Balancing Authenticity and Tourism Development: The Challenge of Incense at Cham Temples

Abstract

In this chapter, the focus is on the perspectives of the Cham community in Vietnam with regard to the concept of authenticity. The study, conducted between 2012 and 2017, revealed instances of the Vietnamese government officials imposing their own interpretations of authenticity on the Cham communities and their living heritage sites to meet the expectations of tourists.

Introduction

In this chapter, the focus is on the perspectives of the Cham community in Vietnam with regard to the concept of authenticity. The study, conducted between 2012 and 2017, revealed instances of the Vietnamese government officials imposing their own interpretations of authenticity on the Cham communities and their living heritage sites to meet the expectations of tourists. The tourists included both domestic and international visitors, with the majority being ethnic Vietnamese. The use of joss-stick incense at the Cham temples, which is considered taboo by the local Cham, serves as a symbol of the external imposition of cultural values and raises questions about authenticity at living heritage sites of Indigenous communities.

The research suggests that there is a need to better understand the relationship between dominant and marginalized cultural values at heritage sites and their connection to the history of cultural and spiritual practices. The Cham community members perceive the burning of joss-stick incense as a violation of their traditional customs and inauthentic from their perspective. A culturally specific definition of authenticity cannot be fully comprehended without acknowledging the broader history of threats to both tangible and intangible forms of Cham cultural heritage in Vietnam.

In light of the external imposition of cultural norms and practices, this study aimed to delve deeper into the perceptions and experiences of Cham community members regarding authenticity in living heritage sites. The questions aimed to explore the following areas: (1) the perceptions and responses of Cham community members to claims of authenticity in cultural heritage sites, (2) the factors that influence these perceptions, and (3) what can be learned from the Cham community's perspectives and experiences regarding authenticity in heritage conservation.

The study sheds light on the critical role that the beliefs, values, and philosophies of Indigenous communities play in promoting authenticity and preserving cultural heritage. By exploring the perspectives of the Cham community, this study highlights the need for a more culturally informed approach to heritage conservation and the importance of engaging Indigenous communities in efforts to preserve their cultural heritage (Bruchac et al., 2010; Settimini, 2020; Silva & Chapagain, 2013; Suprapti & Iskandar, 2020).

Exploring the Concept of Authenticity

The concept of authenticity has a critical impact on heritage performance within different economies, particularly in the tourism industry. Scholars have recognized the importance of the perceived authenticity of heritage sites, objects, cultural practices, and related activities, as it is a crucial factor in determining the value of a heritage tourist destination. Authenticity can be classified into four categories: (1) existential authenticity, which refers to the tourists’ experience; (2) objective authenticity, inherent to the site or object; (3) staged authenticity, staged for the purpose of attracting tourists; and (4) constructive authenticity, constructed outside of the site, object, or people (Bruner, 1991; Chhabra et al., 2003; Cohen, 1988; MacCannell, 1973; Wang, 1999).

While most studies have centered on the tourists’ perspectives, this study takes a different approach by examining the concept of authenticity from the local community's viewpoint, particularly in the context of tourism related to the Po Klaong Garai temple-tower complex. In this case, “living heritage” is considered authentic as it showcases the real-life activities of Cham communities and reflects the continuation of their cultural practices.

In the 1980s, tourists began seeking “living heritage” sites (Cohen, 1988, p. 373), and by the 1990s, they sought a balance between the exotic and the authentic (Tilley, 1997, p. 79). The desire for a genuine experience of real life, or how life was lived, persisted into the twenty-first century (MacCannell, 1973, 1999). With the rise of global tourism, there has been a (re)creation of cultural products to meet tourists’ demands (Timothy, 2009, 2011).

Tourists often desire to experience the daily life, festivals, rituals, cuisine, and art performances of host communities, which can bring both economic benefits for the locals and an opportunity for them to assert their cultural identity (Beatrice, 2009; Davis et al., 2010; Tilley, 1997; Wang, 1999). Heritage performance can serve to preserve or reinforce cultural identity (Picard, 2008; Tilley, 1997). However, tensions may arise between those who value privacy and those who seek economic benefits, leading to the creation of a “heritage frontstage” that protects the authenticity of daily life behind the scenes (MacCannell, 1973, 1999).

