Full text

Turn on search term navigation

1. Introduction

The UNESCO Dolmen (Goindol) heritage site in Korea includes three locations: Gochang and Hwasun (near Gwangju) in Jeollanamdo and one, Ganghwa, in Incheon. They represent parts of the southern Baekje and northern Goguryeo bronze age or neolithic cultures on the now-Korean peninsula. They connote various narratives based on an idealized concept of a long and ancient history of Korean national identity. They are a cultural synecdoche in which all the similar individual Dolmens combine to represent a single iconic type, the remnant of the physical remains of a neolithic culture. They are identified by their symbolic significance rather than their geographic distribution. They have been framed as an expression of the syncretic notion of a thing as both a form and an ideal [1].

Two potential problems for sustainability are found in the framing of this cultural heritage resource as a representation inscribed in the World Heritage List. First, some argue that there are conflicting interests in the protection and preservation of archaeological remains versus access through the development of such sites as attractions for tourism. Second, this heritage site includes three separate and unique locations in which the Dolmen are found, each with their own landscape and local community identity. Each has developed different variations of tourism attractions (although a common shared meta-narrative remains at the core of each location). Either problem can threaten the sustainability of these locations, e.g., by physical degradation of the Dolmens themselves (with unlimited and unregulated access) or by the failure of the tourism attraction (through bad management or market fluctuations) [2]. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (11.4) emphasize the importance of cultural aspects in balancing protection versus access. It notes that cultural heritage can be a driver for local governments and civil societies’ policy coherence [3].

Korea’s unique approach to cultural heritage sustainability includes top–down policy declarations from UNESCO and the State Authority and the participation of local citizens. The Dolmen sites represent imaginaries embedded in the environment that reinforce the identities of those who inhabit those spaces, namely the tourism attractions’ hosts [4,5]. They recognize that these tourism attractions cannot survive as strictly commercial entities dependent upon market demand. They require central government authority and heritage designation to be sustainable [6]. However, the gap between central government policy and local operations cannot be fully predicted or enforced. Instead, it resembles a chaordic management approach that includes both the chaotic and the ordered [7]. This concept refers to the idea that systematic and projective management does not necessarily predict or precede onsite problems. Instead, in Korea, arbitrary steps are taken at all levels to solve the most immediate or unexpected problems when they arise—a paradoxical mitigation that simulates simultaneous and sustainable governance and the co-production of heritage and tourism.

The purpose of this study is to explore the problems and potential benefits of the UNESCO-designated Dolmen sites that have also been developed as sustainable tourism attractions. The importance of this study for sustainability is that the topic of the Dolmen heritage site offers a unique view into the chaordic management style involved with cultural heritage management in Korea. It illustrates the multidimensionality of a single inscription of a heritage site that includes communities in three locations, embracing unique differences under a unifying local and national identity. And it demonstrates how semiotic analysis, driven by a constellation of traditional tourism theories and empirical fieldwork can identify the nuanced authenticity and sustainable role of heritage sites as both protected and accessible tourism attractions that maintain an unbroken and continuous link to the origins of a cultural identity in the neolithic past.

In this study, a historical overview of the ‘discovery’ of Dolmen in Korea is first outlined, alongside the State’s interests and their involvement, and how the three locations became inscribed. Second, three classic tourism theories are revisited to revitalize their explanatory value in social semiotics. These theoretical themes include dimensions of destination lifecycle [8], sense of place [9], and a semiotic of attractions [10]. Third, a Peircean [11] adaptation of social semiotic methodology using the mimetics of fieldwork is employed to seek out prominent features of the attractions, to identify them as denotative signs, and interpret them as connotative representations for Korean identity, tourism image, and cultural sustainability [12]. The convergence or collision of this entity, the ‘Dolmen UNESCO Heritage Sites/Tourism Attractions and Sights’ is explored. The goals of this study were to

Present an overview of the archaeological and political history of Dolmen remains up until their inscription as a UNESCO heritage site in 2000.

Review three classic theoretical themes in tourism, including ‘destination lifecycle’, ‘sense of place’, and ‘semiotic of attractions’, and their explanatory power for the cultural-heritage-based Dolmen tourism attractions.

Employ social semiotic methodology using fieldwork to study the denotative and connotative features of the three Dolmen sites/attractions.

Evaluate the ‘Dolmen UNESCO Heritage Sites/Tourism Attractions and Sights’ entity using semiotics methodology based on three classic tourism theoretical themes.

