Three centuries (1670–1970) of appreciating physical landscapes

23 Pages·2015·0.77 MB·English

Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 5, 2019
Three centuries (1670–1970) of appreciating physical landscapes
THOMASA.HOSE
SchoolofEarthSciences,UniversityofBristol,WillsMemorialBuilding,QueensRoad,
Clifton,Bristol,BS81RJ,UK(e-mail:[email protected])
Abstract: Althoughmoderngeotourism,asaformofsustainablegeoheritagetourism,wasonly
recognizedassuchinthe1990s,itsrootslieintheseventeenthcenturyandtheGrandTourwith
itsdomesticequivalents.Atthattime,afewelitetravellersrecordedtheirexperiencesofland-
scapes, natural wonders,quarries and mines.Suchtravellers’ observations were supplemented
bythoseoftheantiquariansformuchoftheeighteenthcentury;atthatcentury’sclose,thefirst
moderngeologistswererecordingtheirobservations.Thenineteenthcenturywitnessedanexplo-
sioninpublicinterestandengagementwithgeology,andfieldexcursionswereprovidedbythe
burgeoning natural history and geology societies. By the close of the nineteenth century, the
Romanticmovementhadsuccessfullypromotedwildlandscapestoanewlyexpandingurbanpop-
ulation.ThedevelopmentoftheGrandTourandthelandscapeaestheticmovements,thevarious
influentialinstitutions,keypersonalitiesandlocationsareconsideredinsofarastheyprovidean
overviewofthebackgroundtohistoricalgeotourism.Allareunderpinnedbyatheoreticalconsid-
eration of the geotourism paradigm and how geotourism historical studies can contextualize
moderngeotourism.
Manyofthosewhogointothisfieldarefundamentally implications; theywill,ifcomingtoitforthefirst
romantics – aboutbeingclosetonatureintheirfield time,deduceithas‘something’todowithtourism
work, or about pondering the great events that took andeithergeologyorgeography.
place millionsof years ago and the evolutionof the
It was with that knowledge and understanding
scenerythatwearenowprivilegedtowalkin.Interest
gap and the general lack of historical geotourism
inmostofusisquickenedbytheveryideaofthevast
literature in mind that the Appreciating Physical
panorama of organic evolution: the feeling of being
witness to a brief glimpse of a tremendous story Landscapes: Geotourism 1670–1970 conference
encompassing some5000million years ofearth his- wasorganizedbytheHistoryofGeologyGroup,or
tory, the feeling of being close to forces powerful HOGG.Itspresentationsandposters,althoughnot
enough to thrust up mountain ranges and pull apart allarerepresentedherein,formthebasisofthisvol-
theoceanbasins.(Baird1968,p.223) ume,whichisalsosupplementedbycommissioned
papers.Theconferenceparticularlysoughtmaterial
ManyEarthscientistsjourneyandspendtime‘inthe thatmovedbeyondmeredescriptionofpastevents
field’forthepurposesoftheiremploymentand,if to provide critical analysis and contextualization
they are fortunate, sometimes in places that have of modern geotourism provision. Inevitably, the
some grandeur. Even their holidays might partly material has a western European bias (Fig. 1), but
be spent ‘in the field’ in pursuit of their interests. the places considered and the approaches adopted
However,fewwillconsiderhowtheirholidayactiv- byvariousauthorshaveawiderinterestandappli-
ities align with patterns of leisure travel, to com- cation. Given the eclectic mix of papers and loca-
monlocations,establishedsomeconsiderabletime tions,coupledwiththelikelihoodthatmanyofthe
ago. Most will know little of the development of volume’s readers will posses limited knowledge
their disciplines, although they will be familiar and understanding of the development of tourism
with some locality names in the, especially strati- inaestheticallyattractivelandscapes,thisintroduc-
graphical, nomenclature. No more than a handful tory paper seeks to provide that essential back-
will make any connection between, say, geology ground; its time frame reflects major political,
andtourismandbeing‘inthefield’.Again,onlya social, cultural and scientific events in Britain and
handful will recognize the nature and value of the Europe (Fig. 2) and the countries over which they
data on Earth science localities and phenomena hadinfluenceelsewhereintheworld.
withintheaccountsoftravellersandtouristsintent Although there has been increasing interest in
onrecordingtheirimpressions(inprintandimage), tourism as a practical and an academic discipline
toinformothersaboutwhattheyhadseenanddone, since its emergence from geography in the mid-
ratherthanempirical observation.SomeEarthsci- 1970s (Hall & Page 2008), the literature on the
entistswillhaveheardabout‘geotourism’,evenif historical study of tourism is surprisingly sparse
they do not understand its historical and cultural (Towner 1984, p. 215) and naturally more so for
From:Hose,T.(ed.)AppreciatingPhysicalLandscapes:ThreeHundredYearsofGeotourism.
GeologicalSociety,London,SpecialPublications,417,http://doi.org/10.1144/SP417.15
#2015TheAuthor(s).PublishedbyTheGeologicalSocietyofLondon.Allrightsreserved.