According to Goffman (1959), individuals play roles in front of an audience and the norms and values of the external public shape the cultural heritage “frontstage.” On the other hand, the “backstage” is a place where performers regroup, relax, and prepare, free from the judgments of the audience. Hobsbawm (1983) and Andrews and Buggey (2008) argue that cultural heritage is a dynamic and changing process, similar to Cohen's (1988) concept of “emergent authenticity,” and that it constitutes a process of constructing contemporary authenticity. However, this raises the question of what happens when cultural heritage is altered by outsiders without the consent of the community. In the case of Cham communities, such changes imposed by Vietnamese authorities can evoke past experiences of cultural erasure (Bruner, 2005; Tilley, 1997; Wang, 1999). My research focuses on examining who determines the authenticity of Cham cultural heritage and how the local communities perceive authenticity in the context of tourism industry development, especially when heritage authorities attempt to commodify cultural products and heritage sites.

Exploring the Concept of Co-creation of Culture

In the realm of cultural heritage, the concept of “co-creation of culture” has been proposed as a useful approach in examining the relationship between tourists and host communities. This approach shifts the focus away from organizations as the sole actors and towards the process of joint meaning-making between organizations and people, particularly in the context of tourist experiences (Hudson et al., 2017; Ind & Coates, 2013; Ross & Saxena, 2019). According to Walmsley (2013), co-creation of culture involves three key elements: collaboration, interaction, and participation. Additionally, location and the creation of place also play an important role in shaping the meaning-making process (Miles, 2016). Simon (2010) argues that communities should play a greater role in co-creation than institutions, a viewpoint that is relevant not only to the field of museology, but also to our examination of living heritage sites. Jenkins (1996) suggests that a “participatory culture” requires engagement based on strong social connections, a shared sense of purpose, sharing of creations, and informal mentorship.

In my study, I found evidence of the conditions identified by Jenkins and Miles, but did not find that the conditions outlined by Simon for co-creation of culture were satisfied in the case of Cham cultural heritage. Specifically, Vietnamese institutions have not effectively collaborated with Cham communities, and the latter have not played a greater role in dictating the acceptable practices at heritage sites. Moreover, the existing literature on co-creation of culture does not sufficiently address the issues of Indigenous Peoples’ rights or the complexities that arise when an ethnic majority, historically involved in the destruction of heritage sites, interacts with an ethnic minority, historically involved in their construction and preservation. According to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN, 2008), respect for Indigenous Peoples’ rights requires not just greater control over heritage sites on their traditionally possessed lands, but also total control. Given the current circumstances, it seems unlikely that these conditions will change in the near future.

The concept of coexistence is not a new topic in the field of cultural studies and has received significant attention from scholars. However, the existing literature has its limitations, and there is room for further exploration, especially in the context of the Cham communities in Vietnam. Tang (2015) emphasized the crucial role that coexistence plays in preventing large-scale global conflict. Nevertheless, the more pressing issue in this context is the erosion of Cham culture, which is a more immediate threat than large-scale conflict.

Banban (2018), in his research on overlaying ethno-religious communities in Qinghai, argued that the concept of “harmony in diversity” is critical in ensuring that every ethnic group has a stable identity relative to its ethnicity and important cultural traits while also being respected. In Japan, Satoru (2021) defined coexistence through three aspects of long-term interaction: the existence of different groups, interaction between them, and mutual dependence between them. In the case of Cham communities, there are examples of long-standing coexistence across different religious communities, such as the maintenance of the Ahiér-Awal relationship for centuries. The ritual attendance of Raglai peoples at the annual Katé ceremonies is another demonstration of coexistence within Cham communities. Noseworthy and Pham Huyen (2021) have suggested that shared resonances within Cham religious contexts play a role in promoting coexistence.

Despite the rhetoric of the Vietnamese state, there is no evidence of mutual dependence between different Cham communities, as seen through my fieldwork. It is possible that Vietnamese authorities may attempt to create such notions in the future, but currently, the term “coexistence” is not an accurate representation of the historical and present circumstances of the Cham communities. The question of what Vietnamese authorities could provide to members of Cham communities, and what they want, remains open-ended. My research suggests that a starting point for improving the situation would be for the Vietnamese authorities to recognize the cultural differences within Cham communities, such as the difference between burning agarwood and joss-stick incense. In conclusion, the coexistence of different cultural and religious groups is a complex and ongoing process, and there is a need for further exploration in the context of the Cham communities in Vietnam.

