Tourism, Heritage and Pilgrimage:
The Case of Haifa’s Bahá’ı́ Gardens
Noga Collins-Kreiner
Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of
Haifa, Haifa 42860, Israel
Jay D. Gatrell
Department of Geography, Geology, and Anthropology, Indiana State
University, Terre Haute, IN 47809, USA
This paper examines the tourist experience within the context of the Bahá’ı́ Gardens
in Haifa, Israel. Using Cohen’s (1979) typology and Smith’s (1992) continuum model,
we differentiate between visitors and perceptions of the same site. The study employs
a mixed methodological approach that includes participant-observation, archival
documents and short-informal and unstructured interviews with Bahá’ı́ volunteers,
tourists and guides, as well as empirical observations concerning the material
landscape and the observed practices of pilgrims and tourists. As a result of the
garden’s dual-purpose nature (secular-religious), two very different experiences
co-exist: those that relate to the ‘secular’ and those that relate to the ‘religious’
tourist. The contemporary nature of the garden makes the case of the Bahá’ı́
Gardens and its cultural and economic context both more distinct – but also somewhat ambiguous as the perceived boundaries are unclear.
Keywords: Bahá’ı́, Haifa, pilgrimage, the tourist experience, tourism
Introduction
This paper deals with the Bahá’ı́ Gardens in Haifa (Israel) and the specific
spatial practices that have simultaneously developed in place and serve to
define, in part, and differentiate the experiences of the Bahá’ı́ pilgrim and
secular tourist. Though pilgrims are a type of tourist, the word ‘pilgrim’ will
be used throughout the paper to mean religiously-motivated tourists and the
word ‘tourist’ will refer to secular tourists.
In this paper, we examine the experience and practice of pilgrims (also
known as religious tourists) and secular tourists at the Bahá’ı́ holy site. To
understand and explain the socio-spatial practices of these two groups,
Cohen’s (1979) typology of the tourist experience and Smith’s (1992) continuum
model are used. Based on our empirical observations, we assert that religious
tourism is a complex process and that the practices of tourists and pilgrims
are unique and different at the same site. To understand the Haifa case, the
paper will examine the unique nature of pilgrimage-tourism, the historical
development of the gardens, the tourism board’s promotion of the site as
Haifa’s primary tourist attraction and the distinct spatial practices that have
been used by both to negotiate the very different expectations of the industry
1743-873X/06/01 032-19 $20.00/0
JOURNAL OF HERITAGE TOURISM
# 2006 N. Collins-Kreiner & J.D. Gatrell
Vol. 1, No. 1, 2006
32
Tourism, Heritage and Pilgrimage
33
and the Bahá’ı́ faith. Additionally, the paper posits that as a result of the
garden’s dual secular and sacred purposes, two very different processes
co-exist – the secular tourist’s and the religious tourist’s.
Pilgrimage and Tourism
Tourism, like all industries, is embedded within a complex of socio-spatial
processes that are historically, culturally, and locally dependent (Gatrell &
Reid, 2002; McCann, 2002; Petric & Mrnjavac, 2003). It is also embedded in political processes, particularly in the case of the Haifa Gardens, and it is within
these locally contingent systems that localities engage in a global competition
for capital investment. As part of this competition, localities are engaged in
the process of imagining, re-imagining, and marketing a shared local identity
(Ooi et al., 2004). The resulting ‘place-craft’ that occurs at tourist sites and in
their host localities suggests that the tourism industry is a complex system
comprised of perceptions, expectations and experience.
To understand the complexities of tourism, the tourism literature has focused
a great deal of attention on ‘tourist experience’ and the psychosocial dynamics
that drive tourism (i.e. Cohen, 1979, 1992, 1998; MacCannell, 1973; Turner &
Turner, 1969, 1978). In 1973, MacCannell was the first to claim that tourism is
a quest for the ‘authentic’. MacCannell went further to assert that contemporary tourism embodies many of the same characteristics as that of pilgrimage.
Accordingly, McCannell’s tourist is perceived as a pilgrim in the current
modern secular world. Unfortunately, the analogy of tourism as pilgrimage
has: (1) tended to blur the distinction between the religious and secular, (2)
resulted in an uneven treatment of both, and (3) limited the scale and scope
of comparative analyses (Vukonić, 2002). It is impossible to understand the
development of leisure, and therefore tourism, without studying religion and
understanding the pilgrimage phenomenon in ancient times. Moreover,
current industry trends indicated that religious tourism has great economic
potential – and in the case of Haifa religious tourism serves as the cornerstone
for regional growth (Vukonić, 2002).
The relationship between tourism and religion has focused primarily on the
question of the similarity and difference between the tourist and the pilgrim
(Cohen, 1992, 1998; Collins-Kreiner & Kliot, 2000; Olsen & Timothy, 2006;
Smith, 1992; Vukonić, 1996). Yet, the dominant use of the terms (e.g. ‘pilgrim’
as a religious traveller and ‘tourist’ as a vacationer) is a socially constructed
binary that veils (or obscures) individual motives (Smith, 1992). This binary
is an unfortunate one in that the religious and secular spheres of tourism are
rapidly merging as religious tourism assumes a more prominent market
niche in the international tourism marketplace.
To understand the nexus between secular and religious tourism, geographies
of religion have the potential to provide key insights into the secular and sacred
socio-spatial processes that shape everyday life in local places around the
world (Holloway & Valins, 2002: 6). At the most basic level, pilgrimage ‘as a
practice’ requires a consecrated space that sets the experience apart from the
ordinary and the secular and enables an individual to access God or the
divine figure in their cosmology (Digance, 2003).
34
Journal of Heritage Tourism
In even more abstract terms, pilgrimage occurs in places where the profane
has been transformed into the sacred over time, and is set apart with boundaries that delimit where profane time and space make way for the sacred
realm and enable pilgrims to access the centre of the world or axis mundi
(Eliade, 1969). As a result, the distribution of pilgrimage sites is inherently
uneven. From this perspective a pilgrimage is a religiously motivated
journey to the very centre of the world in a limited number of locations, or to
one of its homologous representations in place.
In contrast to the cosmology of place explanations provided by Eliade (1969),
Digance (2003), Barber (1993), and Turner and Turner (1969) assert that pilgrimage is a ‘ritual process’. This process involves a stage of liminality, resembling
that in which novices find themselves in the transitory stage between two established social statuses. Another of the Turners’ fundamental ideas is that
pilgrimage centres are typically located out there. This peripherality is both
geographical-locational and cultural; the sites are marginal to population
centres, and indeed to the socio-political centres of society. These peripheral
centres are often located beyond a stretch of wilderness or some other uninhabited territory, in the ‘chaos’ surrounding the ordered ‘cosmicised’ social world
(Turner, 1973: 211 –214; Turner & Turner, 1978: 241).
