put into the fuel of that community’s fire in terms
of who they are, what they’re interested in consuming, and how they relate their
image? I’d say yes it is appropriate, that there shouldn’t be a gate stopper in
terms of fact, fiction, fact, fiction. (ML-9, p. 31)
Examples of A uthentic and Non-A uthentic Attractions
Participants were asked if there were examples in the heritage tourism system
where other factors involved in tourism development were considered more important
than historical authenticity. Three participants said there were examples of non-authentic
products, services or experiences, but most said they were authentic. Typical of
responses were, “no, I can’t really think of any,” (ML-2, p. 20) or, “I can’t think of a time
when we have yet,” (ML-6, p. 19) and “not here that I can recall” (ML-3, p. 19). Of
those who could think of examples of non-authentic products, one pointed to a gift shop
in downtown Ludington as an example:
In downtown Ludington there is a store called Fort Doll, and it is built like a
Plains stockade fort, and on the murals on the outside of the building are all Plains

Indians [laughing]. Now here is a business that is designed to sell, you know
tourist-oriented goods to folks who are coming fi'om the outside to experience the

117

area, and it uses as its signature Plains Indians. There’s an example of how not
enough historical accuracy went into the development of that business. So, it
might just as easily have used Ottawa, Ojibwa, Pottawatomi or many of the other
indigenous native peoples from this area. (ML-1, p. 13)
Another participant discussed how a plastic sign was put up by a business in the
downtown historic district in Manistee when the historic overlay review process was just
getting started:
One example that I remember was a jewelry store downtown, and I think they
actually violated the law but they kind of got away with it because it was just
when that overlay thing was getting started. But I think you’re not supposed to
have plastic signs downtown, and again I think now looking back, if they knew
what was going to happen they wouldn’t have done it. (ML-7, p. 17)
Some participants talked about individual sites and the information in the tours. One
described how the ghost stories and the stories of the lunettes in the lobby of the
Ramsdell Theatre were not authentic history. “I think the Ramsdell one seems to strike
me as more major simply because it is so ridiculous,” this participant said, “[and] I have
people who come and say, ‘I heard so and so was murdered downtown, or there’s
supposed to be a ghost,’ you know? It’s spreading. It’s becoming a major thing” (ML-5,
p. 16). Another participant also mentioned how fabricated stories and inaccurate
information were not needed:
Every now and then I will listen to the tour guides and if they are inaccurate I tell
them so they can correct it, because I think, as I said, the accuracy or the actual
history of this building is just a very exciting thing. I don’t think they have to
make up a story or anything — for whatever reason —- [just] be accurate and people
will love it. (ML-8, p. 13)
After asking participants about other factors important to heritage tourism
development, they were asked for examples where authenticity was considered more

important than the other factors. Responses reinforced ideas about the importance of

other factors in the process and the relative importance of historical authenticity.

118

Participants made it clear that this was a complex issue that dealt with individual
decisions about individual sites. It was also clear, however, that while authenticity was
malleable and could be discounted because of other factors (like creating an entertaining
experience), there was a limit to how much could be done, particularly when historic
structures were involved. One participant described this issue in the context of the
Ramsdell Theater:
Well, for instance I guess, the stage [at the Ramsdell Theater] is not barrier free.
We bring people up on stage so they can see all of the roping and all that stuff, but
if you are in a wheelchair you are not able to get on stage. I just can’t picture this
committee saying, okay we’re going to put a ramp here so Mr. Smith in a
wheelchair can get up on stage. (ML-8, p. 13)
Another participant used a hypothetical situation to discuss physical changes to sites and
the factor of handicapper accessibility:
I think it has to do with the significance of the structure, if you have the only
remaining wood steam barge in America, (you can debate this one), do you cut a
hole in it to allow handicap access when the handicap access is only going to be
able to see 25% of it because you can’t get them up and down the stairways unless
you put an elevator in? Or do you maintain its historic integrity by building a
number of ramps to get handicap people on the main deck? Or do you say it’s
such an important historic structure that you don’t compromise its integrity in any
way and provide a video for the handicap people to access [it]? And these are
decisions that have to be made, but if you have the only remaining thing in the
world, you may not want to compromise its integrity in any way. (ML-4, p. 16)
“We’re willing to make some changes as long as it doesn’t affect the character of the
building,” explained another participant. “In other words, we don’t want to destroy one
of the staircases — the main staircases — to put in an elevator because it’s one of the key
design elements of the building” (ML-10, p. 13). Another participant described the

decision-making process regarding authenticity as a continuum, where the degree of

authenticity was part of a calculated and planned decision:

119

[Consider it a] continuum between just pure, unverified history, or folklore [and]
multi-source documented, professionally analyzed and interpreted history.
Somewhere along that I think you decide where you park yourself. I’m not sure I
would even call the process a compromise, as much as a process of conscious
placement, and there’s going to be some settings where an embellished situation

may work best. (ML-9, p. 33)

In contrast to this statement, however, another participant mentioned the Ramsdell
Theater as an example of how authenticity was considered more important than even
economic factors:

I think the Ramsdell Theater is a perfect example. There is absolutely no way that

the Ramsdell Theater by virtue of the improvements that we have made, and are

continuing to make, will ever have an increase in revenue to compensate for the
dollars being dumped in. But it was important to this community that that theater

be preserved in the way it is. (ML-6, p. 20)

Evidence From Site Text and Document Review

Data collected during the document review and the site visits also provide insight
into conceptualizations of historical authenticity in the current heritage tourism system in
Manistee and Ludington. Evidence from site text and documents supports participant
conceptualizations of authenticity as grounded in actual artifacts or structures.

First, there was the tendency to emphasize the actual artifact or structure — the
real thing, the exact location, or the original object. “This Victorian Gothic home has
remained relatively unaltered,” states Historic Manistee County, 2003 Building &
Walking Tours. In another part of the brochure, it describes how “the original iron fence
installed by Canfield in 1876 still surrounds the entire block.” It ’s a Centennial
Celebration at the Historic Ramsdell Theatre [1903] describes the act curtain:

The Ramsdell Theatre's most famous drop, painted on site, is the act curtain, still

in use, depicting ‘A Grove Near Athens.’ This curtain was designed by Walter

Wilcox Burridge, best known for his designs for the original 1901 Chicago stage
production of ‘The Wizard of Oz.’

120

“Very few changes have occurred to this fire hall over the years,” says the brochure
Manistee Fire Hall, adding, “with its bell, watch, and hose-drying tower reaching
Skyward, the Romanesque Revival Manistee Firehouse still graciously enhances the
environment.” An interpretive panel at White Pine Village also reinforced this notion of
having the actual artifact, or displaying things exactly as they were historically:

This building is an exact replica. Several of the structural features from the

original store were incorporated into this building, including: windows, doors and

shelves. The contents and furnishings are displayed as they were (from

photographic survey) when the business ceased operations in July 1978.

The death site of Father Jacques Marquette also reinforces this conceptualization of
historical authenticity. A memorial plaque near the Ludington marina states that “with
the cross held before his eyes, the great missionary explorer, died May 18, 1675, at a spot
across Pere Marquette Lake. The exact location may be seen on the horizon to the left of
this memorial.” Similarly, the Marquette Memorial on Lakeshore Drive, just south of
Ludington, made similar claims, saying that “he was returning to St. Ignace when his
condition worsened and he died at this spot.”

Promotional materials also emphasized artifacts. “The Manistee County
Historical Museum is a treasure trove of memorabilia of the area's colorful past,” states
the brochure Historic Manistee, the Victorian Port City. “Featured are displays of the
Lyman Drug Store, period rooms, and one of the most extensive collections of Victorian
antiques and photographs in Michigan.” “The buildings contain thousands of artifacts
that help interpret their setting in the history of the area,” says Historic White Pine

Village, Where History Becomes Real. On-line information for White Pine Village also

describes “the extensive Research Library [that] contains information files, obituaries,

121

maps, photographs, documents, family histories, scrapbooks, oral history tapes,
directories, and newspapers.” This on-line information also described The Exhibit
Building, which “houses the transportation displays including a 1917 Detroit Electric and
a 1926 Chevrolet Landau automobile; a restored twin cylinder gravity flow gasoline
pump; two Haskell, two dugouts, and a birch bark canoe; a pleasure boat; and other

transportation related artifacts.”