Cham Traditional Views on the Significance of Fire and Flames in Worship

Fire and flames hold a significant place in Cham religious traditions, serving as a means of connecting with supernatural powers, both divine and deceased. This is a common feature across many religious practices, including Easter rituals in Christianity, fire offerings in Hinduism, and burnt offerings in Buddhism. The use of fire creates meaningful symbols in religious contexts, as seen in the work of Essays (2018) and Varner (2014). In Cham traditions, two forms of fire are used in worship: candles and agarwood. Both play a crucial role in communicating with the supernatural. While Cham religions may have been influenced by Buddhist ceremonies, they do not use joss-stick incense, instead opting for a cup of charcoal to ignite agarwood or a substitute wood for worship and veneration. However, the use of substitute wood is only allowed as agarwood is becoming scarce, and joss-sticks are considered taboo and polluting.

In Cham traditions, candles are typically offered to gods and are mounted on trays, while agarwood is used exclusively by senior priests (Po Adhia). The smoke and fragrance of the agarwood serve as a conduit of communication between the seen and unseen realms, symbolizing worship and requests. This transforms mundane spaces into sacred spaces, where meditation, veneration, and worship hold meaning, and supernatural powers may grant blessings (Eliade, 1959). However, the introduction of joss-stick incense by heritage authorities as part of their infrastructure development plans around the Po Klaong Garai temple-tower complex is considered a problem by Cham perspectives. Joss-sticks are produced and sold by ethnic Vietnamese (Kinh), and are perceived as external to Cham cultural contexts. While this may not be an issue from the Vietnamese perspective of cultural heritage management, it is viewed differently by Cham communities. These views are nuanced and complex, reflecting the unique cultural and religious practices of the Cham people.

Cham Attitudes Towards the Use of Joss-Sticks in Religious Contexts

The use of joss-stick incense by tourists and heritage authorities has become a point of contention in Cham religion due to its symbolic importance in traditional burnt offerings (Fig. 7.1). Despite attempts by local authorities to find a solution, none have been satisfactory to Cham community leaders. Joss-sticks do not hold any symbolic meaning in contemporary Cham religions and are seen as an external and imported cultural practice by the ethnic Vietnamese (Kinh) community.

Fig. 7.1

Use of Joss-sticks by tourists at the Po Klaong Garai Temple (Courtesy by author in 2016)

Interviews with a scholar and a priest reflect the tensions surrounding this issue. The scholar notes that the introduction of joss-stick incense into Cham temples disregards traditional Cham customs and harms the cultural heritage of the community. The priest asserts that while each ethnicity has the right to their own spiritual beliefs, they must be honored in the appropriate setting and not imposed on the Cham temple and its Indigenous customs.

The use of joss-sticks in Cham temples is a daily occurrence and dismisses the traditional Cham culture, leading to harm to the national heritage site and the customs of the Cham community. These views reflect the ongoing struggle to balance spiritual beliefs and cultural heritage in the context of living heritage sites.

The perspectives of key Cham community leaders towards joss-stick usage by Vietnamese (Kinh) tourists at the Po Klaong Garai temple-tower complex are negative. Despite being viewed as spiritual by the tourists, their use of joss-sticks at the temple is seen as imposing their religion on a site protected as a Cham living heritage and religious site. As per Cham beliefs, joss-sticks are only acceptable in Vietnamese Buddhist pagodas and ancestor shrines, but not at Po Klaong Garai. Cham community members emphasized the need for tourists to respect Cham practices (adat Cam) at the temple. An online survey conducted by independent scholar, Inrasara in 2016, aimed to gauge the consensus among Cham community members on this issue (Table 7.1).

Table 7.1 Cham views on the use of Joss-Sticks at Po Klaong Garai Temple (Inrasara, 2016)

The views on the use of joss-stick incense at the Po Klaong Garai temple-tower complex are diverse, with some supporting its use and others opposing it. One respondent, Orang_Ta002, expressed surprise at the option to “allow use but place outside” and shared that using joss-stick incense is against their traditional laws and goes against their efforts to preserve their heritage. This respondent emphasized that tourists visiting their temples must respect and abide by their customs. On the other hand, government officials tend to support the use of joss-stick incense, as it is used at other Cham temples. However, these sites are viewed as “dead” by Vietnamese government officials as they do not represent contemporary Cham religious practices. Despite this, there are still significant portions of the Cham community who view these sites as “living.”