Forpermissions:http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/permissions.Publishingdisclaimer:www.geolsoc.org.uk/pub_ethics
Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 5, 2019
T.A.HOSE
Fig.1. MapofEuropeandtheregionscoveredinthisvolume’spapers.Thismapshowsthemainareas(excepting
northernNorwayandAustralia)encompassedbythevolume’spapers.
geotourism. However, a recent volume (Wyse- prominently featuring in modern Earth sciences
Jackson 2007) has explored the historical travel literature – particularlyastypematerialandglobal
component of geological inquiries. This sparse- stratotypes.Theirmuseums,libraries,archivesand
ness is despite widely available textual and visual universities house the legacy of much of this col-
sources that, once their limitations are accepted, lected and published geological study. Today, this
canbeusedtoreconstructkeyphasesofpastland- material is sometimes poorly regarded and even
scapetourismprovisionandexperiences.Itwaspar- considered a costly liability with no practical use
ticularly to promote the potential of such sources by the stakeholders of the institutions in which it
that Appreciating Physical Landscapes: Geotour- ishoused.Itwaspartlytoaddresssuchissuesthat
ism1670–1970wasorganized;theintroductionto geotourism was developed. Geotourism was first
itsabstractsvolume(Hose2012a)notedthat‘Trav- employed as a discrete term in the mid-1990s for
ellers, tourists and scientists practised activities ‘Theprovisionofinterpretiveandservicefacilities
nowadayssubsumedwithinthemoderngeotourism toenabletouriststoacquireknowledgeandunder-
paradigm long before geotourism itself was for- standing of the geology and geomorphology of a
mally recognised’, and the papers in this volume site (including its contribution to the development
underscorethistruth. oftheEarthsciences)beyondthelevelofmereaes-
theticappreciation’(Hose1995a,p.17).Hence, it
is expected that its participants (or ‘geotourists’)
Defininggeotourism:anewgeological havesomeinterest,howeverlimited,inunderstand-
paradigm ingwhattheyhaveseen.Itsinitialrecognitionand
definition followed studies (Hose 1995a) on some
Thelongengagementofsomecountriesinmainland geosites with interpretation funded by English
EuropeandtheBritishIslesingeologicalstudyhas Nature (the precursor of Natural England). Whilst
resultedinmanyoftheirgeositesandgeomorpho- several European geologists had fleetingly men-
sites, rocks, minerals and fossil (or geodiversity) tioned tourism and geology (De Bastion 1994;
Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 5, 2019
THREECENTURIESOFAPPRECIATINGPHYSICALLANDSCAPES
Fig.2. AEuropeangeotourismtimeline.Thissummaryshowsthemajoreventsandinfluences,withsomekeyBritish
publications,ongeotourism’sdevelopmentfromaround1670–1970.
Martini 1994; Spiteri 1994; Page 1998), they had well as geological collections and archives. This
neither defined their understanding of geotourism approachwas incorporated,demonstrably building
nordiscusseditsparticipants(thatis,geotourists). uponthepreviouslywidelyacceptedandciteddef-
Hence,thefirstpublisheddefinition,withsome initions(Hose1995b,2000),includingrecentland-
of its associated concepts, was that which was fit- scape studies (Hose 2008, 2010a, 2010b), in the
tinglycitedintheGeoparksProgrammeFeasibility updateddefinitionofgeotourismas‘Theprovision
Study (Patzak & Eder 1998; UNESCO 2000); the of interpretative and service facilities for geosites
study also included the essential elements of the andgeomorphositesandtheirencompassingtopog-
laterredefinitionto‘Theprovisionofinterpretative raphy, together with their associated In situ and
facilitiesandservicestopromotethevalueandsoci- Exsituartefacts,toconstituency-buildfortheircon-
etal benefit of geologic and geomorphologic sites servation by generating appreciation, learning and
and their materials, and ensure their conservation, research by and for current and future genera-
for the use of students, tourists and other recrea- tions’ (Hose 2012b, p. 11); it employs an easily
tionalists’(Hose2000,p.136).Thus,attheoutset, andgloballyaccuratelytranslatablevocabularyfor
geotourismencompassedgeositeinterpretativeand the nature, focus and location of modern geology-
promotional provision, together with the artefacts, basedgeotourismwitha geoconservationpurpose;
places and memorials of their associated Earth see Wilson (1994) for a summary and Burek &
scientists; these were intended to underpin the Prosser (2008) for a history of geoconservation.
conservation of geosites and geomorphosites, as This approach (Hose 2012b) and its development
Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 5, 2019
T.A.HOSE
havealreadybeenexamined(Hose2011)andneed ongeodiversity,i.e.geotourismprovidestheoppor-
notbecoveredindetailherein,butitisre-presented tunitytoexperiencedifferentgeologies,geological
asthe‘4Gsmodelofgeotourism’(Fig.3). environments and landscapes and/or take part in
OtherEuropeanauthorshaveemployedbroader geologicalactivities’(Gray2008,p.295).However,
geotourism definitions. For English Nature’s geol- his definition of geotourism as ‘Tourism based on
ogists, it was ‘travelling in order to experience, anarea’sgeologicalorgeomorphologicalresources
learnfromandenjoyourEarthheritage’(Larwood thatattempts tominimisethe impactsofthis tour-
& Prosser 1998, p. 98). Frey and her colleagues, ism through geoconservation management’ (Gray
from experience in Germany’s Vulkaneifel Geo- 2008, p. 295) seemingly excludes secondary geo-
park (where geoscientific, economic and political sites(Hose2003;Hose&Vasiljevic´2012)typically
considerations combined to develop a somewhat displayingmaterialcollectedfrommanysources.
