1. History Meets Fantasy: Authenticity,
Interpretation, and the Visitor
Experience in St. Augustine, Florida
Richard Shieldhouse, InterVISTAS Consulting Group
Catherine Culver, University of Florida

2. St. Augustine was established in 1565
adjacent to a native site called Seloy.
• Under Spanish control
until 1763, when Florida
was offered to the British
in exchange for Havana,
which had been under
their control.
• Reverted to Spanish
control in 1784.
• Became part of the
United States when
Florida was sold to the
U.S. in 1821.
Plano Particular de la Ciudad de San Agustín de la Florida,
Mariano de la Rocque, 1788. Source: University of Florida, Smathers Library.

3. Situated on its northern frontier, the
site was strategically important.
A map exhibiting all the new discoveries in the interior parts of North America / inscribed by permission to the honorable
governor and company of adventurers of England trading into Hudsons Bay in testimony of their liberal communications to
their most obedient and very humble servant A. Arrowsmith, January 1st 1795. Source: Library of Congress.

4. St. Augustine is in Northeast Florida, 308 miles
(496 km) north of Miami and 181 miles (291 km)
south of Savannah, Georgia.
Source: Library of Congress. http://www.loc.gov/item/98687208

5. Florida’s modern tourism history
began with the extension of railways
in the late 19th century.
The first major wave of tourism development in Florida was
between 1885 and 1888, when 900 rooms were constructed in
St. Augustine, a city with 2,295 inhabitants in 1880.

6. As a tourist destination, then (as now)
Florida was sold as a land of fantasy.
• The weather.
• The wildlife.
• Buildings.
• The birth of the tourist trap.

7. Since the 1880s, when St. Augustine was the
epicenter of Florida tourism, the city has blended its
real history with a fake commercial version.
• For nearly a century, the Genopoly
house from the early 19th C. has been
pitched as the “Oldest Wooden
Schoolhouse.”
• The 1672 Castillo de San Marcos has
been managed by the US National
Park Service since 1933.

8. The real was championed by an unusual municipal
effort at preservation and interpretation.
• City ownership and restoration of historic properties.
– 34 colonial properties.
• Includes Peña-Peck House, Llambias House, Casa del Hidalgo.
• City Department of Heritage Tourism.
• City regulations for sightseeing guides.
• Designated seven historic areas and corresponding
planning and zoning regulations.

9. In contrast, the forces of fake
are driven by Florida’s intense and loosely regulated
commercial culture.
• Tourist sites frequently trivialize nature, religion, and culture.
• Fairly typical of the US South, which has a longstanding libertarian streak
and preference for private enterprise.

10. This investigation examines two cultural
heritage sites in St. Augustine.
One very real and very old by North American
standards, and another with origins extending only to
the mid-1960s.
– Castillo de San Marco, a stone fortress whose construction
began in 1672.
– Spanish “Colonial Quarter,” a living history area,
which was established in 1962.
• This site was privatized and reinvented in 2013.
• Control was transferred from the City to an
entrepreneur, motivational speaker, and operator
of a commercial pirate museum.

11. Castillo de San Marcos is owned and
managed by National Park Service.
• Arguably the United States
(leader in cultural heritage
tourism).
• Controls and manages 17 of
the 21 US World Heritage
sites (81%).
• An inspiration for the World
Heritage concept.
• Employs rigorous standards
for interpretation,
management plans, etc.

12. Operation of the Colonial Quarter has been
outsourced to a private operator.
• Once managed by the City’s
Department of Heritage Tourism,
it is now operated by an
entrepreneur, under minimal
supervision by the University of
Florida.
• In the US, municipal governments,
which largely rely on property
taxes for funding, have had to cut
back on budgets since 2008 -- as
property values deflated.
• The victims have often been city
services and programs that
contribute to “quality of life.”
– This includes cultural heritage
assets.

13. The two cases are informative
about the relationship
between private control and authenticity.

14. To measure authenticity of the two sites, we
identified 19 indicators of authenticity.
• While there is debate,
particularly among social
scientists, over the meaning
of authenticity, we are
concerned with practical
aspects of authenticity
rather than more debatable
and elusive theoretical
concepts.
• Although work by UNESCO,
ICOMOS, and the like tends
to consider only physical
aspects, the authenticity of
experience includes other
aspects, which perhaps
could be considered
“intangible.”
1. Is the building or asset’s site original?
2. Do the majority of materials appear to be original?
3. Are restorations or reconstructions readily identifiable as such?
4. Has the building or site been modified?
5. Is the historic use still in force?
6. Is the use consistent with surroundings?
7. Does incursion into the setting from surroundings affect the
building or site?
8. Does the site or building articulate national pride or group
identity?
9. Does the building or site have significance beyond that of the
historical or aesthetic value for communities and individuals?
10. Do commercial activities or repetition of themes trivialize the
building or site?
11. Are re-enactors outfitted in a manner appropriate to the stated
date of reference?
12. Are re-enactors speaking the in the original language?
13. Is interpretation consistent with the reference period?
14. Are performers or artisans performing activities consistent with
the reference period?
15. Are performers or artisans using methods or modes consistent
with the reference period?
16. Are products for sale consistent with the reference period?
17. Are products for sale produced locally?
18. Does signage convey site context?
19. Have management principles affected integrity of the cultural
heritage of the site or building?