Scholars and youth hold similar views on this issue, with one scholar, Orang_Ka002, noting that the Kinh cannot compare the transgressions at Po Inâ Nâgar temple with Po Klaong Girai temple. Po Klaong Girai and Po Romé temples are considered living sacred sites, with Po Klaong Girai temple recognized as a specific national heritage. The scholar emphasized that heritage managers should aim to preserve the authenticity of Cham temple culture, as the use of joss-stick incense is not part of Cham culture but rather found in Chinese and Vietnamese cultures.

This viewpoint was echoed by many young people in the community. One interviewee, Orang_De004, stated that the issue of using joss-stick incense in Cham temples is a major problem that has gotten out of hand. They said that although some Kinh people view the temples as sacred and come to pray, using joss-stick incense is not appropriate. The interviewee emphasized that the heritage manager should inform visitors not to use incense as it can lead to cultural misunderstandings, as it might give the impression that Cham culture is similar to Kinh culture. The interviewee emphasized that the use of incense should be avoided because the two cultures are different and it is important to preserve the authenticity of Cham temple culture (Figs. 7.2 and 7.3).

Fig. 7.2

Use of joss-sticks by tourists at Po Xah Inâ (Bình Thuận) (Courtesy by author in 2016)

Fig. 7.3

Use of joss-sticks by tourists at Po Inâ Nâgar (Khánh Hòa) (Courtesy by author in 2016)

The issue of incense use at Cham temples has sparked a significant amount of debate and controversy within the Cham community. While some community members believe that the smoke from joss-sticks can cause damage to the temple walls, others have taken a more accepting stance towards the use of incense by Vietnamese tourists. However, this position is highly criticized within the Cham community, who feel that their religious beliefs are not being respected.

In response to these concerns, the Cham Custodial Committee organized a meeting to address the issue and agreed that incense should be allowed outside of the temple but not inside. Despite this agreement, the issue persists as local Vietnamese officials do not enforce the regulations. This has resulted in increased tensions between Cham custodians and Vietnamese managers, with the latter sometimes making provocative remarks about the temple being a heritage of Vietnam rather than exclusively of the Cham community.

Most Cham locals are honored with the recognition of their heritage at the national level, but they simply ask for respect of their religious beliefs. Cham scholars assert that they are rarely invited to meetings and those who are present claim that they were forced to accept the use of incense. This highlights a larger issue of cultural respect and the need for proper communication and consultation between the different stakeholders involved.

The imposition of new traditions by heritage authorities is at odds with the religious practices of the Cham community. The locals believe that conservation efforts should be aimed at supporting their community, as otherwise, the temples will gradually become Vietnamese Buddhist temples. The practice of burning joss-stick incense is an example of this trend. The question remains, what is the purpose of conservation and tourist development if the Indigenous community is not respected? According to custodians I spoke to, this situation could lead to conflict. The Cham locals believe that researchers in Cham Studies should be involved in heritage management as they possess a deep understanding of Cham culture and religion. A lead researcher from the local Cham Culture Research Center stated that: “A better understanding of Cham culture by the heritage managers would help them comprehend the spiritual concepts of the Cham people. For the Cham community, spirituality is of great importance. Heritage management must respect this and the administrators should listen and understand the cultural meaning behind it… Regrettably, the views of the Cham Culture Research Center have not received sufficient attention (Orang-Gov003).”

A heritage manager shared his thoughts on the issue, saying: “In today's world, cultural exchange and integration are prevalent. Each culture should be open to embracing other cultures… However, there was a problem when a visitor hung the Buddhist swastika symbol on the statue of King Po Klaong Garai. This visitor did not understand the Cham religion and thought the symbol was beautiful. Additionally, they used incense and offered inappropriate gifts at the temple during their worship (Orang-Gov002).”

This government official further added: “Acculturation is happening at a fast pace. For instance, the Po [Inâ] Nagar temple is now used by the Vietnamese and has become ‘Vietnamized’. This is happening to many Cham temples… The use of joss-sticks at Cham temples is a reflection of this trend. The Cham community has accepted the use of incense in their living temples and no one objects to it… we accept this practice (Orang-Gov002).”