commerciallyorientatedapproach)suggested,‘Geo- InAustralia,Dowling&Newsome(2008)pro-
tourismmeansinterdisciplinarycooperationwithin ducedthefirsttextentitledGeotourismandclearly
an economic, success-orientated and fast moving promotedgeotourism’sgeologicalapproach. Their
disciplinethatspeaksitsownlanguage.Geotourism later text, Geotourism: The Tourism of Geology
isanewoccupationalandbusinesssector.Themain andLandscape(Newsome&Dowling2010),noted
tasksofgeotourismarethetransferandcommunica- ‘Geotourismis a form ofnatural area tourism that
tion of geoscientific knowledge and ideas to the specifically focuses on geology and landscape. It
generalpublic’(Freyetal.2008,pp.97–98).The promotes tourism to geosites and the conservation
introductorypaperoftheinauguralissueofPoland’s ofgeo-diversityandanunderstandingofearthsci-
Geoturystykadefinedgeotourismasan‘offshootof ences through appreciation and learning. This is
cognitive tourism and/or adventure tourism based achieved through independent visits to geological
uponvisitstogeologicalobjects(geosites)andrec- features, use of geo-trails and view points, guided
ognition of geological processes integrated with tours,geoactivitiesandpatronageofgeositevisitor
aesthetic experiences gained by the contact with a centres’,p.232.Dowling(2013)promotedgeotour-
geosite’(Slomka&Kicinska-Swiderska2004,p.6). ismasanemergingformofsustainabletourismbut
AsGraynoted,‘Thefundamentalprincipleoftour- emphasizeditsgeologicalbasis.IntheUSA,amore
ism is that places are different and provide dif- geographical approach to geotourism has devel-
ferent experiences and changes of environment. It oped; this is due to National Geographic ignor-
follows, therefore, that geotourism must be based ing the significant volume of published European
Fig.3. ThefourGsofgeotourismmodel.Inthisvisualizationofgeotourism,thelocationsandareasoftheindividual
elements,togetherwiththeirlinkingpointers,indicatetheirinterrelationshipsandrelativesignificances.Itisa
developmentofthatpublishedasthethreeGsinHose(2012b)butnowincludesgeoconservation,geohistory,
geo-interpretationandgeosites/geomorphosites(orscenery).
Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 5, 2019
THREECENTURIESOFAPPRECIATINGPHYSICALLANDSCAPES
geotourismworkandthenerroneouslyclaimingto of aesthetic landscapes, or scenery (Hose 2010b),
havesingularlycoinedthetermasa‘destination’s wouldseemtomakethisinevitable.
geographic character – the entire combination of Geotourism, however and by whomsoever it
natural and human attributes that make one place is defined (see Fig. 4), is a form of ‘niche’ (Hose
distinct from another’ (Stueve et al. 2002, p. 1); 2005; Novelli 2005) or ‘special interest’ (Weiler
this approach is essentially sustainable tourism &Hall1992)tourisminwhichthe‘traveller’smoti-
withaholisticapproachtoaestheticlandscapes. vation and decision-making are primarily deter-
In Europe, some confusion ensued when some mined by a particular special interest...[that]
members of the European Geoparks Network is- implies “active” or “experiential” travel’ (Hall &
sued, without consulting any other interested par- Weiler 1992, p. 5). There is an obvious link with
ties,theAroucaDeclarationin2011;thisaccepted specialinteresttravel(suchaswasrequiredforthe
theNationalGeographicapproach,withageoheri- Grand Tour) which is for ‘people who are going
tageemphasis,whenitsorganizingcommitteeindi- somewhere because they have a particular interest
cated‘thatthereisaneedtoclarifytheconceptof that can be pursued in a particular region or at a
geotourism. We therefore believe that geotourism particular destination’ (Read 1980, p. 195). As an
should be defined as tourism which sustains and element of niche tourism it offers participants a
enhancestheidentityofaterritory,takingintocon- ‘meaningful set of experiences in the knowledge
sideration its geology, environment, culture, aes- thattheirneedsandwantsarebeingmet’(Novelli
thetics,heritageandthewell-beingofitsresidents. 2005, p. 1). Modern geotourism provision meets
Geological tourism is one of the multiple compo- geotourists’ needs by attracting them to particular
nents of geotourism.’ The committee, probably localities with spectacular or readily appreciated,
unwittingly, had actually embraced ‘ecotourism’. and usually (on-site and/or off-site) interpreted,
EcotourismisdefinedbytheWorldTourismOrga- geological and/or geomorphological features. At
nization(WTO)as‘tourismwhichleadstomanage- the participant level, it is ‘recreational geology’
mentofallresourcesinsuchawaythateconomic, that,unlikemanyformsofcountryside(andforthat
social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while matter,urban)recreation,isnotlimitedbythesea-
maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological sons(Hose1996,p.211).