Given the simultaneous status of pilgrimage as the centre, periphery, other
and liminal, the process and places occupy a unique space in the imagination
of both religious and secular tourism – or what Soja (1996) calls a ‘Third
Space’. By understating religious sites as a ‘third space’ that exists beyond
and between the lived and planned world, researchers will be able to unlock
and deconstruct the social practices of the religious and secular tourist at
religious sites. Understanding religious sites as a ‘third space’ enables researchers to avoid the simplified notions of ‘religious traveller’ or ‘vacationer’ as
pilgrim and tourist, respectively (Cohen, 1992; Smith, 1992) insofar as these
two groups are linked to one another in a shared space. Indeed, a revised
religious tourism paradigm based in part on the notion of ‘third space’
acknowledges – in both implicit and explicit terms – the interdependent
nature of the two actors and the social construction of a site as simultaneously
sacred and secular.
Hence, pilgrims and tourists are distinct actors situated at opposite ends on
Smith’s (1992) continuum of travel (Figure 1). The poles on the pilgrimagetourism continuum are labelled as sacred vs. secular; between them lie almost
infinite possible sacred-secular combinations. Within the centre, though,
resides ‘religious tourism’. These positions reflect the multiple and changing
motivations of the traveller whose interests and activities may switch from
tourism to pilgrimage and vice versa, even without the individual being
aware of the change. Jackowski and Smith (1992) use the term ‘knowledgebased tourism’ as synonymous with religious tourism. Most researchers identify ‘religious tourism’ with the individual’s quest for ‘holy places’, shrines and
other locales where visitors seek to experience and connect with sites of historical and cultural significance (Nolan & Nolan, 1989). Smith (1992) understands
the difference to be individual beliefs and views of the world.
While the continuum suggests a vast cleavage exists between the religious
and secular, research suggests a convergence is occurring and religious sites
Tourism, Heritage and Pilgrimage
35
Figure 1 The pilgrim – tourist continuum (Smith, 1992: 4)
are increasingly positioned in the middle ground of Smith’s continuum. For
example, Santos (2002) found that the majority of visitors to Santiago were
simply tourists curious about the city of Santiago, its culture and religious
sites. Likewise, Vukonić (2002) argues that religion and tourism have much
in common, as it is increasingly difficult to ignore the reality that conceptual,
functional and economic distinction between the religious and profane with
respect to pilgrimage and its impacts of tourism are irrelevant. Indeed, the
economic imperatives of religious tourism are accelerating the convergence
of the sacred and secular site, and the difference between old-fashioned
pilgrimage and tourism is narrowing. For example, the word ‘pilgrimage’
itself is widely used in many secular contexts including make-shift memorials
to victims of violence, permanent memorials, and even the homes and graves of
celebrities. In the United States, pilgrimage to Elvis Presley’s Graceland
mansion in Memphis is the most obvious example (Alderman, 2002;
Reader & Walter, 1993). However, new forms of pilgrimage, such as ‘dark
tourism’, are also emerging as travellers visit cemeteries, churchyards, funerary
sites, and even crime scenes (Seaton, 1999, 2002).
Given the expansion of tourist milieus, scholars have begun to consider
other forms of pilgrims such as the latest romantics or hippies who began
frequenting India and the Himalayas beginning in the 1960s. There is also a
growing market for ‘New Age’ spiritual travel for pilgrimage, personal
growth and non-traditional spiritual practices (Attix, 2002), and an increasing
amount of research is being done on modern secular pilgrimage where the
search for the miraculous is a trait shared by religious and secular pilgrims
alike (Alderman, 2002; Ashworth & Hartmann, 2005; Attix, 2002; Digance,
2003; Reader & Walter, 1993; Seaton, 1999, 2002).
Yet, traditional pilgrimage persists and co-exists with the emerging secularism in many regions and cultures around the world (Jutla, 2002). Indeed,
pilgrimage tourism has effectively forged a link with the past and a social connection among contemporary culture groups and often coincides with more
traditional pleasure-based tourism activities on the same trip. The question
is: how does one distinguish a visitor in genuine need of prayer and spiritual
peace from one admiring the work of 11th or 20th century builders or
contemplating the tomb of some famous person?
36
Journal of Heritage Tourism
To understand the dynamics of the tourist experience, including religious
tourism, Cohen (1979) proposed five modes of the tourist experience which
are based on the place and significance of the given tourist experience in the
total world-view of tourists: their attitude to a perceived ‘centre’ and the
location of that centre in relation to the society in which the tourist lives.
Cohen claimed (1979: 180) that one cannot describe ‘the tourist’ as a ‘general
type’ and that several tourist experiences exist, whose examination will help
in understanding the phenomenon of pilgrimage. First, there is the recreational
experience which is a form of entertainment, based on the belief in the recuperative or restorative power of a tourist trip; it is a secular rational belief in the
value of leisure activities. Closely related to the recreational mode of tourism
experiences is the diversionary mode – a mere escape from the boredom and
meaninglessness of routine everyday existence – into the ‘forgetfulness of
vacation’. The third mode of tourism experiences is the experiential mode
which stresses the quest for meaning outside the confines of one’s own
society, the search for authentic experiences. The fourth mode of touristic
experience is the experimental mode – a quest for an alternative in many different directions – ‘drifters’ as an example. Finally, the fifth and the last mode is
the existential mode which characterises the traveller who is fully committed to
an elective spiritual centre, external to the mainstream of his/her native society
and which is epitomised in pilgrimage and pilgrimage experiences. Cohen
claims that tourists travelling in the ‘existential mode’ are analogous to
pilgrims. Both are fully committed to an elective spiritual centre, external to
the mainstream of their native society and culture because they feel that the
only meaningful ‘real’ life is at the centre (Cohen, 1979: 186).
Sacred Space
Formal sacred space is usually associated with temples, cathedrals and
palaces. However, this definition relies too heavily on the built environment
and assumes a necessary separation between nature and society. Indeed, the
natural landscape, particularly mountains, caves, trees and water sources
such as rivers and streams, are increasingly recognised as an important locus
for sacred sites (Nolan & Nolan, 1989, 1992). In the Haifa case, the sacred character of the Bahá’ı́ Gardens extends from the built landscape, planned gardens,
the natural environment and historicity of the location.