The statements show that the temple is no longer exclusive to the Cham community, but is also used by the Vietnamese. The responsibility of maintaining peace at the site falls on the Cham community, not the Vietnamese. This implies that the Cham must share the space with the Vietnamese. However, most Cham locals do not support the use of incense, which is in contrast to the claims made by local government officials. One of the authors, who is a member of the Cham community and specializes in Cham Studies, and who has collaborated with a former director of the local cultural office on various projects, was surprised to see that local officials did not recognize the issue as a problem. The author wrote in their notes: “This is not acculturation. When the government allows visitors to bring their culture to another ethnic group's spiritual place, it can lead to cultural erosion. Approval of this practice can be considered assimilation. If incense use is allowed at the Po Klaong Garai temple, it will become like the Po Inâ Nâgar temple, where the Vietnamese majority community occupy and control it and perform Vietnamese religious practices at the temple. It is evident that the Cham community does not want this to happen, which is why they oppose the regulations of the local authorities (Diary - 21 December 2016).”

The issue of assimilation is not only about the imposition of new traditions, but also about the lack of enforcement of agreements made. Conversations with authorities were often challenging due to their tendency to deflect questions and bring up unrelated topics. One example of this is the response from an official regarding the use of incense in the temples. The authorities have invited members of the Cham Council and researchers to hear their opinions, but the main concern is about maintaining the sanctity of the temple and preserving its original value. On the one hand, there is a need to accommodate tourists by providing convenient access and places to rest, but on the other hand, it should not negatively impact the religious activities and the monument. The Cham priests and elders have expressed their happiness with the restoration efforts, but they also emphasized that the restoration should not diminish the value of the temple.

In my research, Vietnamese officials were observed to have listened to the concerns expressed by members of the Cham community. However, these officials failed to take responsibility for their mistakes, instead attributing blame to subordinates and redirecting conversations to focus on new construction projects. This avoidance of negative discussions only served to exacerbate the sense of inadequacy felt by Cham locals, who felt that their concerns were not being addressed. The focus of conservation efforts has been centered on accommodating the needs of tourists, rather than considering the cultural significance of the living heritage site for the Cham community. The imposition of the use of joss-stick incense as a newly adopted tradition elicited a strongly negative reaction from the Cham people, who expressed their opposition to its usage. The strong resistance shown by the Cham people to the use of joss-stick incense as a newly adopted tradition reveals three key trends: a negative response to the incense, a lack of understanding of the Cham culture among officials and insufficient collaboration with stakeholders, and a rejection by the Cham community of assimilation into Vietnamese (Kinh) culture. This resistance to assimilation is the root of any conflict, with many Cham community members critiquing and opposing any actions perceived as an attempt to “Vietnamize” their cultural heritage. The potential long-term impact of joss-stick incense on the physical degradation of these sites remains a subject that requires further investigation.

Heritage at the Intersection of Culture and Tourism: An Analysis of Authenticity and Change at Cham Temples

Living heritage is a cultural property that is still in use by its associated community for the purpose for which it was created, and it is constantly evolving as the community changes it to suit their emerging socio-cultural and historical contexts (Wijesuriya, 2015). It is essential to understand that the Cham community owns this heritage and has the right to adapt it to their changing needs, provided that the changes are not misinterpreted or misused (Wain, 2014; Weise, 2013). This view is supported by the fact that the authenticity of living heritage is significant to contemporary communities and is considered inauthentic if imposed from outside sources (Andrews & Buggey, 2008; Clifford, 1988; Hobsbawm, 1983; Smith, 2006; Wijesuriya, 2007).

In my research, I observed that the Cham community has a strong sense of awareness about the conservation of their heritage sites and often takes the initiative to adapt to changing conditions by promoting the value of the Katé holiday as a festival, adjusting traditional costumes, adding new offerings, and even modifying elements of traditional rituals. However, they reject any innovations that go against their sense of identity, especially religious identity, as spirituality is central to defining authenticity. This highlights how authenticity is continuously evolving to create contemporary meaning (Andrews & Buggey, 2008; Clifford, 1988; Hobsbawm, 1983; Smith, 2006; Wijesuriya, 2007).

Unfortunately, external Vietnamese authorities, whether local, provincial, or national, have created their own sense of Cham authenticity for their purposes, often motivated by the desire to profit from the tourist industry. Visitors seek to experience authenticity, even if it differs from the everyday life of locals (MacCannell, 1973), and as a result, government authorities have exploited Cham communities. My research found that Vietnamese officials were observed to have listened to the concerns expressed by members of the Cham community but failed to take responsibility for their mistakes, attributing blame to subordinates, and redirecting conversations to focus on new construction projects. This avoidance of negative discussions only exacerbated the sense of inadequacy felt by the Cham community, who felt that their concerns were not being addressed. The focus of conservation efforts was centered on accommodating the needs of tourists, rather than considering the cultural significance of the living heritage site for the Cham community, as demonstrated by the imposition of the use of joss-stick incense as a newly adopted tradition, which elicited a strongly negative reaction from the Cham people, and highlights the lack of understanding of Cham culture among officials and insufficient collaboration with stakeholders. The potential long-term impact of joss-stick incense on the physical degradation of these sites remains a subject that requires further investigation.