processes,biologicaldiversityandlifesupportsys- Itisrelativelyeasytodefineandcategorizegeo-
tems’ (WTO 1997). It was a somewhat disputed touristsontheirlevelofengagement,togetherwith
breakwiththepurelygeologicalapproachadopted whatandwheretheyundertakeanexpressed(that,
by the majority of Europe’s governmental agen- isobservableandrecordable)geotouristicactivity.
cies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and Simplistically,twogeotouristgroupscanberecog-
authorities. Such fragmentation of the established nized, ‘casual’ and ‘dedicated’ (Hose 2000). The
consensusongeotourismisatbestunhelpfultoits formeroccasionallyvisitgeositesmainlyforrecre-
stakeholders, and at worst divisive; it is also con- ation,pleasureandsomelimitedintellectualstimu-
fusing to governments and funding bodies. Many lation; provision for them in the form of populist
geotourism practitioners and researchers, whilst guides,trailsandvisitorcentresisrelativelyrecent.
acceptingitsgeologicalfocus,appreciatethebene- Thelatterintentionallyvisitgeositesforthepurpose
fits of cooperating with other heritage and nature of personal educational or intellectual improve-
conservation parties; geotourism’s encompassing ment and enjoyment; provision for them in the
Fig.4. Tableofthesummarizedcontentofsomegeotourismdefinitionsandtheirassociateddiscussions.The
summary,becauseitisnecessarilybaseduponaninterpretationoftheassociateddiscussions,isasubjectiveevaluation.
Itwasdevelopedbyexaminingthedefinitionsandanysupportingorexplanatorytexts.Thesourcesforthedefinitions
canbefoundinthereferences.Theshadeddefinition(Hose2012b)isthatwhichhasbeenadoptedforthisvolume.
AnextendedsummarytableofdefinitionscanbefoundinHose(2012b,table1).
Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 5, 2019
T.A.HOSE
form of field guides and journal papers is long- waterfalls(Hudson2015).Touristsvisitingwater-
standing.Geotouristscanalsobesplitinto‘recrea- falls have a long history, and in the eighteenth
tional’ and ‘educational’ geotourists (Hose 1997). centurytheywerebrieflytermed‘cataractists’,per-
Atypologyoffieldexcursionists,basedupontheir haps an interesting descriptor worth resurrecting.
expressed behaviour, has been published (Hose Secondary geosites have some feature(s) and/
2006) and in modified form is re-presented herein or item(s), within or on a structure or delimited
(Fig. 5); it suggests how, with further refinement, area, of at least local significance to the history,
historic geotourists might be categorized. In terms development,presentationorinterpretationofgeol-
oflocation,wecansplittheminto‘rural’and‘urban’ ogy or geomorphology; these include museum,
geotourists and then refine the localities they visit library and archive (Larwood 2014) collections,
ontheirphysiographicalcharacteristics. heritage/visitor centres, geologists’ residences,
The locations visited by the various categories memorialsalongwithcommemorativeplaquesand
canoverlap,althoughtheirusagesandunderstand- monuments.
ings are often very different, and can be chiefly Whatismuchhardertodetermineiswhy,unless
splitinto‘primary’and‘secondary’geosites(Hose they record their reasons for particular actions,
2003; Hose & Vasiljevic´ 2012). Primary geosites geotouristsundertakeaspecificactivity.However,
havegeologicaland/orgeomorphologicalfeatures, inferences from their previous actions or from the
eithernaturalorartificialandgenerallypermanently contextof theirvisitscan bemade. Thus, itmight
exposed, within a delimited area and of some sig- (probablyerroneously)beinferredthatparticipants
nificancefortheirscientific,educationalorinterpre- on geology field trips are intent on learning about
tative value; they range from quarries and natural geology, when the prime motive might well be
cliffstominesandcaves(Cope2014)requiringhus- social, as Hose (2006) has suggested in drawing
bandry rather than strict preservation, for much of attention to the expressed, and possible motiva-
theirvalueliesintheaccesstheyprovidetoinsitu tions for, the behaviours of geology excursionists.
rocks and their fossils and minerals. They can be It could be argued that geotourism, particularly of
refinedonthenatureofthelocalitiesatwhichgeo- a more dedicated nature (Hose 2000, p. 136), is a
touristicactivitiesarefocussed;forexamplecoastal restricted market dependent upon better-educated
(van den Ancker & Jungerius, this volume, in and wealthier tourists, broadly corresponding to
press), mountainous/alpine (Cayla et al. 2015; Plog’s (1974) ‘allocentric’ tourists (Hall & Weiler
Gordon & Baker 2015; Migon´ 2014; Whalley, 1992,p.4),sincetheirinterestingeositesismainly
thisvolume,inpress),volcanic(Hose2010a;Pullin self-educationandintellectualimprovement.Alter-
2014) and mining localities (Bristow 2015), and natively, casual geotourists are drawn to geosites
Fig.5. Aternarydiagramofgeologyfieldexcursionisttypes.Thisgraphicalsummaryisbaseduponseveralqualitative
andobservationalstudiescompleted,butmainlyunpublished(Hose2003),bytheauthor;itisadevelopmentofan
earliermodelpublishedinHose(2006).
Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 5, 2019
THREECENTURIESOFAPPRECIATINGPHYSICALLANDSCAPES
forpleasureandsocialinteraction;theycommonly of“ecotourism”.Manydefinitionsof“ecotourism”
visitforinformaleducationalexperiencesforthem- exist, including: “A tourism market based on an
selvesandaccompanyingchildren(Hose1996). area’s natural resources that attempts to minimize
ItwasalmostsolelyduetoEuropeanacademics theecologicalimpactofthetourism”and“Tourism
and practitioners that geotourism emerged in the supported by natural ecological attributes of an
1990s as a field of study, publication and practice area”.’ (Gray 2008, p. 295). Hence, geotourism is
(Hose2008).Duetothevolumeofpublishedmate- a geoheritage promotional approach with paral-
rial,generalusage(especiallyinpolicydocuments), lels in ecotourism. Further, its antecedents lie in
practice and growth (|Dowling 2011 2013), it can the landscape aesthetic movements that promoted
bearguedthatgeotourismhasasubstantialenough travel, especially into ‘wild’ areas, popularly fol-
theoreticalandconceptualstatusthatitnowquali- lowed from the mid-eighteenth century onwards
fies as a new geological paradigm. The Oxford (Hose 2008) by the social elite of the UK and
English Dictionary defines the basic meaning of Europe. These movements partly built upon the
a paradigm as ‘a typical example or pattern of experiences and publications that had arisen from
something;apatternormodel’,whilsttheMerriam- the Grand Tour. On this, Stoye (1989) has noted
Webster Online Dictionary defines it as ‘a philo- the increasing number of travellers who, as part
sophical and theoretical framework of a scientific of their employment, accompanied merchants and
school or discipline within which theories, laws, the gentry but neglected the artisan journeymen;
and generalizations and the experiments perfor- this omission undoubtedly reflected the nature of
med in support of them are formulated; broadly: theavailablewrittenresourcesandthelimitedmar-
a philosophical or theoretical framework of any ketfortravelpublications–aconstrainttoconsider
kind’.InplanningtheAppreciatingPhysicalLand- whentheGrandTourisexamined.
scapes:Geotourism1670–1970conference,andin Dann (1999) has suggested that, prior to the
editing this volume, the author considers that in twentieth century, travel writing was essentially
acceptingsuchdefinitions‘geotourism’unquestion- real-worldreportage;thiswasusuallyanarrativeof
ablyhasattainedthestatusofamoderngeological anactualjourneyinaforeignsetting,ideallysuited
paradigm. to the,especiallyimperial, explorationsofthe late
It has benefitted from several quite recent vol- Victorian age. ‘Hence the travel book dealt with
umes (Dowling & Newsome 2008; Erfurt-Cooper facts, and this scientific emphasis was confirmed
& Cooper 2010; Newsome & Dowling 2010; by an index, footnotes and a bibliography, similar
Hoseinpress)andwidelypublished,ifsometimes toatreatiseingeography,historyorsomeallieddis-
divergent or vague, definitions. As a geologically cipline’(Dann1999,p.162).Hefurthersuggested
based contemporary approach to essentially aes- that such reportage lacked interest because it was
thetic landscape promotion, geotourism was first merelyaprecisechronicleofobservationsanddis-
recognized and defined in England (Hose 1995a coveries,lackingacriticalorinterpretativeelement.
2011).Itwasdevelopedpartlyasaresponsetothe In1811,thearchitectHenryHolland(1745–1806)
loss, for geological field study, of an increasing disparagingly commented that ‘nobody you know,
numberoftheUK’squarriesandminesduetoland- travels now a days without writing a quarto to
fillandreclamationschemes(Ellis1996,p.83),as tell the world where he has been, etcetera, what
wellasunsympatheticafterusesthatsoughttorecre- he has beheld’ (in Barton 1998, p. 3) and clearly
ateaestheticallypleasingvistas.Naturalgeositesand wouldhavewelcomedthewell-researchedfocussed
geomorphosites were concomitantly facing losses accounts that began to appear within a decade –
consequent upon planning decisions and design especially for England’s Lake District, if not for
considerations for road and coastal defence con- theGrandTour.