Propose theoretical and practical implications for World Heritage Sites and the sustainable management of tourism attraction sights.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Dolmen, Archaeology, the State, and UNESCO

2.1.1. Han Hŭng-Su’s ‘Genealogy of Discovery’

Dolmens are neolithic tombs found abundantly scattered across the Korean peninsula. A starting point on how the narrative on the Dolmen in Korea was framed begins with Han Hŭng-su’s work [13]. His legacy survives in the presentation of the Dolmen as a key element that connects neolithic culture to the modern Korean identity by framing his narrative as a kind of ‘genealogy of discovery’ [13,14]. He managed to organize some of the first excavations of Korean Dolmen sites [15,16]. He recounted acts of discovery by previous others as well as his own and described the Dolmen as consisting of ‘types’, including standing stones and other semi-buried stone cases, distributed toward the ‘north’ (into Manchuria, N.E. China) or ‘south’ (into Japan), demarked by the Han River. He also noted that they include a collection of things; Dolmens were found with fragments of human bones and ashes, stone arrowheads, crystal beads, copper swords, daggers, spearheads, axes, stone knives, copper plates, and red-colored ceramics, including ‘Moon Jars’.

He claimed (directly or indirectly) that they represent archaeological evidence of a continuous Korean history that dates to mythical Dan-gun origins prior to 2000 BC. And based on the distribution of the Dolmen sites, he suggested that Korea’s geographical borders originally extended further than the national borders of his day. Details of Han Hŭng-su’s genealogy of discovery and other facts are summarized in Table 1, including a map with the locations of the Dolmen clusters and Shilla remains, and a list of broad historical periods. He identified the denotative elements of the Dolmen by form and implied various connotative aspects of the megaliths as concretizing their role in the formation of a Korean identity. He all but guaranteed the sustainability of this iconic formation as an element of the State.

2.1.2. Archaeology of the Dolmen

Megalithic (neolithic) culture represented by the Dolmen in Korea followed Han’s interpretation of discovery, mapping, and categorization of types [13,14,17]. Later archaeological studies performed at various sites from 1961 to about 1983 turned to investigating the Dolmen and related materials from a social evolutionary approach or processual view, in which the megalithic culture was theoretically predetermined to have marked the origin of a ‘chiefdom society’ shaping the “inevitable development towards the ‘State’” [14,18]. In contrast to the hierarchy model, it was also argued that the culture(s) were egalitarian. Either way, archaeological speculation was stuck in the dualistic thinking of modeling the past on a contemporary Korean modern worldview [19] of society as being either hierarchical or egalitarian, with no other possibility in between. It was the approved ‘processual’ way of making sense of the past (to make it a reflection of the present), including speculation on political organization, production, and specialization.

By the 1990s and 2000s leading up to when Gochang, Hwasun, and Ganghwa were collectively designated as a single UNESCO heritage site, there was a new approach to interpreting the symbolic significance of the Dolmen. Archaeology was beginning to regard them as an active element contributing to the constitution of prehistoric society rather than a “passive indicator of past processes” [14]. In this view, the Dolmen represents aspects of ancient social practices. They were active facilitators of a past reality, evidenced by past societies’ interaction with certain materials and components. Dolmens were analyzed through their chaîne opératoire (operational chain) or the stages of production needed to build them [19]. The operational chain explained material culture as a structuring mechanism for the possibilities of bodily practice and the physical conditions of the Dolmen [20,21]. The State took both views—the processual view (emphasizing origins and historical continuity) and the structuring view (favoring technology and human choice)—as the foundation for a Korean meta-narrative on national supremacy and a claim to a long and unbroken historical identity. State policy influenced archaeological theory, which, in turn, supported state-intended outcomes. The megalithic sites were designated proof of a ‘Songgugni culture’ as the origins of society on the Korean peninsula [14], guaranteeing the sustainable preservation of the sites as critical to the identity of the state.

2.1.3. The State

The modern identity of Dolmens as heritage sites and sustainable tourism attractions has been argued to be the outcome of previous State actions, beginning with the military dictatorship by a coup d’etat from 1961 to 1988 and its centralized and authoritarian decision-making power [22]. In 1961, Park Chung Hee established the Cultural Properties Administration to control heritage law and made himself the head of it [23]. It was largely based on the previously established Japanese Cultural Protection Law [24], but certain favorite initiatives were favored by Park versus those of his successor, Chun Doo Hwan, contrasting their individual preferences and agendas. Park favored development in the southeast, initiating the Gyeongju cultural development project (1972–1979). He wanted international tourism development, and he viewed Gyeongju as a grand and impressive center of Korean cultural heritage. The area included massive tombs and other monumental structures and a wealth of artifacts, particularly the three golden crowns excavated there in the 1920s. They were ideal representations of a Korean ethnic national identity based on Songgugni culture [25]. Chun Doo Hwan favored the development of the southwest and used cultural development, in part, to rehabilitate his public image after the 1980 Gwangju Massacre. He supported the designation of the Gochang Dolmen site following excavations that had taken place in 1965 and 1983. The two sites, Gyeongju and the Dolmen, were inscribed as Korea’s first UNESCO World Heritage Sites in 2000.