Living heritage is a continuous process of evolution that is shaped by the needs and cultural practices of the community to whom it belongs (Wijesuriya, 2015). Cultural heritage can change over time to meet the evolving needs of the community, as long as it aligns with their beliefs and cultural identity (Poulios, 2014a; Sarah & Wijesuriya, 2014; Smith, 2006). In the case of the Cham communities in Ninh Thuận, Khánh Hòa, and Bình Thuận provinces, the authenticity of their cultural heritage is a matter of great concern, as it is being shaped by external Vietnamese authorities for the benefit of the tourist industry (MacCannell, 1973). The ceremonial performance of Rija Nâgar rituals, for example, has been criticized by members of the Cham community for being performed in an improper space and time, without regard for proper ritual orders, creating an inauthentic performance from their perspective (Weerasinghe, 2011). Similarly, the use of joss-sticks incense is seen as an imposition of Vietnamese Buddhist culture onto the Cham Ahiér culture and is only used for Vietnamese Buddhist contexts (Weerasinghe, 2011). This is a source of contention for the Cham community as it is a recent addition to their cultural heritage sites and does not align with their cultural beliefs and practices (Chirikure et al., 2010; Robert, 2016; Waterton & Watson, 2013).

The imposition of top-down cultural innovations can lead to the effective erasure and misrecognition of the cultural heritage of the Cham community (Chirikure et al., 2010; Robert, 2016; Waterton & Watson, 2013). As authenticity remains a dynamic and negotiated concept (Clifford, 1988; Cohen, 1988; Poulios, 2014b; Smith, 2006; Wijesuriya, 2007), it is important for heritage professionals and scholars to take a mediatory role, bridging the conceptual divides between the Cham community and external authorities (Weerasinghe, 2011). In short, the authenticity of Cham cultural heritage in Ninh Thuận, Khánh Hòa, and Bình Thuận provinces is under threat from external forces seeking to exploit it for tourism purposes. It is important for heritage professionals and scholars to mediate the conflicting interests and ensure that the cultural heritage of the Cham community is respected and preserved for future generations.

Examples from Southeast Asia highlight the significance of embracing a culturally relative approach in the management of heritage sites. Buddhism-based temple management practices in Thailand and Laos align with local traditions (Byrne, 2012; Karlström, 2005). The definitions of authenticity provided by heritage officials are inadequate (Lawless & Silva, 2016; Silva & Chapagain, 2013; Weise, 2013). The sites in need of preservation are not static, as they continue to be used by Cham locals, highlighting the need to view them as living heritage (Blake, 2008; Waterton, 2015). My research on the Po Klaong Garai site reveals that there are three main problems affecting its management. The first issue is the presence of invented traditions. The second issue is the imposition of policies and practices from above, without considering the needs of the local community. The third issue is the lack of consideration for the cultural context in which the site is located and the significance it holds for the local population. Previous researchers have posited that newly invented traditions or cultural products can be seen as inauthentic initially, but they can gain authenticity over time through repetition (Andrews & Buggey, 2008; Cohen, 1988; Hobsbawm, 1983). However, I argue that the newly invented traditions at Po Klaong Garai temple may be perceived as inauthentic by the Cham community because they fail to fulfill their spiritual needs or respect their cultural context.

The management of cultural heritage sites involves not just the physical objects, but also the cultural and spiritual significance of those objects for the local communities. The UNESCO Hoi An Protocols (2009) and the Burra Charter (2013) provide guidelines for the preservation and management of these sites, but they have their limitations. The Hoi An Protocols focus on the intangible and living aspects of heritage sites, but they emphasize negotiation among groups instead of traditional management systems of Indigenous communities. The Burra Charter is more useful in that it recognizes both the tangible and intangible dimensions of heritage and emphasizes cultural significance and the importance of community consultation and collaboration in management. However, it falls short in its language, which might be used to extend non-Indigenous control over Indigenous sites. The existing language of “cultural coexistence” in the Burra Charter should be recognized, respected, and encouraged, but it should not extend to new additions or practices that violate the religious worldviews of Indigenous communities. The UNDRIP outlines the importance of total control over traditional lands and sites by Indigenous religious communities.