struction(Ellis1996,p.83).Fortheformer,soilcov-
eringandnettingcuttings(Baird1994),andforthe
latter,the pouringof muchconcrete (Leafe 1998), TheGrandTour:theprecursorto
were particular problems. Similarly, changing aestheticlandscapetourism
agricultural practices in the UK’s uplands, such
as drainage improvements and afforestation (Ellis The GrandTour is Europe’sfirstwidespreadtour-
1996,p.83)andnewactiveleisureprovisionsuch ismphenomenonforwhichthereisaconsiderable
as skiing and mountain biking (Ruff & Mellors writtenandpublishedrecordintheformofpersonal
1993) have, or at least have been perceived to artwork, diaries, journals and letters; the informa-
(Brown2014),deleteriouslyaffectgeomorphosites. tion quality varies widely but usually does enable
Gray (2008) has noted that ‘Just as “geodiver- theelucidationoftourists’itineraries,theirimpres-
sity” was developed as the abiotic equivalent of sions of the countries through which they passed,
“biodiversity”,so“geotourism”hasbecomeapop- anddetailsofthepeople,customsandaccommoda-
ular topic in recent years as the abiotic parallel tions.TheGrandTour’saccounts(Towner1984),its
Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 5, 2019
T.A.HOSE
participantsandthepossiblereasonsforitsdemise The latter meant a visit to Mount Vesuvius was
have been critically discussed by Towner (1985), inevitable; when antiquarians began to excavate
who traced some 900. He cautioned that plagia- Herculaneum and Pompeii, in 1738 and 1748,
rism,withtheincorporationofmaterialfromguide- respectively, they became major destinations. A
books and journals written by other travellers classic account, in the form of published letters,
suggestingthoroughnessofobservationbutwithout of a geographically extended (to Greece and Tur-
anyactualfirst-handstudy,isanissueinbothpub- key)1794–96GrandTourbyJohnBaconSawrey
lishedjournalsandunpublisheddiariesandjournals Morritt (1985) is significant for its mention of
of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Naples.Whilsthisobservationsaremainlyoncul-
Anillustrated,mainlydescriptiveintroductoryhis- tural heritage and practical matters, he provides
toryhasbeenpublished(Hibbert1969)andfurther brief but useful information on the effect of the
accounts cover its Italian (Black 1993; Wilton & volcanic activity of Vesuvius on Torre del Greco,
Bignamini 1996) component and its cities (Sweet where ‘The place smokes still, and six months
2012), landscapes (Chard 1999) and British parti- after the eruption the fire was seen running under
cipants(Black2003)insomedetail.Itsfemalepar- it’ (Morritt 1985, p. 267). Of course, Vesuvius is
ticipants(Chard1999;Dolan2001)havealsobeen where the origins of modern vulcanology can be
considered. traced.SirWilliamHamilton(1731–1803),ananti-
The journey was first described by the Roman quarian who studied both Vesuvius and Etna, was
Catholic priest Lassels; he had tutored several awarded the Copley Medal by the Royal Society
young English noblemen with whom he travelled in 1770 for ‘An Account of a Journey to Mount
through Italy on five separate tours. His book’s Etna’.HewaspostedtoNaplesasadiplomatfrom
introduction listed four arenas in which travelling 1764to1800;hisearlyyearstherecoincidedwith
through France and Italy would benefit young Vesuvius becoming quite active. In 1766 he sent
noblemen:theintellectual;thesocial;thepolitical; an account of the eruption, together with draw-
and the ethical – by drawing moral instruction ings and samples of salts and sulphurs, to the
fromwhatwasseen.ThomasNugent’sfour-volume Royal Society, following which he was elected a
TheGrandTour...of1749wasperhapsunusualfor Fellow. In 1767 Vesuvius again erupted and he
such a text in that it included topographical and duly sent a second report to the Royal Society;
geomorphological information; for example, vol- the two reports were published in the Society’s
ume1,onHolland,hasthesortofagrarianreportage Philosophical Transactions. A recent biography
–‘ThesoilofHollandishollow,softandfenny,and (Constantine2001)providesasummaryofhisvul-
not very fit for the plough; the country is flat and canologicalactivities.