3. UNESCO Designation

When UNESCO was founded in 1945 as an authenticating body for cultural heritage, Korea was among the first countries to join, in 1950. At that time, ‘culture’ in the anthropological sense was just taking hold among the public [26,27,28], and Korean authorities wanted supranational heritage organizations to recognize the state-established cultural authenticity of the Dolmen as a prehistorical-origin point for a Korean ‘Songgugni’ way of life [17], together with its long, unbroken, and pure history [29]. The emergent value of these properties had been growing through a negotiated consensus of the public concerning their identity with heritage and their utility in strengthening the nation state [30,31]. It was an issue closely related to the sustainability of Korean culture [32]. Environmentally responsible behavior started with the residents but extended to the visitors of these heritage sites. In this sense, the World Heritage title added an additional level of prestige to a property (as being grand and impressive) and contributed to a sustainable brand identity for tourism, a workable option based on the implied consent of residents and visitors [33]. The costs of heritage were left to the advisory bodies, established expert communities, and the public to sort out [34,35].

Conditions for the inscription of a UNESCO World Heritage Site are that its ownership is technically transferred to ‘the world’, that it must be conserved as a property with ‘outstanding universal value’, and that its ‘authenticity’ be maintained, essentially guaranteeing its sustainability [36]. However, the World Heritage Committee has no authority to enforce State authorities’ conservation promises, only to change the status of a site to ‘endangered’, or to remove the property from the list [37]. The Committee does not provide financial support to State entities, and there is no large-scale pooling of resources between States. It does, though, work as a counterbalance against social ‘enclosure’ or the exclusionary practice of identifying a thing as belonging only to a particular group. Otherwise, it encourages communities affected by the site designation to ‘edit’ their identity and relationship with the profile and contents of a site [38]. It is an act of ‘world-making’ [39], where the physical forms that make up the site are re-created as another thing in the mind—an image that can gain massive global attention by way of its official supranational designation [36]. A summary of some highlights of UNESCO’s organizational structure, World Heritage conventions, and other items are provided in Table 2.

The heritage value of the Dolmen sites in Korea was collectively established by archaeologists, by the declarations of State authorities, and by the will and sentiment of the public. In UNESCO’s view, authenticity is mostly determined simply by the act of the advisory body’s application for inscription. There are suggested guidelines (shown in Figure 1) for what properties’ qualifications are for ‘outstanding universal value’, but these are based on authenticity as a “trustworthy statement of fact” [40]. Alternatively, one place, by being designated significant, makes others ‘insignificant’, a definition by an arbitrary distinction [41]. Further, the authenticity of a heritage property can be fragmented (pieced together like an assemblage), contested (a process and product of political and ideological power), and performative (its location in the past or present is continuously negotiated) [40,42,43]. Or authenticity in heritage conservation is a ‘delusion’ in that it is not an absolute ‘value in its own right’ [44].

At its inception in Europe, UNESCO was informed by properties that were monumental (preferably made of stone rather than wood), permanent, hopefully ‘very old’, and well preserved. They were treasured legacies of “the past rather than a living expression of cultural vitality” [45]. After the 1994 Nara Document on Authenticity, the operational guidelines for determining what the ‘test of authenticity’ should include were expanded to include the reconstruction or restoration of buildings, as these actions work to preserve the successive historical layers of a property. This wider view on authenticity suggests that physical preservation of heritage properties is not considered to be necessarily more important than the preservation of the memory that makes way for new cultural representations and variations [46,47]. The UNESCO designation of the Dolmen sites in Korea technically allows for the movement and relocation of the megaliths and related items [35]. And, ostensibly, freedom for creative development of the sites as tourist attractions. In Figure 1, selected views of the Dolmens at each of the three sites are shown, as well as an assemblage at the National Museum of items found beneath them, and qualities of UNESCO World Heritage sites’ outstanding universal value are listed.

4. Classic Tourism Theoretical Themes

The three tourism attractions located at Hwasun, Gochang, and Ganghwa are attached to the Dolmen UNESCO heritage site and independently operated. This doubling effect (heritage site and tourism attraction) can be well interpreted through aspects of three traditional tourism theories, including the ‘Destination Lifecycle’, ‘Sense of Place’, and a ‘Semiotics of Attractions’. They each reveal a dimension of how Dolmens have been transformed from stone structures in geo-physical configurations of form (see Figure 2) into representational evidence of a Korean ideal, a ‘Songgugni’ identity, or way of life [17], and into tourism attractions. Part of the answer is that the addition of a UNESCO designation transfers a large portion of risk mitigation to government authorities [6,48], and local management need only present the historical narrative, topography, and recreational features to visitors in general conformity to UNESCO guidelines (see Figure 2).