In addition to the physical characteristics of sacred sites, conflicts over access
and usage of these places in space-time emerge as a key issue. Additionally,
access issues pit a variety of stakeholders against one another as they
compete to establish ownership and legitimate the meaning of a place (i.e.
symbolism). As a result, Chidester and Lindenthal (1995: 3) note ancient sites
have become embedded within struggles ‘over nationality, economic empowerment and basic civil and human rights to freedom of religion and self determination’. Concomitantly, sacred sites have been implicated in a range of local
planning issues as mass tourists, pilgrims and local people compete for use of
the resource base, such as transportation infrastructures and even parking.
These issues are complicated by the distinct external constituencies (traditional
pilgrims, packaged ‘religious tours’ and ‘vacationers’) that visit these sites and
Tourism, Heritage and Pilgrimage
37
compete for access and for whom the meaning of a site varies. As a result, a
multi-layered conflict (of varying degrees) emerges between the local population, the owners of the site, and the outside visitors, as well as the visitors
themselves: pilgrims and tourists (Digance, 2003).
Because religion is comprehensive it is fundamentally about power, so it
cannot avoid politics. Religion has the ability to ground the use of force in a
cosmic and moral order; therefore, religion constitutes the ultimate legitimating
of any political system. Religion influences political structures and activity by
encouraging and enforcing some attitudes and behaviors and by discouraging
and disparaging others (Green, 2003). Religion has long been a catalyst for conflict in areas where different faiths overlap spatially or where religion merges
with politics, such as in Israel and Ireland. The discussion of ‘heritage dissonance’ is useful. Historical dissonance (HD) refers to a disagreement between
groups regarding the meaning of sites and potential for sites to be an object
of hostility or conflict between groups (Graham et al., 2000). As a result of
HD, stakeholders treat heritage landscapes as a zero-sum game, in which an
advantage for one stakeholder is simultaneously seen to disadvantage
another (Graham et al., 2000).
Controversy involving the politicisation of religion is generally associated
with competing discourses over a homeland, where emotional attachment to
the land by competing groups transforms the land itself into a sacred place,
with the subsequent desire by involved parties to control, possess and to
defend their natural and cultural surroundings. Chidester and Linenthal
(1995) note that what is considered sacred, including sacred space, is usually
contested and embedded in power relations. These geographies of conflict
play important roles in understanding social relations among members of
different belief systems, as well as political meanings and interpretations of
space as manifested in the material and visual articulation of landscape and
architecture (Azaryahu, 1999).
In the public sphere, religion produces political consequences, shaping
attitudes and ideas that make an impact on issues of public policy. Religion
comprises what people do together, not just what they believe in the privacy
of their hearts. Religion functions socially, and because it operates within
society it may function politically, sometimes through legitimate violence and
coercion. In the view of adherents, power is exercised by or on behalf of God
and his divine agencies (Neusner, 2003).
The Bahá’ı́, Haifa and the World Centre
The Bahá’ı́ religion is an emerging one with some 6 to 7 million followers in
over 130 independent countries and territories, and its scripture and letters
have been translated into roughly 800 languages. Encyclopedia Britannica lists
Bahá’ı́ as the second most widespread independent religion in the world,
after Christianity. While the belief system was derived from a major monotheistic religion, Islam, the structure of the religion is unique. For example,
there is no clergy and each individual (as well as the entire community) is
able to explore their relationship with God through prayer, reflection and
collaborative consultation. In contrast to parishes, temples or similar
38
Journal of Heritage Tourism
organisation structures, Bahá’ı́ are organised around elected councils that
administer all activities. Additionally, the international community is entirely
self-sufficient and all finances are obtained only from internal resources and
membership (Bahá’ı́ International Community, 2002; Hatcher & Martin, 1998).
The Bahá’ı́ experience in Israel has been characterised by long-standing and
positive relationships with local government and residents dating back over
nearly 150 years when the religion’s Iranian founder, Baha’u’llah, arrived as
an Ottoman prisoner and later died near Acre. When the Bahá’ı́ arrived in
Israel (then Palestine), Baha’u’llah instructed believers that they must not
seek or accept converts here, a rule which is still strictly observed today
throughout the state (Bahá’ı́ News, 2001). Indeed, the Bahá’ı́ have no permanent and substantial Bahá’ı́ community within Israel and the only Bahá’ı́ presence in Haifa has been limited to 800 volunteers who move to the city for
short periods only to return to their homelands at a later date.
The Bahá’ı́ connection to Mount Carmel is partly based on the historical
narrative surrounding the mountain and the belief of Jews and Christians that
it is the ‘Mountain of the Lord.’ For the Bahá’ı́, their formal connection to the
mountain began when the Bahá’u’lláh outlined a plan for the development of
a spiritual and administrative headquarters for the then new religion. Since
the late-19th century, the Bahá’u’lláh vision for Mt Carmel as articulated in
the Tablet of Carmel have evolved from the building of tomb for the Báb, the
martyred Bahá’ı́ leader, to include the sprawling complex that exists today.
Today’s contemporary World Centre began in earnest in 1909 with the construction of a mausoleum, the Shrine of the Báb. Since then the Bahá’ı́ have had a
permanent presence on the mountain. In subsequent decades, the Bahá’ı́
‘master builder’ and ‘guardian of the faith’, Shoghi Effendi, went on to embellish
the Shrine and began construction on the Centre’s first nine terraces. In 1953, The
Shrine of the Báb expanded to include a gold dome and an adjacent garden (Haifa
Tourist Board, 2004; Smith, 1987) (see Figure 2). In 1932, Shoghi Effendi built
Monument Gardens near the Shrine as a burial site of key leaders and family
members (see Figure 3). Atop the Monument Garden’s western arc, the
International Bahá’ı́ Archives were completed in 1957 (Bahai.org, 2005). The
archives are a central administrative structure for the faith as it houses key
texts and other sacred artefacts associated with the faith and has become an essential component of Bahá’ı́ pilgrimage. In 1983, the Bahá’ı́ faith completed construction of its international governing body, the Universal House of Justice (Healy,
2002; Holt-Forin, 1998; MacEoin, 1994; Manville, 1996; Viswanathan, 1996).
Since 1987, the World Centre has been undergoing enormous change in an
effort to improve and beautify the surrounding landscape and expand the
administration of Bahá’ı́ institutions (Bahá’ı́ International Community, 2002).
At Mt Carmel, the expansion has included the construction of the Gardens –
as well as the Centre for the Study of texts, International Teaching Centre,
and expansion of the archives throughout the 1990s and culminated with the
grand opening of the terraced gardens in May of 2001 (Bahai.org, 2005).