Summary

Participants felt that historical authenticity was important for heritage tourism
development, especially for providing a quality experience. The visitor experience and
generating revenue were the most frequently cited factors (other than authenticity) for
making decisions about what to include in heritage tourism. Participants were able to cite
several examples of non-authentic products in the heritage tourism system, including
embellished or untrue stories told by guides and the inaccurate portrayal of Native
Americans by a local business.

Evidence from site visits and the document review supports participant
conceptualizations of historical authenticity as being grounded in actual artifacts or
physical structures. It also reinforces participant comments about history being grounded
in facts, dates and information.

Analysis revealed several themes regarding the importance of historical
authenticity relative to other factors: the importance of the visitor experience, including

the idea that it is acceptable to embellish the truth to provide that experience; and a

122

general questioning of the need for authenticity, setting limits on authenticity through

compromise between preservation and use.

123

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

Introduction

A review of heritage tourism literature reveals a fundamental tension between
heritage resource managers and tourism development professionals over the use and
function of heritage resources. More recently, however, an economic justification for the
preservation and development of heritage resources has been used by heritage resource
managers and there is evidence of increasing collaboration between the two groups. The
purpose of this study was to explore how stakeholder beliefs regarding historical
authenticity influence the heritage tourism products, services and experiences created for
visitors and the value of historical authenticity relative to other factors involved with
heritage tourism development. Manistee and Ludington were chosen as case
communities because of their history of collaborative heritage tourism development and
participation in the Michigan Department of History, Arts and Libraries Pilot Project.
Using a case study approach, the following research questions were explored:
1. How are heritage tourism products, services and experiences developed?
2. How is heritage tourism represented in the community?
3. How do stakeholders define historical authenticity?
4. What other factors are involved in the heritage tourism development process and what

is the relative importance of historical authenticity?

124

Participant Definitions and Expressions of Historical Authenticity

Interview participants were asked a series of open-ended questions to understand
their conceptualizations of history and historical authenticity, using the variables
identified by Rosenzweig and Thelen (1998) for probing and follow-up. Because of the
open-ended nature of the questions, participant responses were varied. Some described
history as a point in time or as events that occurred in the past, particularly in the context
of how the past has influenced the present and can be used as a guide for possible firtures.
Others described history as a process of research, preservation and information collecting
that occurs in the present. Multiple sources of information were considered important to
history as a process because of the subjective nature of historians and their sources;
however, when asked what were the most trustworthy sources of historical information,
participants cited historians and other experts most fi'equently (six participants) followed
by primary source materials (five participants). In this sense, there seems to be an
acknowledgement that historians are fallible, because their analysis and interpretation of
the historical record depends on the scope of documents used and the balance of primary
and secondary sources upon which they rely.

Artifacts and physical structures were considered important ways to connect with
the past, according to participants. Nine participants said they felt most connected to
history when they were in or around a historic structure. Five participants said family
pictures or being around family made them feel connected to the past and four mentioned
touching, using or seeing an artifact. This reflects research that indicates that personal
experience with something, especially when using multiple senses, is a critical element to

making meaningfirl connections with people. This also reinforces participant responses

125

regarding heritage tourism development in the area, for which nine mentioned the historic
homes and buildings. Actual artifacts and physical structures were important aspects of
participants’ conceptualizations of history and the area’s heritage tourism.

Just as historians were considered the most trustworthy sources of historical
information, historians and museums were considered to be the best and most accurate
portrayers of the past (cited by nine participants). The next most fiequent response (oral
history) generated only three responses. Despite their cautions about the potential
subjective interpretation of historical information and historians, respondents considered
historians important as participants in collaborative heritage tourism development. This
was especially true of economic development professionals; four out of five indicated
that historians or other experts were the moSt trustworthy sources of historical
information.

In discussing historical authenticity, participants made a connection to the visitor
experience. They discussed the importance of training tour guides and distinguished
between a stereotypical history classroom experience and the type of engaging and
participatory visitor experience they deemed crucial to heritage tourism. This
demonstrates that participants made a distinction between simply having a historic
building or artifact and offering an experience using the historic site, building and stories
that would attract people to the site. While some specifically mentioned interpretive tour
guides, others spoke in terms of a “Hollywood” or ”Disney” experience that was fun and
entertaining, with the implication that some may believe authenticity cannot also be fun
and entertaining. However, there was no clear explanation for drawing a line between

authenticity and a fun and entertaining experience created through modification or

126

embellishment. Respondents indicated that authenticity was important, although they
provided no clear formula for determining how much embellishment is deemed
acceptable. Rather, the decision-making process was driven by the context and staff of
each individual site, not by collaborative decisions based on the collective themes or
topics developed for the region. Clearly, respondents have shown a reliance on built
heritage and the importance of artifacts and primary sources for understanding the past
and, by extension, for using them to develop a heritage tourism experience based at least
partially on authenticity.

Several participants commented on the importance of training tour guides,
volunteer or paid, for providing a quality experience. While the guided interpretive
experiences currently offered in the Manistee and Ludington area were not analyzed as
part of this study, there is a clear connection between the type of entertaining experience
participants described and first-person interpretive services. Standing in fi'ont of a text-
dense interpretive panel, no matter how well written or presented, is not the type of
heritage tourism experience respondents valued. Respondents mentioned experiences
that were about more than just the factual story, and included experiences and arnbience
that involved multiple senses and tied together elements of the story. Examples included:
the community member who would greet cruise ship passengers at the dock with a
concert on his calliope; the smell of chestnuts roasting during the Sleighbell parade in
Manistee; and, the sounds and smells of SS. Badger as it stearns to and from Ludington
harbor. These are the types of experiences that could be explored further and developed

for heritage tourism that creates a comprehensive and meaningful visitor experience. It

127

should be noted also that most of these experiential elements can reflect the authentic

historic record rather than being created as inaccurate embellishments.

Heritage Tourism Representation in Manistee and Ludington

When asked to describe the current heritage tourism products, services and
experiences in Manistee and Ludington, participants identified the importance of historic
structures (see Table 1, p. 81). They most frequently cited the historic homes and
buildings of the area (nine responses), specifically mentioning the Ramsdell Theater and
churches in Manistee. This reinforces their conceptualization of physical, tangible
historical authenticity, which places emphasis on being around or in actual historic
structures, and the importance of actual physical artifacts.

Participants cited the Iurhber industry as the most important historical topic in the
area (cited by 10 participants), followed by the associated maritime history and the salt
industry (cited by five participants each). Interestingly, the historic homes and buildings
were mentioned by four participants, a response that identified a physical site rather than
a historical tOpic even though the question asked them to identify historical topics. This
further reinforces the perceived importance of actual physical structures and artifacts in
the participants’ conceptualization of history in the area.

There was less consensus in response to the question about which historical topics
were missing from the current heritage tourism landscape. The salt industry was
identified as missing by four participants, and the Native American history of the area
was cited by three. The remaining 15 responses varied by participant and represented a

variety of topics and approaches to providing toUrism experiences, including: the bars,

128

brothels and prostitutes of the lumber era; improving the quality of the visitor experience
through costumed interpreters; and, providing more information about individual

buildings in Manistee’s historic district.

Development of Heritage Tourism Products, Services and Experiences

Manistee and Ludington were chosen for this case study because of their use of
collaborative heritage tourism development utilizing stakeholders from across sectors
(economic development and heritage resource management). Interviews with
stakeholders confirmed that a collaborative approach had been used in Manistee in the
past, and both Manistee and Ludington were using this approach at the time of the study.
Collaboration between the two communities began more recently through use of regional
workshops and ultimately through participation in the Department of History, Arts and
Libraries (HAL) Pilot Project. Emerging from this discussion was identification of two
motivations for developing historic resources: poor economic conditions resulting from
the decline of natural resource-based industry and an appreciation for historic resources.
Collaboration across sectors (economic development and cultural preservation) was
considered important by participants, as was cooperation among individual heritage
tourism venues.