The ‘Destination Lifecycle’ theory (tourism area lifecycle—or ‘tourist attraction’ lifecycle) refers to temporal stages of exploration, involvement, development, and consolidation. In maturity, there may be various additional stages of re-consolidation, stagnation, decline, and rejuvenation [8]. These stages are not necessarily consecutive and can overlap or occur concurrently [49]. But each stage may reveal different capacity thresholds, or operational cues, for policy makers and managers to act on ‘rejuvenation planning initiatives’ [50,51]. The attraction is almost always under threat from market demand and seasonal fluctuations and other wider effects, and decision makers must be constantly ready to re-brand, market, or re-position the tourism product to revitalize the business [8]. A commercial tourism enterprise is constantly aware of its two most important concerns: visitors and revenue. This subsistence living is a common problem for smaller commercial tourist attractions. Any physical development or expansion of facilities takes place in a disorganized fashion, and it shows in its appearance and mixed managerial styles [52]. And, at times, an attraction or tourism area may choose to partially or totally abandon tourism as an economic activity [53].

The ’Sense of Place’ theory describes the emotional and symbolic meanings that visitors find in their experience of a tourist attraction and its surroundings [9]. It defines an objective duality of experience, including its “interpretive perspective on the environment and the emotional reactions to the environment” [54,55]. It describes a phenomenological event disconnected from places by being a ‘single-use space’ [56]. Aesthetically, it is a sentimental view of the value of individual experience, including the affective (place attachment), cognitive (place identity), and conative (place dependence). The ideological or ontological problems of representation in place attachment or what a place may offer [57] are paired with the functional issues of peoples’ individual’s recognition of symbolic meanings ascribed to the attraction, in addition to those that are emotionally significant [58]. Both concerns attach to place dependence [59] or the social relations made by visitor experiences at the attraction, where relationships trump a place qua place [60]. Constructivist approaches, including social semiotics methodologies, view sense of place as irreducible to any set of universally defined physical attributes [58] and is, rather, self-defining [61,62].

The ‘Semiotics of Attractions’ theory is interesting because of the theoretical roots it has adapted to tourism, including notions from Goffman, Boorstein, and Simmel [10]. This thematic narrative describes an ‘opaque mirror’ that reflects the visitor’s idealized self as ‘other’ [63]. It temporarily expands the visitor’s identity and sense of self to include historical memories, epic events, and even social prestige that are more valued and valuable than the micro-narratives provided by tour guides and museum displays. It is an experience that is non-purchasable [64]. This theoretical theme is non-positivistic and unpredictable [59,61]. The ’semiotics of attractions’ is metaphorical. It describes a social establishment (like a tourist attraction) in terms of ‘regions’ where the performance is witnessed frontstage, by an audience of spectators, and backstage, where various supporting activities are carried out [65]. All this staging in social establishments with their separate areas of activity are, for tourism, not real events at all but, rather, ‘pseudo-events’ [66], because everyone knows they are not ‘real’. They are insubstantial or transitory and, on another level, if pseudo-events exist at all, they suggest that ‘real’ events exist elsewhere and are intended only for the elite [10]. So, behind this backstage is another (more) genuine back-stage [67,68]. And only the visitor will define their experience [69,70].

MacCannell [10] offers to decode Goffman’s space, Boorstin’s events, and Simmel’s special ordering of society in terms of a semiotic of sites and sights, site markers, and attractions [71]. In this view, there are theoretical layers (or principles) to the tourism encounter with an attraction-as-site. It is first encountered remotely as a representation or image through any of a series of offsite markers as it is projected via television, internet, print media, or by rumor. During the visit to an attraction, tourists experience ‘sight involvement’ (see ‘place identity’ and ‘place dependence’) satisfaction or disappointment in congruity to the projected image or the content of site markers. To MacCannell [10], markers are semiotic signs of various types, and they signify any number of things to visitors, and this is described as ‘sight involvement’. Among the various markers is the object itself (like the Dolmen), proof of a cultural object that resists nature and time and is a product of informational deterioration—a product of constructed recognition. Information about the object is the second marker, acting as sight displacement or identification or, when the marker supersedes the object itself, its significance. These can also be remote markers found onsite in gift shops, like souvenirs, to be collected and taken home [72]. They are mini-representations of the attraction. And the visitors themselves act as onsite markers, signifying that something is worth looking at. From a semiotic view, the tourism encounter is largely symbolic [10].

5. Methods and Analysis

This study employs social semiotic fieldwork methodology [11,73] with the goal of evaluating the ‘Dolmen UNESCO Heritage Sites/Tourism Attractions and Sights’ entity in terms of their various mimetic qualities. It is driven by a historical view on traditional tourism theory and full walkthroughs of all three sites with insights into sustainability. Semiotic observations and interpretation are framed by the three theoretical themes discussed previously. The goal is to offer readers a view into how traditional research is still foundational to any study on tourism sites today, and their related management issues and semiotics are powerful tools to operationalize theory [74]. Further, it should be recognized that semiotics needs a theoretical framework for the interpretation of signs.