While the World Centre has expanded, the Shrine of the Báb continues to be
the focal point. This Shrine of the Báb, is second only to the Shrine of
Bahá’u’lláh located in nearby Acre. Aesthetically, the terraced gardens
surround the Shrine of the Báb, in nine concentric circles and the architectural
Tourism, Heritage and Pilgrimage
39
Figure 2 The Bahá’ı́ Gardens
Source: Photo taken by author, July 2004
lines are intended to direct attention to the Shrine (Bahá’ı́ International
Community, 2002). Beyond aesthetics, the geometry of the entire site is symbolic. For example, 18 terraces correspond to and symbolise the first 18 disciples
of the Báb, referred to as ‘Letters of the Living’ (Bahá’ı́ International
Community, 2002).
The overall visual effect of the terraces is quite impressive and illustrates the
distinct character of Bahá’ı́ holy spots. Indeed, three characteristics unite Bahá’ı́
sacred places and their gardens: an attention to light, ornamental structures or
statuary, and the special attention to ‘greenery’ (Viswanathan, 1996). As
Viswanathan notes, the presence of gardens differentiate Bahá’ı́ sacred sites
from all others – particularly those located in Israel. Beyond geometry and
aesthetics, the terraces are massive and their scale and scope dwarf adjacent
structures found on Mt Carmel. Indeed, the terraces extend nearly a kilometre
from the base of Mt Carmel to an elevation of 225 m and span the width of the
mountain from the base at about 60 m to roughly 400 m at the top (Halle, 2001).
In addition to the terraces and the Shrine, the Centre complex includes:
(1) The Archives; (2) Universal House of Justice; (3) The International
Teaching Centre; and (4) Centre for the Study of Texts. Each of the newer buildings has been finished in white stone and designed with columns and porticos
that reflect the Greek form (see Figures 2 and 3). These buildings, although
forming the core of the international Bahá’ı́ headquarters, represent much
more than an administrative centre. As the Universal House of Justice has
40
Journal of Heritage Tourism
Figure 3 Map of World Centre Area
Source: Modified version of Haifa Tourism board map
written, ‘[the complex] will stand as the visible seat of mighty institutions
whose purpose is no other than the spiritualization of humanity and the
preservation of justice and unity throughout the world’ (Bahai.org, 2005). As
of January 2004 there have been more than two million visitors to the terraces,
which were opened in June 2001 (Bahá’ı́ International Community, 2002;
Hayoun, 2004).
Haifa, Israel’s third largest city is situated on a wide natural bay on the northern coast of Israel. It lies between Mount Carmel and the Mediterranean Sea. It
is home to 250,000 inhabitants, comprising five different religions, living side
Tourism, Heritage and Pilgrimage
41
by side. Haifa is usually regarded as a ‘secular’ city, one fact that could explain
the harmony between members of the Bahá’ı́ faith and the local population.
Based on a review of local newspapers from the 1990s (the decade when the
gardens were built), no religious or political incidents or other prominent
citizen complaints emerged involving the local population and its interaction
with the Bahá’ı́ believers or organisation. Indeed, the practice and policy of
the Bahá’ı́ are to defer to local governments and avoid participating in politics.
Beyond Israeli politics, Bahá’ı́ policies on conversion are especially sensitive
to the local context as they do not seek converts. Although, the Bahá’ı́ do have
so-called ‘pioneers’ in other countries. Indeed, the ‘no pioneers’ policy is consistent with the faith’s decision not to establish a permanent community in
Israel. Instead, the Bahá’ı́ World Centre is staffed and maintained primarily
by a few local Bahá’ı́ residents and approximately 800 volunteers from
around the world – as indicated earlier. In addition to avoid questions of politics and religion, the success of the Bahá’ı́ in Haifa is also related to the economics of the World Centre and its overall contribution to the city’s economy.
Overall, the construction projects plowed $250 million into Haifa’s economy.
Beyond the economics of construction, Haifa benefits from a steady stream of
pilgrims from around the world who come to the city. Likewise, the gardens
have proven to be an attraction of interest for tourists of all faiths. The site
has been a major asset to the municipality of Haifa.
Indeed, ‘the gardens’, as residents colloquially refer to them, are a matter of
pride for most local residents and a symbol of the city. In an attempt to attract
new visitors, images of the gardens are prominently displayed on all the Haifa
Tourist Board’s promotional materials, including posters, maps and pamphlets.
In the case of posters for sale at the tourism information office, depictions of
the gardens are the only city images available. The cover materials of all of
the Tourist Board’s materials include the gardens. However depicted, the
gardens are presented as a magnificent structure readily available to view,
visit and tour. The Bahá’ı́ Gardens and the German Colony form a stunning
two kilometre-stretch, now called the Millennium Boulevard (Haifa Tourist
Board, 2004).
Methods
The study employs a mixed methodological approach that includes
participant observation, archival documents and short-informal and unstructured interviews with Bahá’ı́ volunteers, tourists and guides, as well as empirical observations concerning the material landscape and the observed practices
of pilgrims and tourists. As participant observers, the authors have – at
different and numerous times since 2001 – participated in the tours as tourists
and researchers, visited the viewing areas, and experienced the gardens
surrounding the Shrine of the Báb. Archival materials have been obtained
from a variety of resources including the Bahá’ı́, the municipality of Haifa,
printed news outlets, the Internet, and other Bahá’ı́ resources. With respect to
Internet resources, the availability of pilgrim diaries has enabled access to
key data not readily available to non-Bahá’ı́. Additionally, the authors report
their empirical observations concerning the materiality of the structure – as
42
Journal of Heritage Tourism
well as data obtained from discussions or e-mail communications with Bahá’ı́
volunteers, tour guides, tourists, pilgrims and scholars.
Findings: A Shared Space
As might be expected, access to the Bahá’ı́ Gardens is limited, although, limiting access to Holy Sites in Israel is not unusual for a variety of reasons – most
notably security. However, the Bahá’ı́ Gardens are readily distinguished from
the public gardens and parks of the world’s great cities (including cities in
Israel) by their restricted access. Public viewing areas are available at the top
and bottom terrace and access is limited to a single terrace. These viewing
areas are accessible 9 am –5 pm. Additionally, the gardens on level 10 – surrounding the Shrine of the Báb – are open 9 am – 12 pm daily. While the availability of three public viewing sites appear to make the gardens highly
accessible, the entry to each of the locations – while physically near one
another – requires a 5 –7 minute transit given Mount Carmel’s topography
and road network. As many tourists and residents travel by public transportation, the travel time exceeds 15 minutes. For this reason, tourists tend to
access the gardens from a single location – usually the top or the bottom.