15. Sites are graded from two perspectives.
1. The opinion of a tourism/preservation expert.
Is it authentic?
2. The likely perception of a casual visitor.
Is it what it says it is … or what it is sold as?
The goal was to capture the bi-dimensional continuum
from FAKE-FAKE to REAL-REAL.
– Described by numerous authors, including Fjellman, Huxtable,
Pine & Gilmore.
– The latter employed the concept within the context of general business
management: Consumers in today’s “Experience Economy,” with
multiple staged experiences demand authenticity.
– Arguably, authenticity is even more important in the realm of
cultural heritage tourism.
• To manage it, one must measure it.

16. The two sites were visited and graded
with respect to the 19 indicators.
• An eight-point scale was
used.
– Scores ranged from -4 to
+4 for each perspective.
• Appraisals were strictly
the judgment of the
research team.
– Future research could be
enhanced by visitor
surveys.

17. The results were fit into a quadrant analysis.
• Provides ready
visualization of the two
dimensions for each
indicator and each site.
– Inspired by techniques
first described by
Martilla and James’s
“Importance-
Performance Analysis.”
FAKE-REAL: An ostensibly real event, based on
historical parades in Spain, but celebrating
Pedro Menendez’s birthday, not a saint’s day as
would have happened in Spain.

18. The two axes are authenticity as perceived by experts (x)
and authenticity as likely perceived by casual visitors (y).
• A strong rating on both real authenticity and perceived
authenticity would correspond to the “REAL-REAL” range.
• In contrast, a rating of minimal perceived and actual
authenticity would be equivalent to “FAKE-FAKE.”

19. Castillo: For most indicators, visitors and experts
would agree on its authenticity.
Highlights:
– 16 of the 19 indicators
fall squarely into the
REAL-REAL quadrant.
– #5 Historic Use: No
longer a fort.
– #16: Gift shop products
tend toward
publications.
– #17: Gift shop items not
locally produced.

20. Colonial Quarter: General disconnect pushes
tendency away from REAL-REAL and into REAL-FAKE.
Highlights:
– Points predominantly fit
within the FAKE-REAL
quadrant.
– Experts would view the
attraction as synthetic,
while visitors would
tend to accept it as
authentic.

21. Real-Real
Castillo de San Marcos:
• Occupies original site,
• Built of original materials,
• Has received minimal
modifications.

22. Fake-Real
Fake portrait of King
George VI in one of
Colonial Quarter’s two
taverns.
– Described as
“Oil on Canvas, 1771.”

23. Fake-Real
FAKE-REAL: An ostensibly real event, based on historical
parades in Spain, but celebrating Pedro Menendez’s
birthday, not a saint’s day as would have happened in Spain.

24. Fake-Real
Fake- Real: The Santo Domingo redoubt was rebuilt on its
original site, but constructed from modern materials. Cast-
concrete palm trunks replicate the original palm tree trunks.
Spanish bayonet plants at base are accurate, but there
would have been many more in the original configuration.

25. Fake-Fake
• Products for sale in
Colonial Quarter gift
shop are not consistent
with the reference
period.
• They are also not
produced locally.

26. Real-Fake
Real-Fake: Nobody is going to confuse the phony Statue
of Liberty in Las Vegas with the real article in New York
Harbor; however, in rare instances, such sites can achieve
a kind of hyper-reality when elite observers opt for
different standards for measuring their authenticity.

27. Real-Fake: A cousin to the postmodern
aesthetics of pop art, camp, and kitsch.

28. From Mostly Real to Fake-Real
In 1960, St. George Street -- a commercial area in central St.
Augustine -- featured a variety of architectural styles from
the 18th century to the mid-20th century. Subsequent
modifications have today created a more homogenous mix of
real and pseudo-real structures.

29. Intermingling of fake and real create
real problems at real sites.

30. Further analysis or applications
• Visitor surveys would add integrity to the analysis.
• Visual representation incorrectly provides equal
weight to each indicator.
• Some indicators, such as authenticity of re-enactors’
uniforms, can be easily improved, while others, such
as use of original site, may be impossible to address.
• Some indicators arguably could be combined.
• Other indicators perhaps could be added.