The research study was conceptualized in August 2024, and fieldwork was performed from about October to December 2024. The mimetic process of the fieldwork was informed by informal post-fieldwork online searches (see Figure 3). The semiotic fieldwork was naturalistic and interpretive [75,76] but followed the principles of judgmental sampling [77]. However, in this case, the whole population of Dolmens contained in the research sites was known, so rather than a theoretical sampling, ultimately, a full census of the known and identified stones was visited as shown in the topographical maps generated in UNESCO surveys (Figure 2). A further onsite action performed during the fieldwork was the construction of an ad hoc tourism and UNESCO checklist documented in fieldnotes in real time. The essence of social semiotic research, as employed in this study, can be summarized as follows:

Social semiotics was performed through full walkthroughs at all three locations, including at museums and interpretive centers, activities, guided tours, concessionaires, and the Dolmens.

The social semiotics method focused on visual representations of the Dolmens, UNESCO influences, government authority, and community involvement.

Tools for fieldwork included a camera and notepad for fieldnotes.

Semiotic research is empirical, employing a mimetic approach (judgmental on the part of the researcher) to identify signs that stood out as signifying defining, contrasting, or theoretically relevant visual information at each location.

Onsite documentation of onsite observations with fieldnotes in real time.

No additional data such as interviews, surveys, or text analysis are included in this social semiotic fieldwork.

Social semiotic fieldwork must be based on the science of the sign and its signifying properties, including its denotative and connotative representations. Otherwise, the results would be an essay or interpretive opinion piece rather than empirical research.

Social semiotic fieldwork must also be based on theory (not opinion) that guides the judgment of the researcher toward meaningful representations.

Semiotic analysis focused the inquiry on some mysteries of the Dolmen, such as how these stones were found, quarried, and moved to their ultimate locations. This question, in turn, raises questions about how we view the capabilities of neolithic societies and their physical and cognitive problem-solving abilities. Theoretically, semiotics added value to this study by revisiting foundational research in tourism, especially in new contexts [78,79]. The visual approach to how Dolmens actually appear and, more importantly, how they are presented denotatively to the visitor and how they might determine the tourist experience was investigated [80]. Semiotics also operationally links the stones as physical entities to their historical interpretations and, finally, to their theoretical interpretation [81,82].

While visual, the presentation of semiotic analysis relies heavily on linguistic interpretation [83]. It needs language to interpret the visual representations, and that language must be based academically on theoretical narratives and their critical interpretation. In this case, the problem is in the policy and management of the tourism heritage site, and its contributions to tourism destination image [84]. These things are addressed in Section 6. Semiotics might reveal insights into how government and policy shape the presentation of the Dolmen as a cultural heritage property through their structuration as tourism attractions [85] and to what degree they are representations of national supremacy, patriotism, and ethnic identity to certain audiences [86] or representations of a past that may have never existed [87]. The semiotic methodology is summarized in Table 3.

Table 3

Semiotic methodology.

Method Gochang Hwasun Ganghwa
Sampling Purposive: Preliminary online background research including UNESCO topographical surveys.Comprehensive: Full fieldwork walkthrough at all three sites, gathering photos and other materials.
Coding and Collection: Signs as data—conceptualized August 2024, completed by December 2024.
Signs as data Post hoc online image search confirming morphology and presentation of the Dolmen.See ad hoc checklist (Table 4).
Semiotic sign interpretation:
Denotative Forms analogical to reality interpreted as physical entities:Museums and interpretive centers, guided tours, activities, concessionaires, and the Dolmen.
Connotative Interpretive Analysis ‘Dolmen UNESCO Heritage Sites/Tourism Attractions and Sights’Supplemental to reality, interpreted theoretically as ideals.Specifically interpreted as seen through the lenses of traditional ideas like:‘Destination Lifecycle’,‘Sense of Place’, and a‘Semiotics of Attractions’
Synecdoche Gochang,Dolmen No. 2419 † Hwasung,Pingmaebawi Dolmen † Ganghwa,Dolmen No. 18 †

* Note: seeking significance in visual signs. ‘Modality’: the reality value of the sign—naturalistic/mimetic value in form or in ideological claims. ‘Function’: the utilitarian process oriented to ensure that each semiotic element makes a specific contribution to the whole. ‘Meaning’: the product of linguistic interpretation. Additionally, categorization of types—as mutually exclusive and exhaustive—may inform the fieldwork process. † See Figure 2.

Table 4

Fieldwork site survey emergent checklist, with a view to maintaining sustainable cultural heritage tourism attractions.