Indeed, tour buses use the top viewing location as it provides a perspective
on the entire city of Haifa, Haifa bay and the northern part of Israel.
Additionally, access to the lower terrace entrance is limited by available
parking. The general length of stay of tour buses is 5 –10 minutes.
To access the public viewing areas, the visitors must pass through a large iron
gate and are subject to basic security measures (i.e. a handheld magnetometer
and search of bags). In addition to security personnel, two or three Bahá’ı́
volunteers staff the locations. The public observation area is a single terrace
in the case of the bottom location at David Ben Gurion Avenue. At the top,
visitor access is more limited. The top viewing area is located off Yefe Nof
Street. Like the bottom viewing area, visitors pass through security and the
entry is staffed by Bahá’ı́. Yet, the view and experience of the tour bus visitor
is more constrained by time. For this reason, visitors on the tour bus most
often view the terraces from the sidewalk of Yefe Nof Street atop Mt Carmel
and do not proceed through the security checks or enter the gardens.
The image of the gardens is neither fully sacred nor secular. As a result the
gardens are situated in an ambiguous place (or third space) where the
gardens are collectively ‘owned’ by the faithful, the visitor and the municipality. In the future, the ambiguity associated with ownership of and access to the
gardens will expand as it has been nominated by the municipality to be a
UNESCO world heritage site. In all of these cases, the image of the gardens
and World Centre varies greatly. Yet, it is clear that the Mt Carmel complex
is increasingly conceptualised as a ‘common’ asset at multiple scales and is
being transformed into a tourist space with religious character.
The challenge facing the gardens, the locality and perhaps UNESCO, is to
create a shared space and associated practices that allow travellers positions
along Smith’s (1992) continuum or travelling in a variety of Cohen’s (1992)
modes to co-exist. As the following discussion of the tour practices of the
Bahá’ı́ will demonstrate, the ‘spaces’ and ‘places’ available to the pilgrim and
Tourism, Heritage and Pilgrimage
43
the secular tourist are decidedly different. Currently, travellers from multiple
experiential modes are able to experience the site through the strategic deployment of two separate spatial practices that serve to secularise the garden for
tourists, the city, the state of Israel and now the world, as well as preserve
the World Centre’s religious importance.
The Secular Tourist
The experience of the secular tourist is a highly structured one. Indeed, the
process of accessing the formal gardens for a tour requires visitors to schedule
a tour by phone for a later date. In many cases, the availability is limited as the
site is a popular destination. The reservation process requires the visitor to
provide the full names of group members. Tours are normally available in
several languages, including English, Hebrew, Russian and Arabic. In terms
of the tour itself, visitors schedule a tour of either the upper or lower terraces
(not both) and are unable to view both sets of terraces on the same day. The
tours are ‘A’ to ‘B’ tours and require visitors to arrange their own transportation
to the tour point of origin located above the end point. Garden tours include
limited access to the 10th terrace gardens surrounding the Shrine of the Báb
but do not include shrine access. Likewise, access to the surrounding
World Centre Complex, including the monument garden and administrative
buildings, is not permitted.
The tour begins with a required security check at a location on the periphery
of the garden at either Yefe Nof or Hatzionut Avenues for the upper or lower
tour, respectively. Check-in is required prior to the scheduled tour – and
identification may be required. The visitors are directed to a staging area. At
the scheduled time, the lead tour guide is introduced and the rules and
regulations are announced. At the same time, the tour guide emphasises that
the location is a religious place and that appropriate behavior and dress are
required. Likewise, more specific rules concerning the gardens are discussed.
Additionally, the guide’s introductory comments addressing the non-religious
nature of the garden monuments and ornaments are an important component
of the tour’s secularised narrative. Despite the statements of guides, the official
doctrine of the Bahá’ı́ as published by the Universal House of Justice indicates
‘The beauty and magnificence of the Gardens and Terraces . . . are symbolic’
(Bahá’ı́ International Community, 2002). Likewise, even the casual observer is
able to readily recognise that many features – such as the Bahá’ı́ star at the
bottom terrace – are explicitly linked to the faith system and its signs.
In addition to the secularisation of the gardens and its ornaments, the tour
guides also reinforce the secularisation of site through their use of language.
Two guides are responsible for the entire experience. However, only the tour
leader at the front of the tour group speaks. The rear ‘guide’ moves the
group and observes their activities. In the case of one tour in July 2004, the
guide stated, ‘We [the tour guides] are not Bahá’ı́, I am a Jew and she is a
Muslim’. The use of language further distances the ‘secular’ tour and the
tour guides from the religion and the symbolism of the gardens.
Before entering the formal gardens, the tour begins with a walk down a
parallel path to an area approximately one terrace below the 18th terrace.
44
Journal of Heritage Tourism
At the viewing area, the guide provides a brief narrative on the Bahá’ı́, their
presence in Israel, the importance of Mount Carmel, and their basic worldview
including the significance of the number 19. The tour then proceeds through the
descent. The tour briefly stops mid-tour and the tour guide details the maintenance requirements of the terraced gardens in terms of labour and water.
Overall, the tour narrative is one of aesthetics and engineering with only
limited religiosity. While a polished golden plaque at the entrance explicitly
declare the gardens are a ‘Holy Site’, the tour itself avoids this language and
emphasises the materiality of garden landscape – not symbolics. This ‘avoidance’ of the site’s sacred nature is an effective technique – but often leaves
the tourists participating in the upper or lower terrace tour asking the tour
guide very pointed questions about the faith. When visitors raise questions,
the guide or guards politely refer tourists to the leaflets and pamphlets for
more information. In the case of ‘tour bus’ visitors and others who view
the gardens from the observation areas, these questions are seldom an issue
as the visit focuses exclusively on the aesthetics of the gardens and the upper
viewing area’s scenic view of Haifa Bay. In either the case of the viewer
or the tour participant, the emphasis is on the structure – not its spiritual or
religious meaning per se.
The Religious Tourist
Unlike traditional vacationers, Bahá’ı́ pilgrimage is both an obligation and
privilege of the faithful. Like Islam, Bahá’ı́ are obligated to go on pilgrimage
if the financial means exist. Like other monotheistic religions, pilgrimage
plays an important role in community building and is a very personal experience. In the case of the Bahá’ı́ faith, the community-building function of
pilgrimage and its emphasis on the global community is especially important.