The economic downturn during the 19803 was cited as an impetus for developing
historic resources for tourism in Manistee. The collapse of traditional economic engines
(e. g., natural resource-based extraction, manufacturing, agriculture) often becomes the
impetus for diversifying or finding alternative economic engines, and increasingly

tourism is being turned to as one of these. What was notable in Manistee and Ludington

129

was the early decision to use historic resources for tourism development. The
Uniqueness Committee of the Chamber of Commerce provided leadership by organizing
civic groups and individuals in the community to restore historic sites and develop
Victorian-themed festivals. The continuing lagging economy as a motivation for heritage
tourism development also was mentioned during the study. One participant pointed out
the growth trend of the heritage tourism industry while another connected Mason
County’s unemployment rate (which hovered around 12% during the study) to the need
for viable economic opportunities through heritage resources. ’

Most study participants demonstrated an appreciation for the area’s historic
resources and indicated that it existed also among the general population of the area.
Restoration of the Ramsdell Theater in Manistee is a representation of this appreciation,
because preservation costs far outweighed any potential future economic gain.
Restoration of Manistee City Hall with historical integrity further demonstrates this
appreciation and commitment, as does maintaining the historic character of the Fire Hall
and continuing to use it rather than building a modern fire station. Some comments,
however, did hint that this appreciation was not ubiquitous, even among participants, and
that this appreciation has evolved over time and through education. Had economic
barriers not existed, it is unclear whether historic resources would have been considered
an asset for economic development, or simply replaced with more modern structures.
This points to the importance of “tipping point” moments or external circumstances that
may be needed to trigger or turn attention to the value and potential contributions of a

region’s heritage and historic resources.

130

Other Factors and the Relative Importance of Historical Authenticity

Participants stated that authenticity was an important factor in heritage tourism
development. This belief seemed to be generated by a fear of reprisal by visitors if word
got around that the area’s attractions were not authentic. In this sense, there seemed to be
a connection between authenticity and a quality visitor experience. There was an
important point of departure, however, in considering both the visitor experience and
authenticity in making decisions about tourism or site development. Providing a quality
visitor experience was the most frequently mentioned factor used in making decisions
about authenticity, and despite misgivings about making visitors feel cheated by
receiving inaccurate information, participants did state that it was alright to fabricate
some stories and information for the goal of providing an entertaining experience.
“Embellishment” and “embroidery” were terms used to describe how historical stories
could be made more fun, engaging and entertaining. As stated previously, it is interesting
to note that these two factors — historical authenticity and an engaging experience — seem
to be perceived as mutually exclusive. Perhaps this reflects the impacts of personal
experiences with traditional history classes, often perceived to be a boring list of facts
primarily about wars and elite, dead white males, with little relevance to the daily lives
and everyday experiences of the general population.

Economic impact, expressed as generating revenue and profit, was the second
most often cited factor in making decisions about the level of authenticity in the tourism
products. One heritage resource manager commented that the revenue generated from
visitors was used for the preservation and documentation function of the research library

at the museum. Another saw heritage resources as assets to be mined and developed

131

through investment by private business interests. Overall, the need to generate revenue
and profit was an important factor for heritage tourism development according to both
heritage resource managers and economic development professionals.

The need for balance in consideration of income, the visitor experience and
historical authenticity variables - often resulting in compromise — was apparent in
respondent comments about decisions made at individual heritage tourism sites.
Sometimes historical integrity and authenticity were sacrificed; other times the other
factors were compromised in favor of protecting historic integrity. Examples of trade-off
dilemmas include: increasing access by installing an elevator would be detrimental to the
historic character of the First Congregational Church of Christ; putting a larger bed in
the Captain’s room of SS City of Milwaukee to make it more appealing could increase
revenue but change the historic integrity of the ship; and, replacing the original chairs in
the Ramsdell Theater with historically sensitive, more comfortable, but not authentic
ones, could enhance the theater patron’s experience. There seemed to be a perceptual
malleability with the concept of authenticity when discussing its importance relative to
other factors, but participants seemed more strict in adhering to authentic elements when
it involved physical changes to structures than when telling historic and cultural stories.
This may relate to their conceptualization of authenticity as being driven by actual
artifacts or historic buildings. Inventing a ghost story to entertain tourists was acceptable,

but radically changing or destroying the building was not.

132

Comparison of Heritage Resource Managers and Economic Development Professionals

As discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, there are differences in the perceptions of
economic development professionals and historic resource managers regarding the use of
historic resources for tourism. One of the goals of this research was to learn more about
how these two stakeholder groups conceptualized history and historical authenticity, and
to explore how this has influenced the heritage tourism landscape in Manistee and
Ludington, Michigan. Because this study was exploratory, results provide a starting
point for a rich area of future research.

Economic development professionals considered historians and other experts to
be the most trustworthy sources of historical information (see Table 6, p. 102); historic
resource managers cited actual sources of information, such as archival or primary source
materials, and the need to use multiple sources. When asked about what is needed to
accurately portray the past for tourism, historic resource managers’ comments were
narrowly focused and pointed to the need for historians and museums, but economic
development professionals’ responses were more diverse (see Table 7, p. 105). Only two
cited historians or museums; others mentioned the need for training guides, the
importance of interpretation and the need for marketing. This could represent a
conceptual parting point between these two groups. Although economic development
professionals consider historians and museums the most trustworthy sources of historical
information, they also indicate that developing authentic attractions takes more than just
accurate historical information. Heritage resource managers seem to focus almost
exclusively on traditional “keepers of history” (historians and museums). Fmther

research is needed to clarify these comments, to determine if they represent totally

133

different viewpoints or are just a matter of differing priorities, and to identify common
ground for effective collaboration.

Despite these differences, there is some common ground. It does not appear that
economic development professionals simply have a broader understanding of the tourism
system and visitor experiences, because both historic resource managers and economic
development professionals acknowledged the need to improve current interpretive
services. Further, they agreed on the importance of the visitor experience and the
relevance of economic issues, such as generating revenue and profit (see Table 8, p. 112)
when making decisions about heritage tourism and historical authenticity. Therefore, in
the case of Manistee and Ludington, it appears that the relationship between heritage
resource managers and economic development professionals is less adverse than other

cases presented in the literature (Barthel-Bouchier, 2001; Tilley, 1997; Waitt, 2000).

Comparing Participant Comments with the Current Heritage Tourism Landscape
Historical markers and promotional materials do reinforce the main historical

topics identified by participants; historic buildings, lumber barons, influential and famous
citizens from the Victorian Era and the maritime character of the region figured
prominently. Although the two most important historical topics are evident in the
heritage tourism landscape, analysis of historical markers, site text and the sites
themselves (through personal visits) demonstrates some inconsistency as well. Many
individual historic markers throughout the region, and the stories they represent, were not
mentioned by participants. One example is the stone that marks the Chippewa Trail,

dedicated in 1924. Although it may not be expected that stakeholders know about every

134

historical marker in the area, especially without undertaking a deliberate inventory
process, the markers are available as part of the visitor experience and can be used to
firrther develop a quality, authentic and more comprehensive tourist experience. State of
Michigan historical markers, for example, reinforce some of the main sites and topics
identified by participants (such as SS City of Milwaukee and the Manistee downtown
historic district), but others highlight topics and stories that are underdeveloped or
missing fiom the organized heritage tourism development efforts. Stories included
events such as the massacre of the Mascouten, a local band of Native Americans, which
was highlighted in the 19603 but is no longer emphasized as part of the region’s heritage
tourism story.

Site visits by the researcher revealed that the type of visitor experience
recommended by study participants is almost totally missing from the current heritage
tourism landscape. Participants used the termsfun, entertaining, engaging and
interactive to describe the preferred heritage tourist experience. They made a distinction
between the boring and static nature of a history class and an entertaining experience that
attracted tourists. Museums in the area were described by participants as more like
history class, providing photos, artifacts and information that could be read and observed,
but not much of an engaging experience. Although festivals, special events and guided
tours were available to visitors (not included in the scope of this study), most visitor
experiences relied heavily on displays of objects with accompanying textual information.
As discussed earlier, the text was often factual and detailed to the point of perhaps losing

some of the audience. Clearly, stakeholders will need to address this disconnect between

135

providing a fun and engaging tourist experience and what is currently offered at the

heritage tourism sites.