Decision 24 COM X.C.1 Id. No: 977State Party: Republic of Korea Gochang Hwasun Ganghwa
Universal HeritageUNESCO Criterion (iii):‘Global prehistoric phenomenon’ YY YY YY(Original inscription site)
Stones defined, typologies with morphologyScattered or clusteredProminent singular stones based on size act as each location’s semiotic synecdoche YClusteredY YClusteredY YScattered clustersY
   UNESCO Criterion (iii) ActionsTopographical mapsInventory and numbering with markersIntegrity of the sites (origins, history)Authenticity (untouched and intact)     UNESCO Protection and ManagementProtected: Ensuring buffer zonesProtected: Fenced with signsDevelopment and interventionOpen to the public, belonging to all:     hospitality to visitorsResponsible party (policy, funding):     Korea Cultural Heritage Administration Y (1999)YYYYYNot observedYY Y (1999)YYYYYNot observedYY Y (1999)YYYRemote sites, natural buffersYNot observedYY
     Local management actionsProvide information to visitorsMaps, pamphlets, literatureMini-bus and guideFences, paths, and accessScientific researchSite physical maintenance—landscaping Routing visitors with paths, signage, access roads, interpretationPublic awareness:     Community involvement     Festivals and events     Activities for visitors     Offsite markers     Logoization (inc. mascots)     Souvenirs Dolmen Museum—goodGood, multilingualGoodYN/AYYYYNYNN Site protection pavilionOne pamphletExcellentYN/AYYYYGoodYNN History Museum—poorPoorNPoor—remote sites, no mapN/AYOnly museum site adjacentYNNNNN
NOTES:A unique chaordic management style is evident at the Dolmen Heritage locations:  The influence of UNESCO and the responsible party is evident in the regulation of the site.  Each location conforms to policy, but the character and culture of the community is evident in their management.  Visitors can enjoy an authentic experience of Dolmen cultural heritage whether they visit one location or all three.Sustainability:  All locations are guaranteed tourism attraction sustainability by UNESCO and the central government authority, not just by tourism market demand.  All locations’ management and staff are highly motivated to ensure the representation of cultural continuity of the Dolmen—from the Neolithic to the present day and for future generations.
        Role of the CommunityDolmen site characterized by the following: Hiring localsEnsuring cultural continuity over time:     Festivals, events, and other activitiesRepresentations in the communityPlanning and design:Layers of site management over time(new markers, paths, markers added but do not replace their previous versions) Interpretative siteYYYGoodY Experience-oriented siteYYYGoodY Integrated into the communityNYYGoodY
   Role of the National Museum:Only a few iron and bronze artifacts related to the Dolmen on display from the Baekje Kingdom region/era, including ‘hooks’ (see Figure 1). Locations of all items unclear
Sites Surveyed in This Study
Gochang: site and buffer zones.    Includes 447 Dolmens located along lower mountain slopes.   Surveyed: AllHwasun: site and buffer zone.   Includes: 597 Dolmens located in the Bogeomjae Valley.   Surveyed: All Ganghwa: scattered clusters.   Includes: 127 Dolmens on flat and mountainous land.   Surveyed: Clusters in Osang-ri; Mangwol-ri; Gocheon-ri; Bugeun-ri (Aretmal, Hado-ri, museum site, and Tampang-gil’s single large megalith).

Source: Author, based on fieldwork and UNESCO Criterion (iii) actions; https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/977/ (accessed on 24 June 2025).

6. Results

6.1. Denotative Semiotic Representations

The ‘Dolmen UNESCO Heritage Sites/Tourism Attractions and Sights’ are defined collectively by three self-representational entities of geographically and separate administrative areas, including the Gochang site and buffer zones (including 447 Dolmens located along the lower mountain slopes), the Hwasun site and buffer zone (with 597 Dolmens located in the Bogeomjae Valley), and the Ganghwa site, with scattered clusters throughout the island (127 Dolmens on flat and mountainous land) (see Figure 2). They drew public attention,) in the publishing a ‘genealogy of discovery’ [13] (summarized previously in Table 1 and Table 3). They are also defined as socially significant locations through presidential declarations and political mandates; without such actions, they would undoubtedly be nothing more than obscure archaeological places known only to small special-interest groups. They are considered important as projected by the Korea Cultural Heritage Administration and partnership with UNESCO. Additionally, they are tourism attractions to be maintained by Criterion (iii) under the mandate of site integrity [22]. It was observed in the fieldwork process that these sites were made accessible to the public physically and through a cohesive narrative (paths, signs, interpretive literature, mini-buses and local guides, and museum exhibits) (see Table 2 and Figure 1 and Figure 2). They worked to maintain cultural continuity with the past and connection with the present, involving the local community, hiring local employees, and hosting various festivals, events, and other activities [19]. Representations of the Dolmen are also found throughout communities in the form of photographs, replicas, and various business-related logos, tying them to the sites’ identities [72].