In the diaries of pilgrims, themes of diversity and global community underscore the experience as pilgrims note the many nationalities of pilgrims they
encounter in Haifa (Healy, 2002; Holt-Fortin, 1998; Manville, 1996). In many
respects, pilgrimage unites the faith, the disparate peoples and shared
culture of the Bahá’ı́. While many pilgrim practices have emerged over time,
such as circumambulation, Viswanathan (1996) notes that there is no ritual
associated with Bahá’ı́ pilgrimages. The position that no ritual exists per se is
generally supported by MacEoin (1994).
Despite rather extensive web-literature, Bahá’ı́ pilgrimage and knowledge of
pilgrim practices is limited. Pilgrimage field notes and diaries are often used as
primary sources and have come to be a research staple in the pilgrimage studies
community. Indeed, these first hand accounts enable researchers to understand
the nexus between practice and spirituality in place. In terms of formal academic research, the paucity of literature is extreme considering the faith’s
growing presence around the globe (Buck, 1996; MacEoin, 1994). What is
known of Bahá’ı́ pilgrim practices comes primarily from the published
diaries (mostly web-published) of pilgrims. But, more importantly, the
limited knowledge of Bahá’ı́ practices is a direct result of the separation of
tourism and pilgrimage. Indeed, the separation of pilgrim and tourism practice
in the sacred space of the gardens and broader World Centre severely limits
Tourism, Heritage and Pilgrimage
45
outsider access. This strategic separation of pilgrim activities from tourism (or
even religious travel) serves as an impediment to research on Bahá’ı́ pilgrimage
and distinguishes it from other major and minor pilgrimage sites in Israel
where pilgrim and tourist practices share both time and space.
What is known of the Bahá’ı́ pilgrim’s experience is that it is broader in scale,
scope and performance. The pilgrim experience is differentiated from tourism,
first and foremost, in spatial terms by the activity space of the Bahá’ı́. That is,
Bahá’ı́ have access to the entire complex, including the administrative centre,
shrine and monument gardens. Additionally, the pilgrim experience includes
a variety of formal pilgrimage events, including registration at the Bahá’ı́
Pilgrim House (Manville, 1996). To that end, pilgrimage is normally a formal
nine-day experience, however, shorter ‘packages’ can be arranged. The event
is an officially sanctioned and organised event and is scripted by the World
Centre staff.
Pilgrimage is based on the principles and activities outlined in the Tablet of
Pilgrimage and include recitation of the Tablet of Visitation, as well as individual
prayer and meditation. The Tablet of Pilgrimage includes descriptions of appropriate prayer and activities associated with the House of the Báb and House of
the Bahá’u’lláh (Fernando, 2004; Healy, 2002; Holt-Fortin, 1998).
Beyond prayers, pilgrims may also ritually circle the shrines, similar to
practices of Moslems during the Hajj (Viswanathan, 1996). In addition to
formal activities the pilgrim experience includes a range of formal and informal
pilgrim community activities (Healy, 2002; Holt-Fortin, 1998). For this reason,
the gardens are only one facet of the pilgrimage experience and only one
facet of the World Centre complex. However, it is the specific activities associated with those gardens (including Shrine of the Báb) where the differences
between tourist and pilgrim experiences are most pronounced.
In the gardens, the pilgrim’s movement, and purpose also serve to differentiate the pilgrim from the tourist. On the faith’s holy days and during other pilgrimage events, the internal gates between the levels and terraces are open and
members of the Bahá’ı́ pilgrim community are able to ascend and descend all 19
of the terraces with a focus on the 10th terrace and the prayer and meditation
activities within the Shrine of the Báb. Healy (2002) demonstrates these key
differences as he states ‘We [pilgrims] walk up the Terraces to the Shrine,
pausing at each Terrace to admire the beauty, the variety of colors and
plants, to look up, to look down’.
Yet, the pilgrim experience is also somewhat similar to that of the tourist in
terms of the ‘holiday’ experience and an emphasis on beauty and engineering
of the site. In fact, most pilgrim diaries, including Manville, Holt-Fortin,
and Healy, reference ‘free days’ or ‘open days’ where more classic tourist
activities occur. During these open days, though, many pilgrims visit tangential
sites – often with World Centre guides and other pilgrims – associated with the
Bahá’ı́ history or the faith’s connectedness to Mt. Carmel. In 1998, Manville’s
free day was spent in Akko – the site of the Bahá’u’lláh’s imprisonment –
and his trip made explicit connections between the pilgrim and tourist with
multiple statements such as ‘. . . much of the old town must be similar to
how it was when Bahá’u’llh was here.’ Like Manville, Holt-Fortin spent her
free day in Akko and included a visit to Shrine of Bahá’u’lláh for prayer.
46
Journal of Heritage Tourism
On 8 February, 2002, Healy’s free day was spent in the gardens of Amatu’l-Bahá
Ruhiyyih Khanúm, the greater terraced gardens and Haifa’s nearby Elijah’s
Cave.
Pilgrimage (even the ‘free days’) assumes a special significance for the Bahá’ı́.
In the end, the entire event is a mystical process that combines individual and
communal experiences. Pilgrimage evokes in the individual a spiritual response
and an opportunity for the people to reinvigorate their spirit and dedicate
themselves to God. For this reason, a great deal of time is dedicated to prayer,
meditation and acts of communal spirituality at the Pilgrim House, Archives
and Universal House of Justice. For this reason, Bahá’ı́ are what Cohen (1979)
has called ‘existential tourists’; people whose tourist experiences are characterised by the existential mode. They see their visit as a once-in-a-lifetime experience. The experience of their visits will seldom have recreational, diversionary
elements, though they will feel that mentally and spiritually the trip had
restorative effects. They will not add elements of tourism that are directly
related to secular Israel and to Judaism, as other types of tourists would do.
In sum, the pilgrim’s activity space and performances are readily differentiated from those of the tourist. Beyond the issue of pilgrimage as obligation,
the pilgrim’s experience is a spiritual – even ritualistic – one based in large
part on Bahá’ı́ writings. It is evident that the experience is – in socio-spatial
terms – a highly scripted series of performances that occur throughout and
across the entire World Centre space – well beyond the activity space of
tourists. Unlike tourists, pilgrims ascend and descend the terraces and
engage in spiritual activities. At terrace 10, pilgrims regularly engage in
ritualised circumambulation of the shrine.
Who is a Pilgrim? Who is a Tourist?