even, for that one sees neither hill nor mountain, The Grand Tour of some 2 to 4 years, as
exceptthoselittlesandyhillocks,whichareabarrier describedbyLasselsandNugent,hadbeguninthe
againsttheocean’(Nugent1749,p.8) – thatwould sixteenthcenturyandreacheditsacmeintheeigh-
haveinterestedArthurYoung.Involume3,onItaly, teenthcentury.Itsmostpopularitinerary,followed
henotesonNaplesthat‘therecannotinallrespects forsome300years,beganinParis,thencethrough
beamoreagreeableplacetolivein,didnottheerup- theRhonevalleyandsouthernFrancetoviewclas-
tions of neighbouring mount Vesuvius, together sicalRomanremains,afterwhichcamea crossing
with the earthquakes sometimes disturb their of the Alps followed by a tour of the cities of
quiet’ (Nugent 1749, p. 353). His preface to the northernItaly(includingTurin,MilanandVenice)
fourvolumesstatedthat‘Tho’mostgentlemenare before visiting Florence, Rome and Naples, and
presumed to have some knowledge of geography, returningthroughGermany,theRhineandHolland
yet as this is not always the case, a general des- to England. However, whilst initially the tourists
criptionoftheseveralcountriesisprefixedtoeach were chiefly focussed on art objects and architec-
volume,withanaccountofthesituation,extent,cli- ture, by the late eighteenth century their interests
mate, soil, seas, rivers, and mountains’ (Nugent and recorded responses had shifted towards the
1749, p. iv). Thomas Nugent (c.1700–1772) was Romantic consideration of townscapes and land-
an Anglo-Irish antiquary who also published scapes;theywerepassionateaboutmedievalstruc-
Travels through Germany...in 1768 following a tures and wild nature with its sublime and
1766 journey. His accounts include much about picturesque scenery. Indeed, much of the revised
antiquities, customs, fashions, manufactures and tourroutecannowbeviewedasaformof‘scenic
politics, together with sound practical advice to tourism’; that is, early or historical geotourism –
travellers. thefocusofthisvolume.Thetouristsweremainly,
TheGrandTouristsprimarilyvisitedthoseEuro- butnotexclusively,youngEnglishbachelorsanda
pean cities considered major centres of culture, fewwomen(Dolan2001)ofmeans;theywereseek-
especially,Paris,Rome,andVenice;however,Flor- ing to broaden their horizons whilst specifically
ence and Naples were also popular destinations. learning about architecture, art, geography and
Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 5, 2019
THREECENTURIESOFAPPRECIATINGPHYSICALLANDSCAPES
culture. Lady Mary Coke (1727–1811) undertook p.314).This,alongwithchangingtastes,mightwell
various European tours between 1756 and 1791 explain the virtualabandonment ofsomeformerly
and despite subsequently publishing a 26-volume popular routes and areas, such as the Loire valley
journal (recounting her experiences between 1766 in the seventeenth and Holland in the eighteenth
and1774),muchofherobservationsremainsinpri- century.
vatehandsandunpublished.Shewasnot,asperusal In alpine Europe, the significance of road
ofhergossip-riddenprivatelifeindicates,atypical improvementscanbeespeciallynotedwhen‘Wild
Grand Tourist – most only did the one tour. Like scenery could be appreciated in the Jura and Italy
the journals of Celia Fiennes, the great English anditsnorthernlakesreachedviaaroutemadefit
domestic grand tourist, hers were originally for carriages by Napoleon in the early 1800s’
intendedonlyforfamilyconsumption. (Towner 1985, p. 314). For those Grand Tourists
Unlikeartandsocialreportage,landscapeappre- sojourning in Switzerland, Lake Geneva was a
ciation was initially a minor, generally accidental, focalpointfortourstoChamonixandLauterbrun-
commonlyignoredelementoftheTour.However, nenandGrindelwald.LakeLucernewasthecentre
journal entries and letters provide much useful fromwhichanascentofMountRigi(1798m)com-
information on the perceptions and perils, particu- menced, a key element of the Grand Tour itiner-
larly of mountainous country travel. As Towner ary. Interestingly from an historical geotourism
(1985) has noted, the influence of the general cul- perspective, the mountain’s name is derived from
tural environment on travel motives can be seen ‘riginen’ which is the stratification clearly visible
through the increasing interest in the seventeenth on its northern aspect. The principal route across
centuryofEurope’sfineanddecorativearts.Simi- theAlpsintoItalywastheSimplonPass.Thiswas
larly there was an increase from the seventeenth the route taken by Wordsworth and a compan-
centuryinthenumberofscientifictravellers.Empir- ion in 1790, after they had visited Chamonix, and
icalfactualaccounts paddedoutmanytravel jour- described in letters to his sister and in the much
nal entries. This was especially stimulated in laterposthumouslypublishedThePreludeof1850.
EnglandbytheestablishmentoftheRoyalSociety Their mid-August crossing was prior to the Napo-
in 1662. Following the rise of the professional, or leonic widening, and they initially took the wrong
at least gentlemanly, scientist this aspect of the route. Until the widespread publication of reliable
tourdeclinedafterthe1780s.However,‘Aninterest topographic maps and detailed guidebooks (with
innaturalscenerywasoflittleconsequenceforthe instructions other than to hire a local guide!) such
spatial pattern of the Grand Tour in the seven- confusions were not uncommon. Wordsworth’s
teenth century. While some interest was shown in poetical account in bookVI of The Prelude of his
ruralscenery(particularlyfertile,humanizedland- alpine ramblingsisa littleconfusing,andthe note
scapes), these sentiments were mainly confined to to his sister that ‘At Brig we quitted the Valais,
incidentalobservationswhiletravelingtothemajor and passed the Alps at Simplon, in order to visit
culturalcenters’(Towner1985,p.314).Theprinci- partofItaly.Theimpressionsofthreehoursofour
pleculturalcentrewasRome. walk among the Alps will never be effaced’, at
ItistoRomethatthebeginningsofantiquarian- leastmakesitclearhefoundthejourneymemorable
ism,thesystematicstudyofsitesandtheirartefacts, despitethelowcloudandmistthatmadehisroute
can be traced, which would later help to underpin findingdifficult.