6.2. Connotative Semiotic Representations

The Dolmens sell a megalithic culture that indicates a ‘major center’ of, ostensibly, the core and origin point of a modern Korean cultural identity signified by their physical forms [22]. There are also esoteric theories like East Asian feng shui and geomancy, astronomy and astrology, and worship rituals and the regeneration of human souls, and there are also more contemporary academic interpretations based on the conceptualization of the operational chain regarding the manipulation of materials and construction of the megaliths [17,88]. These points suggest that semiotic evidence of cultural representation is found as much, or more, in the mythological connotations shared in collective beliefs or meaning-making in the culture of contemporary society [89] or that symbolic symbols sufficiently embody representations of the continuity of a pure and long history [29,90]. These connotations push back against the UNESCO priorities of physical conservation and preservation of heritage sites and the requirements for structured access for the public as tourist attractions. Museums and cultural attractions face the challenge of maintaining collections of original artifacts representing typologies and the archaeological evidence of the ‘operational chain’ while recognizing that some objects can be accepted as ‘iconic’, where one sign can signify all and all signs signify one, whether they are original or not. In this sense, “the most Korean thing is the most ubiquitous thing” (가장 한국적인 것이 세계적이다) [29]. They are concerned with a single entity, but under UNESCO, a narrative of ‘how many’ and ‘how many types’, rather than ‘which one’, is the authentic prototype [47,91]. The dualistic offering of the tourism/UNESCO sites is summarized in the ad hoc checklist formed during onsite fieldwork, as shown in Table 4.

6.3. A New Semiotic of Attractions

The Korea Cultural Heritage Administration is concerned with achieving and sustaining the conservation goals of UNESCO, even if only in name [17]. They are not interested in any trans-national or global narrative concerning megalithic culture, only in constructing a link to Korea’s cultural past. After the achievement of UNESCO status in 2000 (to boost Korea’s international image), the strategic purchase of some land and the removal of its residents, and the construction of museums, interpretive centers, signs and markers, and some secondary roads, the central government’s job is complete, and the sites are considered self-sustaining. But communities are committed to the Dolmen attractions for some local employment and to enjoy, to some degree, the expression of local identity. Some theoretical insights can be gained from the previous three tourism theories discussed in the Literature Review. In considering the Dolmen sites as a new semiotic of attractions, the fusion of classic tourism theories including the ‘Destination Lifecycle’, ‘Sense of Place’, and a ‘Semiotics of Attractions’, can drive a social semiotics method to document and interpret the signs that signify the simultaneous management of a heritage site/tourism attraction. It would be of interest to know how government authority and local identity co-exist (with their different agendas) in the paradoxical and chaordic, yet sustainable, management of the Dolmen locations.

The ‘Destination Lifecycle’ theory illustrates some of the operational conditions at the Dolmen tourism attractions. The three Dolmen cultural heritage tourism attractions, Gochang, Hwasun, and Ganghwa, since their UNESCO designation in 2000, have not been concerned with determining the absolute quantity of visitors needed to meet their carrying capacity. They have not been concerned with re-consolidation actions [51] needed to offset stagnation and decline if visitors and revenue fail to meet operating costs [50]. They hover somewhere concurrently among the tourism lifecycle stages [8,49]. However, maintenance and development still seem to be haphazard rather than a product of strategic actions to control visitor and revenue growth [53]. There is no evidence of a clear vision for future development as the sites enjoy some guarantee of survival under the UNESCO designation. There is, however, at the local level, a suggestion of low-key differences of opinion in the haphazard development of the attractions that maintain “constituent elements” only loosely linked in a logical configuration [48,52]. But it is evident that the community and staff are enthusiastic about ensuring cultural continuity, a key condition of the UNESCO agreement. They put effort into site tours, festivals and activities, and exhibits, with each location expressing its own unique take on the Dolmen narrative and their physical protection (see Table 4).

The ‘Sense of Place’ theory addresses the phenomenological qualities of a tourism attraction. At the Dolmen UNESCO cultural heritage tourism attractions, evidence of place attachment, identity, and dependence is found in denotative and connotative semiotic signs and what they represent. The physical presence of the Dolmen is the foundation of a sense of place [92]. But the authority of the State [23] in establishing the Cultural Properties Administration, identifying the cultural value of the Dolmen, and winning the UNESCO inscription is flagged all over the tourism attractions in signs and markers, commemorative plaques, logos, banners, sponsorships, and in roads, paths, and fences, implying place identity or cognitive recognition among visitors that State sponsorship guarantees the authenticity of the attractions. Place attachment stems from that recognition of authority guiding the management of the Dolmen and is marked by the sentimental or affective sense of patriotism and cultural pride that is represented in the unbroken history, from prehistoric times, of a Korean ‘Songgugni’ way of life [13,29]. Visitors are reminded of this by the enthusiasm of site interpreters, activities, and themed festivals and events. In this cognitive and affective mix, visitors achieve emotionally significant and unique individual experiences [58]. In groups, visitors find conative, place-dependent, or self-defining experiences when they share a tour bus with others or participate in certain themed experiences led by staff members. These experiences are unique and transient because the participants, their combined moods at the time, and other conditions are unique [57]. Place identity is not provided; it is phenomenologically achieved [59].