Limitations of the Study

As delimited by the study methods, results of the study are limited to the case of
Manistee and Ludington, Michigan and to the comments of those who participated in the
interviews. Additional limits to the study include non-generalizability due to small
sample size, gaps in the historic record (both for the region and for the heritage tourism
development process), lack of opinions fiom residents not actively involved in tourism
and economic development decisions, and lack of comments by tourists about their
expectations, perceptions and experiences. Although a historic perspective has been
provided about early development efforts (particularly in Manistee with the Uniqueness
Committee), this study focuses on stakeholders and existing heritage tourism products,
services and experiences at the time of this study. Minutes from the Uniqueness
Committee meetings were not analyzed; therefore, a less complete picture of early
heritage tourism development in Manistee is contained in these results. Also, a
comprehensive review of local newspaper coverage proved to be beyond the feasibility of
this project, but could help verify participants’ comments and provide additional context
about early and current heritage tourism development efforts. It is also possible that
some tensions do exist and were not expressed to the researcher because the respondents

were trying to provide a positive representation of the community’s efforts.

136

Suggestions for Future Research

Results of this study raise a variety of issues and questions that merit further
research. As indicated above, more research is needed to clarify some of the comments
of heritage resource managers and economic development professionals in Manistee and
Ludington. While both groups demonstrated an understanding of the tourism
development process, some comments appeared to imply that a fun and engaging
experience was different than an authentic one. More research is needed to clarify the
elements of a fun and engaging experience, and if this constitutes a conceptual breaking
point fi'om authenticity.

Another result of this study that merits further research is the consistent
expression of historic appreciation among all interview participants. It could be that
these views are an outgrowth of the successful early efforts in the area to use the historic
resources for economic development and revitalization. However, this appreciation
represents the views of only a few people who are actively involved in the tourism
development process. An effective tourism development process and quality visitor
experience is limited without the buy-in and support of the entire community. Because
this study did not include members of the general population, this variable warrants
further investigation to learn about their views, and to better determine if an appreciation
for historic resources among stakeholders and the general public is necessary for
successful heritage tourism development.

Future research could include a more detailed look at the Uniqueness Committee
in Manistee, including analysis of meeting notes or planning documents and interviews

with stakeholders involved in the early development efforts. Had the Uniqueness

137

Committee not been as successful, would participants still value the historic resources to
the same degree? Also, there remain differences in priorities that could lead to tourism
development stalling, a loss of authenticity in presenting stories, or negative impacts on
the heritage tourism experience. Further, the leadership role of key individuals is critical
to determine the potential long-term sustainability of heritage tourism should key leaders
leave the area or new leaders become involved. Future research could examine the
factors that contribute to effective collaboration (such as the early efforts of the
Uniqueness Committee) and analyze the process involved in decision-making.

While the study did not examine actual visitor experiences, consideration of this
factor was important to participants when making decisions about historical authenticity.
Future research to clarify what visitors consider firn and engaging within the context of
heritage tourism is recommended to compare their perceptions with those of tourism

developers and to develop more concrete decision-making criteria.

Recommendations

To improve the region’s heritage tourism products and experiences, it is
recommended that stakeholders address the inconsistency between their stated preferred
visitor experience and what was observed at sites during this project. Interpretive signage
was text-dense and experiences at museums consisted mainly of looking at collections of
artifacts and historic records. In addition to improving signage by more clearly linking it
to the historical topics and developed themes of the region, guided experiences led by
trained volunteers or professional staff could improve the quality of the visitor experience

at these sites. Attention on developing multi-sensory, participatory visitor experiences

138

could help these efforts and, in turn, enhance economic development through heritage
tourism.

Because there was consensus on important historical topics for the region (such as
lumber and maritime commerce), organization and theming of these topics, both at
individual sites and between venues across the region, could greatly enhance the visitor
experience. Further, developing important historical topics such as the Native American
experience and the history of tourism in the region could help improve the authenticity of

the heritage tourism landscape.

Concluding Thoughts

Stakeholder beliefs about history and hiStorical authenticity as objective reality
should be good news to heritage resource managers and preservationists. Clearly,
participants in Manistee and Ludington consider historic preservation and historical
authenticity to be important components of their heritage tourism development efforts.
Taken with the collaborative approach used in these communities, this case study
provides evidence of positive tourism-oriented interaction that does not completely
sacrifice the notion of truth in historical authenticity and heritage representation.

Mutual respect for the skills, priorities and perspectives of the two primary
stakeholder groups represented in this study ~—- heritage resource managers and economic
development professionals — is evident in study results. Economic development
professionals believe in the value and importance of historians and other experts in the
heritage tourism development process, and heritage resource managers demonstrate a

clear understanding of the fiscal realities of their organizations within the heritage

139

tourism landscape. “History for history’s sake is great, but in the United States it has to
be history’s sake for a buck or it doesn’t matter” (ML-9, p. 13) is the finest example from
this study of that understanding by a heritage resource manager. There also was evidence
of other heritage resource managers seeing the contribution of viSitation and profit for
maintaining preservation and research efforts. Results of this study demonstrate that the
overt and extreme tension between heritage resource managers and economic
development professionals reported for case sites in the United Kingdom, Australia and
other parts of the world as described in the heritage tourism literature, does not appear to
exist in Manistee and Ludington.

Optimism about the potential for positive, collaborative heritage tourism
development, however, should be tempered by participant comments regarding the visitor
experience and the data collected at the individual heritage tourism venues. Emphasis on
the importance of the visitor experience (to provide a fun, engaging and entertaining
experience) stood in contrast to the text-based, artifact-driven notion of historical
authenticity that existed at heritage tourism sites in the area. Standing in front of objects
in a glass case, or reading interpretive panels, do not usually make for an engaging
experience. How participants intend to reconcile this dilemma was not clear, but they did
acknowledge that it existed and welcomed the challenge. The strategy employed in
Manistee and Ludington was to look at the historical integrity of each individual venue
when making these decisions, such as determining appropriate replacement chairs that
would replace small and uncomfortable ones in the Ramsdell Theatre, and whether or not
to install carpet and a double bed in the Captain’s Room of SS. City of Milwaukee to

increase the amenities and facilitate charging more per night for visitors to stay there.

140

Some participants approached decisions about authenticity by asking if there was
such a thing as too much authenticity? “You should never watch automobiles or sausage
being made - you just don’t want to know” (ML-12, p. 14), said one participant. At the
same time, the level of detail evident in the text-based interpretive materials at the sites
(important to the objective definition of authenticity valued by participants) further
supports this point. Detailed information is important for the historical record, but the
plaque detailing the landmark status of the engines in SS. Badger (see p. 1 13) would
likely lose most audiences. This is another example of too much information presented
simply as a list of facts, even though it is accurate and authentic, detracting from the
visitor experience.

These potential limits to authenticity in relation to the visitor experience point to
the importance of effective interpretation. The plaque in S. S. Badger was a stand-alone
object having no explanation or other interpretive stories built around it (as were the vast
majority of the texts in the sites in Manistee and Ludington). Using this landmark status
as a starting point, perhaps an experience could be developed that allows passengers a
glimpse of the engines in use, or maybe a spot where children could put their cheeks
against the wall to feel the vibrations and hear the sounds of the engines. What is
important is using authentic historical facts and objects as the basis for presenting
relevant, experiential stories that connect with the visitor. Because authenticity is valued
by both visitors and heritage tourism development stakeholders, the future of heritage
tourism could very well be linked to stakeholders developing new, innovative and
creative ways to present historically authentic material and engage their visitors in a

positive and meaningful way.