There is a general disconnect in the difference between pilgrimage and
tourism from the perspectives of religions, the pilgrims themselves, the
tourism industry and researchers (Olsen & Timothy, 2006). The issue of
pilgrim versus tourist must be examined on two levels: first, from the perspective of the religious organisations and the travellers themselves, pilgrims are
generally not considered tourists, or they are seen as being different from tourists. This view suggests that pilgrims are not tourists because they travel for
spiritual reasons, while tourists travel (or visit a site) for more secular
reasons like curiosity or pleasure.
Second, and from the viewpoint of the industry, pilgrims are tourists
(Olsen & Timothy, 2006). A tourist is not defined by his or her motivation for
travel, and herein is the problem. Just as people wanting to relax on a beach,
trek through the rainforest, visit a museum or ancient ruin, or attend a sporting
event are tourists if they are away from their home regions, pilgrims are also
tourists motivated by more spiritual needs and expectations. So, a person on
the beach is a beach or SSS (sun, sea, sand) tourist. A person trekking in the
rainforest may be an ecotourist. Someone visiting a museum or ancient site is
typically considered a heritage tourist. And, a person attending a major sporting event is a sport tourist. We use these categories for research purposes to
understand experiences, motivations, impacts, etc. By the same token, a
Tourism, Heritage and Pilgrimage
47
person visiting a place for spiritual enlightenment, answers to prayers, out of a
religious duty, or as a requirement for salvation, is a religious tourist. This is so
by virtue of their very travelling away from home to a different destination, not
by their motivation for travelling.
Yet, there is no doubt that the experience – emotionally, spiritually and, even,
physically – of the pilgrim and non-spiritually motivated tourists differs greatly.
As the case of the Bahá’ı́ Gardens in Haifa demonstrates, these differing motives
are defined by the activity space of each group and embodied in their movement,
the separation of the tourist and pilgrim experience at the Bahá’ı́ Gardens is
unique, as it has been designed also to avoid potential conflict with local
residents and enables the municipality to emphasise the secular and aesthetic
benefits of the garden. The result of this place-based strategy at conflict avoidance or mitigation has been the creation of a layered collection spatial practices
that preserve the sacred nature of the Bahá’ı́ complex and enables the community
to yield a variety of secular benefits while preserving its sacred nature.
Based on this research, a basic typology of garden visitors can be established.
The religious visitors are in the existential mode. In this mode, they are fully
committed to an elective spiritual centre (Cohen, 1979: 190). They are Bahá’ı́
who see their travel as a pilgrimage and as a once-in-a-lifetime experience.
The experiences of their visits are not dominated by recreational or diversionary elements. However, the pilgrims will derive the restorative effects of their
trip’s inherent spirituality. The secular tourists in this research correspond
predominantly to Cohen’s (1979) recreational mode of tourism. Their trip is a
form of entertainment such as the cinema, theatre or television. This kind of
tourist, usually the domestic Israeli visitor, enjoys his/her trip because it
restores physical and mental powers and endows visitors with a general
sense of well being. In addition to the recreational mode, a number of visitors
may be classified as experiential in that the gardens and the Bahá’ı́ World Centre
may provide an authentic ‘other’ experience distinct from everyday life and
their normal social context. Indeed, the gardens themselves, their linkage to
an emerging (perhaps unfamiliar) faith system, and the aesthetics of the tour
locates the experience well beyond the everyday life of many visitors. Finally,
the structure of the ‘non-pilgrim’ visit (i.e. tour reservations, strict rules, etc.)
limits the ability of visitors to participate in diversionary or experimental
modes of tourism. As a result, few, if any, tourists are likely to be classified
as ‘diversionary’ or ‘experimental’.
On the question of the site’s status as a secular or sacred site and visitors,
Smith’s (1992) continuum is useful for understanding the unique practices
that have developed in Haifa. At one end of the spectrum, near the sacred
and pilgrimage extreme, are ‘pure’ pilgrims concerned only with holiness
and worship; at the other extreme are ‘pure’ tourists, interested mainly in the
modern tourist aspects of their visit. Yet few, if any, tourists or pilgrims are
situated at either extreme.
Conclusions
In the case of the Bahá’ı́ Gardens and World Centre, the sacred and secular
practices of the pilgrim and tourist are arguably more distinct than reported
48
Journal of Heritage Tourism
in the literature at established Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or Islamic
sites. Specifically, the contemporary nature of the garden makes the case of
the Bahá’ı́ Gardens and their contemporary cultural and economic context
both more distinct – but also somewhat ambiguous as the perceived boundaries are unclear, particularly to tourists given the limited historical context
and tradition of the Bahá’ı́.
Haifa’s Bahá’ı́ Gardens are an interesting example of the connection between
pilgrimage and tourism. In contrast to other religion-based projects and
initiatives, the Bahá’ı́ have successfully navigated the contentious politics of
religion through the strategic social construction of the Gardens as a pseudosecular site. This secularisation of this sacred site has been accomplished in
part by the city of Haifa’s adoption of the gardens as a city icon and primary
vehicle for the regional tourism industry. Additionally, the official Bahá’ı́
narrative concerning the aesthetic, rather than sacred, nature of the gardens
supports the city’s tourism narrative.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank D. Timothy for his thoughtful insights into earlier
drafts of this manuscript. Additionally, Jay acknowledges the support of the
ISU Office of International Affairs for awarding an international travel grant.
Correspondence
Any correspondence should be directed to Dr Noga Collins-Kreiner,
Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Haifa,
Haifa 42860, Israel ([email protected]).
References
Alderman, D.H. (2002) Writing on the graceland wall: On the importance of authorship
in pilgrimage landscapes. Tourism Recreation Research 27 (2), 27 – 33.
Ashworth, G. and Hartmann, R. (eds) (2005) Horror and Human Tragedy Revisited: The
Management of Sites of Atrocities for Tourism. Elmsford, NY: Cognizant.
Attix, S.A. (2002) New age-oriented special interest travel: An exploratory study. Tourism
Recreation Research 27 (2), 51 – 58.
Bahai.org (2005) Bahá’ı́ international website. On WWW at http://WWW.bahai.org.
Accessed multiple dates.
Bahá’ı́ International Community (2002) Projects on Mt. Carmel. On WWW at http://
WWW.Bahai.org/article-1-6-5-3.html. Accessed 11.11.04.
Bahá’ı́ International Community (2004) More than 54,000 have toured Bahá’ı́ Terraces on
Mount Carmel since June opening. On WWW at http://WWW.Bahai worldnews.
org/story.cfm?storyid¼134. Accessed 11.11.04.
Bahá’ı́ News (2001) Garden is symbol of love in a land of anger, Bahá’ı́ News
Library from the Augusta Chronicle. On WWW at http://WWW.bahaullah.net/
html/news.htm. Accessed 11.11.04.