Therefore, it is crucial to establish the relationship between the dominant and marginalized cultural values at heritage sites in accordance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the Hoi An Protocols of UNESCO. This could be done by potentially exploring the Burra Charter for guidance on possible ways forward. However, it is important to note that these approaches must be tailored to the specific cases of these heritage sites and the history of cultural and spiritual practices at these locations.

From the perspective of many ethnic Cham people, the loss of authenticity at heritage sites is part of a larger story of Vietnamese conquest and forced assimilation that has threatened the existence of Cham culture for centuries. The discourse of authenticity must be understood in this historical context. Moreover, global concepts of co-creation of culture and coexistence may not be suitable unless they are adapted to the needs of Indigenous communities. The relationship between perceived authenticity and the impact of the tourist industry, particularly with regard to the commodification of Indigenous cultures, is well documented (Cole, 2007).

Despite this, existing literature on living heritage suggests that cultures can and should change over time (Andrews & Buggey, 2008; Byrne, 2012; Hobsbawm, 1983; Karlström, 2005; Sullivan, 1993; Wijesuriya, 2014). While some elements of Cham culture may evolve, such as contemporary adaptations of traditional dance, song, or pottery, these changes are driven by the community itself. However, changes imposed from Vietnamese contexts are viewed as inauthentic and rejected by Indigenous Cham people. The majority of the interviewees felt that these changes, imposed by government officials to meet the expectations of tourists, are part of a long history of erasure.

The development of Vietnam's market socialism still heavily relies on the tourist-based economy, which creates tensions in heritage preservation at both the national and global levels. For the Cham community members interviewed, any challenge to their cultural heritage is seen as a violation of sacred space. Hence, any future research on this topic should be community-led and aimed at precisely delineating the expectations of Indigenous communities with regard to these heritage sites, beyond simply stopping the practice of burning joss-stick incense.

A global concern that is highlighted by a local perspective is the relationship between dominant and marginalized cultural values at heritage sites. This relationship is crucial for the preservation of Indigenous cultures and their spiritual practices and must be addressed in accordance with UNDRIP and UNESCO's Hoi An Protocols. The commodification of Indigenous cultures for tourism and capital production is a major challenge faced by many Indigenous communities, including the Cham community in Vietnam, who face the threat of losing their cultural authenticity and spirituality. This challenge is not limited to Vietnam, but is faced by many Indigenous communities around the world. To address this issue, future research on heritage preservation must prioritize the needs and expectations of Indigenous communities and involve collaboration between government officials, heritage experts, and Indigenous communities to find a sustainable solution.

Conclusion

The study highlights the delicate relationship between dominant cultural values and marginalized cultural values at heritage sites in Vietnam. The Cham community, in particular, faces the challenge of preserving its cultural heritage while balancing the demands of economic development through tourism. The findings show that the imposition of a dominant cultural definition of authenticity on Indigenous heritage sites by local government officials, favoring the tourism industry, has created tensions within the Cham community. This is perceived as a violation of their customary practices and cultural heritage, leading to the loss of authenticity.

It is crucial to acknowledge that this challenge is not limited to the Cham community in Vietnam, but is a common issue faced by many Indigenous communities globally. Hence, future research on heritage preservation must prioritize the expectations and needs of Indigenous communities, rather than imposing solutions from the top down. A key consideration in this regard is the idea of living heritage, which recognizes the importance of the continuity of cultural practices and spiritual beliefs of Indigenous communities.

This study makes a contribution to the field of heritage preservation by providing insights into the perceptions of marginalized communities towards the concept of authenticity. The results can serve as a reference for future research in similar fields and as a guide for policymakers and heritage experts who work to balance the demands of economic development with the preservation of cultural heritage. Furthermore, this study opens up avenues for further research on the relationship between dominant and marginalized cultural values at heritage sites, not just in the context of the Cham community in Vietnam, but also for Indigenous communities around the world. Future research could explore alternative approaches to preserving cultural heritage that prioritize the expectations and needs of Indigenous communities, rather than imposing solutions from the top down. Additionally, more research is needed to understand the effects of tourism on the authenticity of cultural heritage and the role that government officials, heritage experts, and Indigenous communities can play in finding a solution that balances economic development with cultural preservation.