141

APPENDIX A
Letter of Support from Dr. Bill Anderson

June 5, 2003

«Title» «FirstName» «LastName»
«J obTitle»

«Company»

«Addressl »

«City», «State» «PostalCode»

Dear «F irstName»:

I want to take this opportunity to provide an update on the Department of History, Arts
and Libraries Cultural Tourism Visitor Experience Pilot Project, and to thank you again
for your effort and participation so critical to its success. In our critique session, I
received positive feedback from each of the pilot communities and a number of good
suggestions for improving the process when we have an opportunity to invite other
communities to participate. Each one of our pilots is now developing an implementation
plan.

We are always gratified when others are doing complimentary work. Craig Wiles, a
graduate student at Michigan State University under the guidance of Dr. Gail Vander
Stoep, is conducting research about the use of historic resources for heritage tourism
development in Manistee and Ludington. Their goal is to better understand the role and
importance of historical authenticity relative to other factors in the heritage tourism
development process. To accomplish this, they would like to interview people like you
who are involved in tourism development in these communities.

I encourage you to participate in this research, as it is another step in understanding how
we can provide an engaging, quality experience to our visitors. You will be receiving
information about the project in the mail and will then be contacted by phone. In
addition to your own participation, please think about other members of the community
who might be willing to share their experiences with the investigators.

Thank you again for your continued efforts to enhance Michigan’s heritage and cultural
tourism experiences.

Sincerely,

William M. Anderson
Director

142

APPENDIX B
Contact Letter and Informed Consent Form

{TO BE PRINTED ON PRTR DEPARTMENT LETTERHEAD}
Date

Name of participant, (Title)
(Name of Organization)
Address

City, State ZIP

Dear (name of potential participant) ,

As one of the communities participating in the Department of History, Arts and Libraries Cultural Tourism
Visitor Experience Pilot Project, Manistee/Ludington has shown a commitment to using creative
partnerships to develop heritage tourism. Therefore, as indicated by Dr. Anderson in the letter you have
received fi'om him, your community has been selected as a case study to explore the role and importance of
historical authenticity in heritage tourism development. Results of the study should help with the
continuing efforts of Travel Michigan, the Michigan Museums Association (MMA) and the Department of
History, Arts and Libraries (HAL) to enhance heritage tourism in Michigan.

Because you have been identified as a key participant in the heritage tourism development process in
Manistee/Ludington, you are being asked to provide your comments and experiences about the use of
historic resources and stories in heritage tourism. Please read the attached form to learn more about the
project and what your participation will involve. Please note that your comments will be voluntary and
confidential.

If you are willing to participate in the study, sign the form and return it in the envelope provided, or by Fax:
(517) 432-3597. We will be contacting you by phone in about a week to verify your willingness to
participate, answer any questions that you have about the study, and to schedule a time and place for the
interview.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Craig Wiles Gail A. Vander Stoep
Research Associate Associate Professor

143

Exploring the Role and Importance of Historical Authenticity
in Heritage Tourism Development: A Case Study
Consent F orrn

 

Because Manistee/Ludington has demonstrated a commitment to creative partnerships for heritage tourism
development, it has been chosen as a case study for Master’s Thesis research being conducted by Craig
Wiles in the Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources at Michigan State University. This
research is exploring the role and importance of historic resources in the heritage tourism development
process. The purpose of the research is to better understand how decisions made in the tourism
development process influence the authenticity of heritage products, services and experiences provided to
visitors.

You have been asked to participate in the study because you have been identified as a key participant in the
heritage tourism development process in your community. You are being asked to provide comments
about your experiences, opinions and beliefs about the use of historic resources. The interview will take
approximately two hours. To ensure data accuracy, the interview will be audio recorded and then
transcribed for analysis. Your interview data will be kept confidential, and your name will never be used in
the final report, or any other subsequent publications or presentations. Once transcribed, the tape of the
interview will be destroyed and a code number will be assigned in place of your name. Only the
researchers will have access to the transcribed interviews for analysis. All documents and data, including
your signed consent form, audio recordings and transcriptions will be kept in a locked file cabinet. A
transcript will be sent to you for review to assure we have recorded the information accurately. If we do
not receive a written response from you by the date specified, we will assume that it is accurate.

Your participation is voluntary and your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.
You may choose not to answer certain questions during the interview and may discontinue your
participation at any time. If you discontinue your participation, the tape of your interview will be destroyed
and your comments will not be included in the study. While your comments will be kept confidential, it is
possible that other community members who know you and your opinions, may suspect your identity.

Your signature below indicates your voluntary willingness to participate in this study.

If you have any questions about the study, please contact the investigator, Dr. Gail A. Vander Stoep. If you
have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with
any aspect of this study, you may contact — anonymously, if you wish — Ashir Kumar, M.D., Chair of the
Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRII-IS) by phone:
(517)355-2180; by fax: (517)432-4503; by e-mail: uchris@msu.edu; or by mail: 202 Olds Hall, East
Lansing, MI 48824.

Craig Wiles Dr. Gail A. Vander Stoep

949 Barclay MSU PRTR

(517) 336-8191 13 1 Natural Resources Building
wilescra@msu.cdu East Lansing, MI 48824.

(517) 353-5190 ext. 117
vandersl @msu.edu

 

 

Participant's Name (date)

I voluntarily agree to participate in this study.

 

(signature)

I voluntarily agree to have this interview audio recorded.

 

(signature)

144

APPENDIX C
Script for Follow-up Phone Contact Prior to Interview

 

Hi. This is Craig Wiles calling fiom Michigan State University. About a week ago, you
should have received a letter asking about your willingness to be interviewed about
heritage tourism development. I was given your name by Bill Anderson, who indicated
your involvement in heritage tourism in Manistee/Ludington.

I received your signed consent form — I wanted to verify that you wanted to
participate in the study and to arrange a time and location for the interview.

Did you have any questions about the study?
Q

Did you receive the letter I sent?

{If no}

13 there a fax number I could use to send you another one? % check address to
mail another form.

{If yes} 8

Have you mailed or faxed it yet? {depending on response, decide on whether to
re-send or wait for arrival}

The purpose of the study is to explore the role and importance of historic
resources in the cultural tourism development process AND to better understand
how decisions made in the tourism development process influence the authenticity
of heritage products and experiences provided to visitors. I would like to
interview you about your experiences and beliefs about the use of historic
resources in heritage tourism development in Manistee/Ludington. I will be using
the data to complete my master’s thesis project for the Department of Park,
Recreation and Tourism Resources at Michigan State University. I anticipate the
interview taking about two hours. Your responses will be confidential and your
participation is voluntary. Would you be willing to participate?

{PAUSE FOR RESPONSE}

{If no} Thank you for your time.

{ If yes} Great! I am scheduling the interviews during [list dates and times] at [name the
place for interview]. Would any of these days and times work for you? _O_R - Is there

another day and time that would work better?

I’ll send you a reminder two days prior to our meeting. 13 there an e-mail address where I
could send you a message or would you prefer that I call you on the phone?

145

Thanks again! If you have any questions, you can call me at (517) 336-8191 or by e-mail
at wilescra@msu.cdu, or Gail Vander Stoep at (517) 353—5190 ext. 117 or by e-mail at
vandersl @msu.edu.

Otherwise I’ll see you at .
(date and time) (location)

INFORMATION (TO BE FILLED IN PRIOR/DURING PHONE CALL):

Name:
Address:

 

 

 

Phone Number:
FAX:
E-Mail:

 

 

 

146

APPENDIX D
Interview Questions

{After greeting the participant and providing them with a refreshment/beverage, have
them sit down where they will be heard by the microphone}

THEN SAY:

“OK, let’s get started.”

You have already received, read and signed the written consent form {hand the
participant a photocopy of their signed consent form}, but for our legal records, we also

need to record your response at the beginning of the recorded interview. Therefore...
{then read the following statement}

 

 

please listen to the following consent statement. At the end, you will be asked to
verbally agree or disagree to the statement.

I’m going to turn on the recorder.

{Interviewer turns on recorder, states the date and location and gives the name and position of the interviewee]

Your participation in this study is voluntary and you may choose not to answer certain
questions, and you may discontinue your participation at any time during the interview. If
you choose to discontinue at any time, your tape will be erased. Your responses to the
interview questions are being audio recorded. All your responses will be confidential
and your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Your name
will never be used in the final report, or any other subsequent publications or
presentations. After your comments have been transcribed, the tape of the interview will
be destroyed and a code number will be assigned in place of your name. Only the
researchers will have access to the transcribed interviews for analysis. All documents
and data, including your signed consent form, audio recordings and transcription, will be
kept in a locked file cabinet.