Barber, R. (1993) Pilgrimages. London: The Boydell Press.
Buck, C. (1996) Review of Denis MacEoin, rituals in Babism and Baha’ism. International
Journal of Middle East Studies 28 (3), 418–422.
Chidester, D. and Linenthal, E. (1995) Introduction. In D. Chidester and E. Linenthal
(eds) American Sacred Space (pp. 1 –42). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Cohen, E. (1979) A phenomenology of tourist experience. Sociology 13 (2), 179–201.
Cohen, E. (1992) Pilgrimage centres: Concentric and excentric. Annals of Tourism Research
19, 33 – 50.
Tourism, Heritage and Pilgrimage
49
Cohen, E. (1998) Tourism and religion: A comparative perspective. Pacific Tourism Review
2, 1 – 10.
Collins-Kreiner, N. (2002) Is there a connection between pilgrimage and tourism? The
Jewish religion. International Journal of Tourism Sciences 2 (2), 1 – 18.
Collins-Kreiner, N. and Kliot, N. (2000) Pilgrimage tourism in the Holy Land: The
behavioral characteristics of christian pilgrims. GeoJournal 50 (1), 55 – 67.
Digance, J. (2003) Pilgrimage at contested sites. Annals of Tourism Research 30, 143– 159.
Eliade, M. (1969) The Quest: History and Meaning in Religion. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Fernando, L. (2004) Bahá’ı́ Pilgrimage. On WWW at http://WWW.ridvan.org/
Appendix/Bahaipiligrimage/bahaipiligrimage.html. Accessed 11.11.04.
Gatrell, J. and Reid, N. (2002) The cultural politics of local economic development: The
case of Toledo Jeep. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 93, 397–411.
Graham, B., Ashworth, G.H. and Tunbridge, J.E. (2000) A Geography of Heritage: Power,
Culture, and Economy. London: Arnold.
Green, W.S. (2003) Religion and politics – a volatile mix. In J. Neusner (ed.) God’s Rule
The Politics of World Religions. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Haifa Tourist Board (2004) On WWW at http://WWW.tour-haifa.co.il.
Halle, C. (2001) Bahá’ı́ feel bashed by local media. Haaretz. Saturday, September 1, 2001.
Hatcher, W.S. and Martin, J.D. (1998) The Baha’i Faith: The Emerging Global Religion.
Wilmette, IL: Bahá’ı́ Publishing Trust.
Hayoun, D. (2004) Haifa municipality nominate Bahá’ı́ world centre as world heritage
site. Globes, October 24.
Healy, K. (2002) A spiritual Travelogue. Planet Bahá’ı́. On WWW at http://
WWW.planetbahai.org/. Accessed 28.06.04.
Holloway, J. and Valins, O. (2002) Placing religion and spirituality in geography. Social &
Cultural Geography 3, 5 – 9.
Holt-Fortin, C. (1998) A Bahá’ı́ Pilgrimage. On WWW at http://WWW.Baháai library.
com/pilgrims/cher. Accessed 11.11.04.
Jackowski, A. and Smith, V. (1992) Polish pilgrim-tourists. Annals of Tourism Research
19 (1), 92 – 106.
Jutla, R.S. (2002) Understanding Sikh pilgrimage. Tourism Recreation Research 27 (2),
65 – 72.
MacCannell, D. (1973) Staged authenticity: Arrangements of social space in tourist settings. American Journal of Sociology 79 (3), 589– 603.
MacEoin, D. (1994) Rituals in Babism and Baha’ism. London: British Academic Press.
Manville, C. (1996) A Bahá’ı́ pilgrimage. On WWW at http://WWW.manvell.org.uk/
pilgrim/index.htm. Accessed. 11.11.04.
McCann, E. (2002) The cultural politics of local economic development: Meaning
making, place-making, and the urban policy process. Geoforum 33, 385–398.
Neusner, J. (ed.) (2003) God’s Rule: The Politics of World Religions. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Nolan, M.L. and Nolan, S. (1989) Christian Pilgrimage in Modern Western Europe. The
University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill.
Nolan, M.L. and Nolan, S. (1992) Religious sites as tourism attractions in Europe. Annals
of Tourism Research 19 (1), 68 – 78.
Olsen, D.H. and Timothy, D.J. (2006) Tourism and religious journeys. In D.J. Timothy and
D.H. Olsen (eds) Tourism, Religion and Spiritual Journeys (pp. 1 – 21). London:
Routledge.
Ooi, C., Kristensen, T. and Pedersen, Z. (2004) Re-imag(in)ing place: From
Czechoslovakia to the Czech Republic and the Slovakia. Tourism 52, 151– 163.
Petric, L. and Mrnjavac, Z. (2003) Tourism destinations as a locally embedded system.
Tourism 51, 403– 415.
Reader, I. and Walter, T. (1993) Pilgrimage in Popular Culture. London: The Macmillan
Press.
Santos, X.M. (2002) Pilgrimage and tourism at Santiago de Compostela. Tourism
Recreation Research 27 (2), 41 – 50.
50
Journal of Heritage Tourism
Seaton, A.V. (1999) War and thanatourism: Waterloo 1815– 1914. Annals of Tourism
Research 26, 130–158.
Seaton, A.V. (2002) Thanatourism’s final frontiers? Visits to cemeteries, churchyards
and funerary sites as sacred and secular pilgrimage. Tourism Recreation Research 27
(2), 27 – 33.
Smith, P. (1987) The Babi and Baha’i Religions: From Messianic Shi’ism to a World Religion.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, V.L. (1992) Introduction: The quest in guest. Annals of Tourism Research 19 (1), 1–17.
Soja, E. (1996) Thirdspace – Journeys to Los Angeles and other Real and Imagined Places.
Cambridge: Blackwell.
Turner, V.W. (1973) The Center Out There: Pilgrim’s goal. History of Religions 12 (3), 191–230.
Turner, V.W. and Turner, E. (1969) The Ritual Process. London: Routledge.
Turner, V. and Turner, E. (1978) Image and Pilgrimage in Christian Culture. New York:
Colombia University Press.
Viswanathan, G. (1996) Bahá’ı́ Pilgrimage to Israel. In B.F. Le Beau and M. Mor Omaha
(eds) Pilgrims and Travelers to the Holy Land (pp. 269– 284). Creighton University Press.
Vukonić, B. (1996) Tourism and Religion. London: Elsevier.
Vukonić, B. (2002) Religion, tourism and economics: A convenient symbiosis. Tourism
Recreation Research 27 (2), 59 – 64.