geologicaldiscoveryandreportage.Ofcourse,get- The Grand Tour was an institution that sur-
ting to Italy meant a crossing of the Alps, and it vivedvirtuallyunchangeduntiltheFrenchRevolu-
isaccountsofthesecrossingsthatgiveculturalhis- tionandtheNapoleonicWars,from1789to1815,
toriansthefirstglimpsesofattitudestoandpercep- made it particularly hazardous for young British
tionsofsuchwild‘frightful’places.Otherlocations aristocrats,aswellastheoffspringoftherichmer-
visited by the more adventurous Grand Tourists cantile class, to venture abroad. The effective clo-
included Germany and east Europe, the Balkans sure of continental Europe to the British Grand
andtheBaltic,andSpainandPortugal.AsTowner Tourists provided the stimulus for the discovery
(1985) has noted the quest for reliable routes and literary promotion of Britain’s upland land-
betweenthemajorcentresthatalsoprovidedscenic scapes; these were then promoted, perhaps aston-
vistas explains why many focussed on the Rhine ishinglytothemodernmind,assubstitutesforthe
valley, especially between Mainz and Cologne, Alps with which Wordsworth and his literary and
anditsmajortributaryvalleyssuchastheMoselle; artistic contemporaries were themselves familiar
indeed, such valley routes evolved from a conve- fromtheirownGrandTours.Atthesametimethe
nientroutetoascenicattractionintheirownright. south and southwest coasts of England were pro-
Further, ‘The desire to reach the Rhine quickly moted as the new Riviera, and Italianate villas
can be seen in the development of routes from and formal, often terraced, gardens were con-
Ostend to Brussels and Cologne’ (Towner 1985, structed; the beginnings ofthe English scenic tour
Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on January 5, 2019
T.A.HOSE
had been established. Following the peace and within the context of the scenery that surrounds
relativepoliticalstabilitybroughttoEuropebythe them,notonlyintermsofmonumentsorbuildings,
outcome of the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 and butalso as partofa seriesofrelics thatindicate a
therapiddevelopmentofrailwaysfromthe1840s, continuous process of change, which in turn is a
the equivalent of the Grand Tour experience was result of the inevitable interaction of all human
available in a much shorter time frame to a much activities with the surrounding environment. In
widerrangeofparticipants;elitetourismwasgiving other words, scenery is the mirror of society, and
waytothefirstwaveofmasstourism. it expresses the physical and symbolic effects of
successive human actions on nature. However, at
thesametime,thissceneryisnotneutral,foreach
Geotourismcontextualizedwithin personadoptshis/herownpointofview.Onecon-
Europeanlandscapetourism sequence of this is the reductive and unilateral
attitude that interprets and values scenery from a
ThefirstpublishedhistoryofUKgeotourism(Hose strictly visual and aesthetic perspective’ (Edwards
2008),althoughanearlierconsiderationofthehis- & Llurdes 1996, p. 358). Accordingly, this paper
torical aspects of Europe’s published geoheritage touchesuponthese,particularlyinsofarastheyare
had been provided (Hose 2000), noted that ‘Since explored by other papers in this volume. Encom-
manyoftheactivitiesitencompasseshaveanteced- passingsome300yearsoflandscape-focussedtour-
ents in considerably earlier natural science and ism it is best approached by examining locations,
aesthetic movements, the development of tourism personalities, publications and images key to its
that can be directly attributed to the promotion of development.FromtheRenaissance,leisuretravel-
landscapeandgeologymustbeexamined;thefor- lers in Europeand fartherafield selected the land-
merdatingfromthelateseventeenthandthelatter scapes that best matched their quest for the novel,
from the early nineteenth centuries’ (Hose 2008, exotic and authentic. Specific expectations about
p. 37). The second such account (Hose 2010a), the places and landscapes they planned to or did
focussed on volcanic geotourism on Scotland’s visit were created and influenced by images in art
west coast, also noted that ‘From the early 19th galleries and their reproduction in postcards and
century,commercialtouristliteraturegeneratedspe- guidebookstogetherwiththelatter’splacedescrip-
cific expectations of landscapes. Landscapes are tionsandinstructionsfortravellers.
socialandculturalconstructswithtourists’percep- The perceptions of landscapes and the values
tionsandtheirvaluesascribedtothemanadmixture ascribedtothembytravellersareacombinationof
of direct observation and cultural interpretation’ their processing of direct observation and subse-
(Hose 2010a, p. 260). It has been specifically quent interpretation influenced by their education
noted that mining locations ‘must be analyzed and expectations, the cultural filter of the ‘tourist
Fig.6. Modelofthetouristgaze.Thismodel,developedfromthatpublishedinHose(2010a,2010b),notesthe
inputofartisticandliterarymaterialthatinfluencesthecontentoftouristguidebooks;italsonotesthatartistsandauthors
arepartiallyasubsetoftravellersandtourists.Itstressesthesignificanceofthetouristguidebookactingasacultural
filteronwhatthetouristseesandunderstandsaboutlandscape.Itemphasizesthatwhatthetouristactuallyseeslies
beyondthemerephysicallandscapethatisviewed,suggestingforsomeanaestheticspiritualelement–muchaswas
envisagedbythePicturesquemovement.