Do you have any questions about the statements that were read to you?

Do you consent to participate in the interview?
YES {continue} NO {thank the participant and end the interview}

 

Before we begin, I wanted to define what is meant by heritage tourism. When the term
heritage tourism is used in this interview it refers broadly to all of the products, services
and experiences dealing with this community’s past that are available to visitors. This
includes historic resources, such as museums, historic sites and houses, historic districts
and heritage routes, as well as special events, festivals and fairs that are developed around
historic themes through a connection to the community’s past

147

 

First, I would like to learn about you and how you got involved in heritage tourism
in this community.

(1) a)
b)

d)

How long have you lived in this community?

Describe how or why you got involved in heritage tourism development in
Manistee/Ludington.

*Prompts: Did you take the initiative to contact others in the community
involved in heritage tourism?

Did you get asked by someone to participate?

Did you work on your own?

Tell me about the role you have played in the process.

Describe your current involvement with heritage tourism development in this
community.

Now I would like to ask you about the heritage tourism development process in this
community.

(2) a)

b)

(3) a)

First, how long has the community been involved in heritage tourism
development?

Since that time, what products, stories and experiences been included in this
community’s heritage tourism opportunities?

Describe the process that the community used to research, plan and develop
heritage tourism.

*Prompts: Was it coordinated, or were individuals and organizations doing
their own thing?

Were there organized planning meetings? Any public forums for
discussion?

148

b) Was anyone involved specifically to provide historical and cultural information
for tourism products because of their knowledge about the community’s history?
{If so}, did these pe0ple volunteer or were they recruited specifically because of
their knowledge?

The next set of questions deals with other people who are or have been involved with
heritage tourism development in this community.

(4) a) Who else was involved in the early stages of heritage tourism development in this
community?

*Prompts: Did they represent their own interests? A business? Some other kind
of organization?

b) Describe the role(s) they played in the process.

c) Are they still involved in heritage tourism development?

(1) Describe their current role(s) in the process (are they the same or different as
previously?)

Next we’ll talk about your personal and professional interests in history.

(5) a) Tell me what the term “history” means to you.

b) Describe a time or situation in which you felt connected to the past.

*Prompts: In a museum? At a family gathering? Reading a book?

c) What do you consider to be the most trustworthy sources of information about the
past?

149

*PromptzHistorians? T.V. shows/movies/books? Stories from people who were
there?
Family and/or friends? Museums?

(1) Generally, people have specific interests about history — family history, history
about their ethnic group, their community or the nation. For you personally, what
is most important to know about the past?

e) What about the past is most important to this community?
*Prompt: Any specific stories? People? Issues?

{WRITE DOWN THE LIST OF ITEMS GIVEN BY RESPONDENT TO USE IN
NEXT SET OF Qs}

This last set of questions deals specifically with heritage tourism in this community.

6) You indicated that {IMPORTANT ITEM FROM #Se ABOVE)} was
important to the past of this community.

a) Can you describe specific places where people can go to experience or learn about
this?

b) Do you think that this accurately portrays this part of the community’s past?

{REPEAT QUESTION 6a & 6b FOR EACH ITEM GIVEN BY RESPONDENT IN
QUESTION 5e}

(7) a) Given what you think is important about the community’s past, {LIST ITEMS
FROM #Se} have any of these been left out of the community’s heritage tourism?
{If so}, please list the missing stories or issues.

150

b)

(8) a)

b)

Why do you think these are missing?

Are there specific plans to develop them in the future?

What do you think is needed to accurately portray the past?

*Prompts: Historical information?
Historians or other trained professionals?
Community members? ‘

Overall, how important do you think it is to develop heritage tourism that
accurately portrays the past of the community? Explain.

What other factors are important to consider when making decisions about what
to include in heritage tourism products, services and experiences, and about how
accurate it is?

*Prompt:Ease of access? Generating revenue for preservation? Generating
revenue for profit?
Providing an educational or entertaining experience for visitors?

1) Have these other factors ever been considered to be more important than
accurately portraying the past? (i.e., compromises in accuracy were made in
order to better meet other objectives) Please describe.

151

2) In this community, has accuracy in portraying the past ever been considered
more important than these other factors? If so, what has been the impact on
tourism, both for the visitors and for the community?

152

APPENDIX E
Interview Results by Individual Respondent

 

n comers: 85.3.3

£29.63 Ea 8E5: E sage“ ..eu cone—96“. 8055?» v5 82:3. .8032.— .. 03$.

  

153

2-4—2
Om

-42 0.42
SE:

3.2
8
522835

 

x

-42 .S

ngbfibuu H .kmwgfis kanenuk

  

X

x

BoEoE—
dog—63 new 3352 E 838 33.5me Eaten—E .N 032.

154

.EQEQSBE 533 n 0 EB .Ngemmwmxoi EeEQOESE 0.58:8» H Om

..SMSBE moéofix sweat»: n SE: «32

 

X

863.22 9 9:88 mmEm 82:0

 

X

magnum

 

x83 acetates

 

2:2 bufiEoU

 

via.”— Sfim cam—€3.—

 

520... _mcocmz 8352-55:

 

xaéaobsoefis 00252

 

385:»: 03% 2E Em.

 

bag: 828:

 

:3. Eu sans:

 

53:5 =25

 

_am 2: 8252

 

3562 um. finanozm 02min:

 

23:83 52 Mei—«3

 

muse. 3:8“ 08$ch

 

hon—poo uOumm_>\m>U

 

XXXX

oBoEEeU mo $3895

 

$32230

 

coo—33:2 .3 .80 mm

 

5me mm

 

X

X

.532; 33:31

 

X

owe; 2i 223

 

 

X

X X

X

X

X

322% e892 2%:

 

 

 

X

 

X X X X

 

 

 

 

X

X X

 

 

 

X

 

XXXX

 

5:832 30:05.: 83%:

 

 

  

. #32 S

3:2 25:2 23:2 o3=2 wk=2 55:2 0-1.2 mJE v-42 MAE «-42 742
Om E: SE: SE: Om
bowofio SEES—Sm >3 £53o€§ 3036::

C

Dm

SE: _ZM: SE: Om

O

 

82881 Eafigtdm

.uooeotoexo on :8 8E8 39:03.3 $5.85 2023 8er .m 038.

155

  

a- w-
53:.— EMI SE:

UNEQEODN H CMMQEUE mbkxchmk

NI
2M: Cm

.2535“ 030:0: Eat mfimflfi 8E3. .v 033.

156

£595.00 u £03335 0.0.59.2

N- 742
Ed: Om O

 

48¢ 05 8 0:280:50 ~§_0_ten_ .m 03a.

157

$033330 .03: H O “E: .353835 E0Emo~0>0§ £50280 u Om .L0MSSE 00.39.? 0%8203 u EM: .032

 

X

X

X

02:8 0:0 «mi. 8233232

 

X

X

X

X

.5532

 

X

X

X

X

X

88:8 NEEE

 

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

X

 

 

 

X

 

X

 

$698 .050 can meatewmf

 

 

 

 

Om

O

Gm

$21 SE: SE: Om

2...: ~74: 2-1—2 0742 @232 942 v-42 0.42 mi: v.42 0.42 NJE 71:2

Om $2: $23 $21 Om O

 

 

bewfimu 0020:0035 .3 $5E3§£ 303.50.:

003030”. “52:35;

.cocaetafi HoteamE .3 000.500 3:03:02: :82 .o 038.

158

0030:0250 0050 n 0 05 «0:033:03 30.00.2030 0:50:80 n Om (030005 02:00.0» 030010: u 2:: .0002
l 50:03 0:00:08 :0 033
X 00:02:» .5: .3000 E0EE0>00
X 00:05.85 :00 00550.5
X 0:200:03
X 00:02:: :5 08: 52008:
x x ”Baggage;
X X mi:E>_:£\bE:EE00
X X 00208030800 0% 050500: 0300098:—
X X 002% 00.: 9:50.: :002
X $0.283 003.? 5:5 2:00:
X 002:8 .0081: .0 38:50:
x x new: .80
. ._ _ ., ., X X X X X X X mEsom:E 020:0 2010?:
. , 23:2 2-1.2 _ 742 22:2 9:2 ”-42 53:2 02:2 mi: 03:2 m-.:>_ N-:>_ 71:2 00000000: 0003250:

_ , O Om SE: 2:: 2m: Om Om 2:: SE: 2:: Om O

bflwwfio 002028.03 3 $5985: 303000:—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

XXXX
X

 

 

 

 

.0000 05 .3095: E03380 00 >5: .5 030:.

159

5030:0003 .050 n O :5 .~0=0.~00m\0x& 300303000 0.0000000 n Om .x0w050fi 00.50000 00.00.20: n SE: .0002

 

9:00.09: :5 00:; ME

 

:00: 05 00.: w:_€0Eow=

 

2030335 :50 b_::EE00

 

$5233 0:903 3 0m: 032:2

 

0:_0> atone: 5 080.05

 

30:30 $353 .3 5:80:80

 

0:30:50 .3 00:85:»: 30:90::

 

5:830 00:05

 

5:008. .8353 :0: :002

 

£5582

 

0:803:30

 

$.35? .05 mm000<

 

X X X

A8 #3:: :0 0::0>0M

 

 

 

 

 

X X

 

 

 

X
XXXX

X X

 

 

 

 

 

00:23:06 3:05

 

 

O Om

 

2d: E: SE: Om

Om SEE SE: SE: Dm—

bowBaU 0020:00—Sm afimflofiem B03000:—
.0:0:a0_0>00 80:52 03:0: 8 30:09.: £800: :050 .w 030:.

O

820:8: 3:90:00:

 

160

LITERATURE CITED

Aas, C., Ladkin, A. & Fletcher, J. (2005). Stakeholder collaboration and heritage
management. Annals of Tourism Research 32(1): 2848.

Alliance for the Arts. (2001). The economic impact of the arts on New York City and
New York State. Executive Summary. Retrieved October 23, 2001 at
httpzl/hellskitchen.net/develop/news/alliance.html.

American Association of Museums. (1994). Museums count. Washington, DC.

American Association of Museums. (1995). Museums in the life of a city: Strategies for
community partnerships. Washington, DC.

American Association of Museums. (2001). Retrieved December 28, 2001 at
http://www.aam-us.org.

American Association of Museums. (2002). Retrieved January 9, 2002 at
http://www.aam-us.org/initiative.htm.

Anderson, RF. (1933). Historic Not-a-pe-ka-gon: an individualized history of Mason
County, Michigan. Ludington, MI: Lakeside Printing Company.

Appleby, J ., Hunt, L. & Jacob, M. (1994). Telling the truth about history. New York:
W.W. Norton & Company.

Armstrong, L. V. (193 8). We too are the people. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Ashworth, GJ. (1994). From history to heritage: From heritage to identity: In search of
concepts and models. In G]. Ashworth and R]. Larkham (Eds.) Building a new
heritage: T ourism, culture and identity in the new Europe. London: Routledge.

Barthel-Bouchier, D. (2001). Authenticity and identity: Theme-parking the Amanas.
International Sociology 16(2): 221-239.

Bender, N. (1998). Enhancing tourism development through partnerships. In
Vogelsong, H. (ed.) Proceedings of the 1998 northeastern recreation research
symposium. General Technical Report NE-255. United States Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service: Northeastern Research Station.

Berg, B. (1995). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.

Boniface, P. (1995). Managing quality cultural tourism. London: Routledge.

161

Burton, T. & Glover, T. (1999). Back to the future: Leisure services and the
reemergence of the enabling authority of the state. In Jackson, E. and Burton, T.,
(Eds.), Leisure studies: Prospects for the twenty-first century (pp 371-383). State
College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Chandler, J. & Costello, C. (2002). A profile of visitors at heritage tourism destinations
in East Tennessee according to Plog’s lifestyle and activity level preferences
model. Journal of Travel Research 41(2): 161-166.

Chavez, A. (2003). SS. Badger: The Lake Michigan car ferry. Chicago, IL: Arcadia.

Chiarappa, M. & Szylvian, K. (2003). Fish for all: an oral history of multiple claims
and divided sentiment on Lake Michigan. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State
University Press.

Clarion Associates. (2002). Investing in Michigan ’s future: The economic benefits of
historic preservation. Denver, CO.

Cleland, C. E. (1992). Rites of conquest: The history and culture of Michigan ’s Native
Americans. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research 15(3): 371-386.

Crabtree, B. & Miller, W. (1992). Doing qualitative research. London: Sage.

Department of History, Arts and Libraries. (2002a). Department of History, Arts and
Libraries launches cultural tourism visitor experience project. Retrieved
November 21, 2002 at: www.michigan.gov/hal/O,1607,7-129-1859_1861-
49827—M_2002_9,00.html

Department of History, Arts and Libraries. (2002b). Happy birthday, HAL! Michigan
Department of History, Arts and Libraries celebrates one-year anniversary,

considerable accomplishments in first year. Retrieved November 21, 2002 at:
www.michigan.gov/ha1/O,1607,7-129-1859_1 86l---M_2002_10,00.htm1

Dierking, L., & Falk, J. (1997). Collaboration: Critical criteria for success.
Association of Science-Technology Centers.

Dunbar, W. F. & May, G. S. (1995). Michigan: A history of the wolverine state. Grand
Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Eleventh Census of the United States. (1894). Report on transportation business in the
United States at the eleventh census: 1 890, part II, transportation by water.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

First Congregational United Church of Christ [Brochure]. Manistee, MI.

162

Foner, E. (2002). Who owns history? Rethinking the past in a changing world. New
York: Hill and Wang, 2002.

Gallop-Goodman, G. (2001). The mayberry effect. American Demographics 23(5): 28.

Garrod, B. & F yall, A. (2000). Managing heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research
27(3): 682-708.

Gartner, WC. (1996). Tourism development: Principles, processes, and policies. New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Gdoshkwaanagana Reservation: Part 1 of 4, Reservation History Series. (2004, June).
Little River Currents, 5, 8-10.

Gdoshkwaanagana Reservation: July Issue, Part 2 of 4, Reservation History Series.
(2004, July). Little River Currents, 6, 10-12.

Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Green, J. (1993). Getting started: How to succeed in heritage tourism. Washington,
DC: National Trust for Historic PreServation.

Gunn, C. (1952). A study of changes in buildings for tourists and resorters in Michigan.
Unpublished master’s thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Gunn, C. (1994). Tourism planning: Basics, concepts, cases. Philadelphia: Taylor &
Francis.

Handler, R. & Gable, E. (1997). The new history in an old museum: Creating the past
at Colonial Williamsburg. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Hanna, F. C. (1955). Sand, sawdust, and saw logs: lumber days in Ludington.
Ludington, MI.

Harold, S. (1980). Looking back. Manistee, MI: Manistee County Historical Museum.

Hargrove, C . (1999). Authenticity: The essential ingredient for heritage tourism.
Forum Journal 13(4), 38-46.

Hargrove, C. (2002). Heritage tourism. CRM 25(1), 10-11.

Herbert, D. (1995). Heritage places, leisure and tourism. 1n Herbert, D. (ed.) Heritage,
tourism and society. New York: Mansell.

Herbowicz, T. (2001). Michigan travel market survey: Observed connections. Presented
at Michigan Tourism Outlook Conference, March, 2001, East Lansing, Michigan.

Hewison, R. (1987). The heritage industry. London: Methuen.

163

Hilton, G.W. (2002). Lake Michigan passenger steamers. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.

Historic Manistee County, 2003 building & walking tours [Brochure]. Manistee, MI:
MECCA-Chamber Division.

Historic Manistee, the Victorian port city [Brochure]. Manistee, MI: Manistee Area
Chamber of Commerce Uniqueness Committee.

Holecek, D., Spencer, M., Williams, J ., & Herbowicz, T. (2000). Michigan Travel
Market Survey. Status and potential of Michigan natural resources: Special
report 108. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI: Michigan Agricultural
Experiment Station.

Hollinshead, K. (1996). Heritage tourism in an age of historical amnesia. World ’s-Eye
View on Hospitality Trends 5(2): 15-19.

Holst, J. H. (1939). Survey of indian groups in Michigan, 1939.

Howe, J ., McMahon, E. & Propst, L. (1997). Balancing nature and commerce in
gateway communities. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Howell, M. & Prevenier, W. (2001). From reliable sources: An introduction to
historical methods. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

Hudson, R. (1898). Michigan: A summer and health resort state. Lansing, MI: State
Board of Health.

Hughes, H. (1996). Redefining cultural tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 23(3):
707-709.

Iggers, G. (1997). Historiography in the twentieth century: From scientific objectivity to
the post-modem challenge. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.

J amal, T. & Getz, D. (1995). Collaboration theory and community tourism planning.
Annals of Tourism Research 22(1): 186-204.

J ick, T. (1983). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. In
J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Qualitative Methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Karp, 1., Kreamer, C., & Lavine, S. (1992). Museums and communities: The politics of
public culture. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Kyvig, D. & Marty, M. (2000). Nearby history: Exploring the past around you. Walnut
Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Listokin, D., Listokin, B. & Lahr, M. (1998). The contributions of historic preservation
to housing and economic development. Housing Policy Debate 9(3): 431-47 8.

164

Loewen, J. (1999). Lies across America: What our historic sites get wrong. New York:
The New Press.

Loewen, J. (1995). Lies my teacher told me. New York: The New Press.
Longfellow, H.W. (1855). The song of Hiawatha. Boston: Ticknor and Fields.

Lowenthal, D. (1998). The heritage crusade and the spoils of history. New York: Free
Press.

Ludington area visitor ’s guide, 2003-2004 [Brochure]. (2003). Ludington, MI:
Advantage Marketing & Publications.

Ludington-on-the-lake and vicinity: The ideal summer vacation land. (1920).
' Ludington, MI: Lakeside Printing Co.

Manistee county visitors guide, 2003-2004 [Brochure]. Manistee, MI: Manistee County
Convention & Visitors Bureau.

Manistee in summertime. (1920). Manistee, MI: Manistee Board of Commerce.

Manistee riverwalk net shed and historical markers [Brochure]. Manistee, MI: Manistee
County Historical Museum.

Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. (1999). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Masberg, B. & Silverman, L. (1996). Visitor experiences at heritage sites: A
phenomenological approach. Journal of Travel Research 34(4): 20-25.

Mason County visitors guide. (various dates). [Brochure]. Ludington, MI: Mason
County Tourist and Resort Association.

McCarthy, B. (1992). Cultural tourism: How the arts can help market tourism
products, how tourism can help provide markets for the arts.

McIntosh, A. & Prentice, R. (1999). Affirming authenticity: Consuming cultural
heritage. Annals of Tourism Research 26(3): 589-612.

McKercher, B. & du Cros, H. (2002). Cultural tourism: The partnership between
tourism and cultural heritage management. New York: The Haworth Hospitality
Press.

Metro Chicago Information Center. (2001). Museums & the economy: An economic
impact study of Museums in the Park.

Michigan Department of State. (1882). Third annual report of the Secretary of State of
the State of Michigan, relating to farms and farm products. Lansing, MI.

165

Michigan Department of State. (1901). T wenty-Yhird annual report of the Secretary of
State of the State of Michigan, relating to farms and farm products. Lansing, MI.

Michigan Museums Association. (1997). White paper on tourism in Michigan:
“Discover the faces and stories of Michigan. ” Lansing, MI.

Michigan Agricultural Statistics. (2005). Principal counties for fruit and vegetables,
2000-2003. Retrieved February 9, 2005 at
http://www.nass.usda.gov/mi/Templates/ReleasesPublications.htm.

Michigan State Department of Agriculture. (1928). Third biennial report. Lansing, MI.

Myers, J. A. (1998). Interests, institutions and organizations: the case of tourism
promotion financing and destination marketing organizations in Michigan, 1896-
1996. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East
Lansing.

National Trust for Historic Preservation. (2003). Heritage tourism. Retrieved January
13, 2003 at http://www.nationaltrust.org/heritage_tourism/index.

New England Foundation for the Arts. (1997). Arts, cultural, and humanities
organizations in the New England economy, 1996.

Northwest Michigan ’sfinest: a guide to farm flesh fi-uit and vegetables [Brochure].
(2003). Bear Lake, MI: Manistee County M.S.U. Extension.

Outlook from the Ogema. (2004, June). Little River Currents, 5, 2.

Page, H.R. & Company. (1882). History of Manistee, Mason and Oceana counties,
Michigan. Chicago, IL.

Polk, R.L. & Company. (various dates). Michigan state gazatteer and business
directory. Livonia, MI.

Prentice. R. (1993). Tourism and heritage attractions. London: Routledge.
RaciNO Rally in Lansing. (2004, June). Little River Currents, 5, 1.

Reed, M. (1997). Power relations and community-based tourism planning. Annals of
Tourism Research 24(3): 566-591 .

Report of the Chief of Engineers, US. Army. (191 1). Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office.

Report of the Chief of Engineers, US. Army. (1921). Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office.

166

Report of the committee appointed by Governor G. Mennen Williams to study the means
by which the state’s historic resources can be utilized by the tourist and vacation
industry. Lansing, MI.

Rosenzweig, R. & Thelen, D. (1998). The presence of the past: Popular uses of history
in everyday life. New York: Columbia University Press.

Schouten, F. (1995). Heritage as historical reality. In David T. Herbert (ed.) Heritage,
tourism and society. London: Mansell.

Selin, S., Schuett, M., & Carr, D. (1997). Has collaborative planning taken root in the
national forests? Journal of Forestry 95(5): 25-28.

Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.

S. S. City of Milwaukee. (2003). Retrieved November 22, 2003 at
http://www.carferry.com.

Stynes, D. Vander Stoep, G. & Sun, Y. (2004). Estimating economic impacts of
Michigan museums. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI: Department
of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources.

The salt city of the inland seas: historical and industrial record of the great salt city.
(1899). Manistee, MI: Manistee Daily News.

Tilley, C. (1997). Performing culture in the global village. Critique of Anthropology
17(1): 67-89.

Travel Industry Association of America. (1998). Profile of travelers who participate in
historical and cultural activities. Washington, DC.

Travel Industry Association of America. (2003). Top activities for domestic travelers.
Retrieved March 11, 2003 at http://www.tia.org/Travel/tvt.asp.

Travel Michigan. (1999). The Michigan travel and tourism statistical handbook
Lansing, MI: Michigan Economic Development Corporation.

Truxell, Elizabeth. (1994). Epworth: The first hundred years. Ludington, MI: Epworth
Board of Trustees.

United States Department of Agriculture. (2002). Census of agriculture.

USDA Approves Loan to Purchase Permanent Home. (2003, June). Rails Across the
Water, 1-3.

Vander Stoep, G. (1998). Museums and cultural sites in Michigan: A basis for heritage
tourism. Lansing, MI: Michigan Museums Association.

167

Veal, A.J. (1999). Forecasting leisure and recreation. In Jackson, E. and Burton, T.,
(Eds.), Leisure studies: Prospects for the twenty-first century (pp 385-397). State
College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Waitt, G. (2000). Consuming heritage: Perceived historical authenticity. Annals of
Tourism Research 27(4): 835-862.

Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism
Research 26(2): 349-3 70.

Welcome to Manistee County. (1966). Manistee, MI: Manistee County Board of
Commerce.

Wireman, P. (1997). Partnerships for prosperity: Museums and economic development.
Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.

Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yoder, D. & Ham, L. (1999). Partnerships. In van der Smissen, B., Moiseichik, M.,
Hartenburg, V. and Twardzik, L. (eds.) Management of park and recreation
agencies. Ashbum, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.

168