The ‘Semiotics of Attractions’ theory [10] is not so much a theory but a combining and reinterpretation of previous notions adapted to tourism. It includes, indirectly, many of the elements of the ‘Sense of Place’ theory. The role of signs and markers is emphasized (see ‘place identity’), and the thematic narrative that describes an ‘opaque mirror’ reflecting visitor’s idealized self as ‘other’ [63] (see ‘place attachment’). That the experience is non-purchasable, unpredictable and self-defining is notably the same as the definition of the conative dimension in the ‘Sense of Place’ theory [64]. But MacCannell’s real contribution to tourism theory is that it is conceptualized as being metaphorical; that tourism attractions approach but never reach the real, which is intended, abstractly, only for the social elite [10]. The visitor can have a highly valued aesthetic, cognitive, or conative experience onsite, but they cannot purchase it and take it home. Tourism attractions, like the three Dolmen locations in Korea, are like a Russian doll, or the layers of an onion. The outermost layer includes the visitors’ preconceptions or knowledge of the attraction [91]. The next layer is a ‘pseudo-event’ [66] in the museum or interpretive center or at the ticket booth. ‘Real events’, another layer, is found in activities or themed festivals or tours. Behind the backstage is yet another layer, a ‘more genuine’ backstage, the actual physical Dolmen [93]. But even these are not real. They are remnants of an imagined chaîne opératoire, a social reality that might have existed thousands of years ago [19].

Dolmens are deep-seated representations of Korean cultural identity administrated by a government authority, regulated by UNESCO, and managed by the local community. Their iconic images are found online and on broadcast media, and they are easily accessible as tourism attractions. They are, collectively, a synecdoche of cultural heritage. Dolmen tourism attractions offer a metaphorical performance on a stage. This type of experience is found in various iterations in Gochang and Hwasun, but not in Ganghwa. At these two attractions, ‘pseudo-events’ provide all the furnishings of a good touristic diversion with a range of experiences [65,66]. They are curated by markers that indicate a conative sense of place [93]. In Ganghwa, the Dolmen are scattered all over the island and deeply embedded in the community identity. They are features of the island that loosely make up a more informal, embedded attraction.

Some observations documented during fieldwork at the three locations can be briefly recounted here. All sites include a symbolic front gate or entrance markers, and decorative effects are found onsite. In Gochang, the entryway is marked with a Dolmen that has been moved, and the front gate Dolmen at Hwasun is a stone marker made to look like a Dolmen, with ‘Hwasun Dolmen Site’ and the UNESCO logo carved into it. In Hwasun, a museum and a Dolmen cluster are found on the side of the main road entering the island. Gochang has a nice museum with good exhibits, including the diorama shown in Figure 2 depicting the imagined neolithic origins of Korea’s hierarchical society. Hwasun has no museum, but there is an interpretive site adjacent to the main gate where various interactive activities can be experienced. In Ganghwa, there is a museum of natural history and a history museum adjacent to a prominent megalith site, but it is a multipurpose venue where not much is displayed regarding Dolmen neolithic culture. Many Dolmens were moved or relocated for the sake of display or for marking the new grounds of the cultural heritage site. All three sites seem to exist as barely cohesive units held together by the Korean UNESCO Advisory Body and the local community. But they all reflect the values embraced by heritage sites and responsible tourism for sustainability [94]. Some details regarding the findings are shown in Figure 3. A summary of denotative and connotative semiotic representations is presented, along with connotative semiotic findings associated with traditional tourism theory, in Table 5.

7. Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to examine Korea’s Dolmen UNESCO Heritage Sites/Tourism Attractions, employing social semiotics fieldwork based on classic tourism theories, namely ‘Destination Lifecycle’ [8], ‘Sense of Place’ [9], and the ‘Semiotics of Attractions’ [10]. This study contributes to heritage sustainability and tourism sustainability by employing this theoretical interpretation, using semiotics to identify the denotative and connotative signs that represent the value of the heritage sites for culture and tourism [48]. It was found that the three Dolmen locations at Gochang, Hwasong, and Ganghwa—designated officially as a single UNESCO heritage site—signify a variety of meanings. For archaeology, they represent a ‘genealogy of discovery’ [13] or an operational chain [19]. For the State, they represent evidence of national supremacy and an unbroken history based on the philosophy of ‘Songgugni’ culture [14]. For tourism, the Dolmen sites contribute to the national destination imagery by earning a UNESCO cultural heritage designation and conforming to its ‘qualities of universal value’ [17,23]. A connotative message is also found: how there is, evidently, a gap between state and intergovernmental organizations and the interests of local onsite community-based management of the three sites as tourism attractions. One seeks the preservation of the Dolmens as a representation of cultural identity, while the other seeks to exploit the sites for their recreational and entertainment value. From the Korean perspective, these are not contradictory ends but uniquely paradoxical ways to mitigate different world views through chaordic management, each completing each other [7]. The Dolmen may be ultimately seen simply as an affordance for accomplishing immediate goals [95], where an ‘authentic’ original is not necessarily as important as its iconic identity [29], but surprisingly, the narratives at Dolmen attractions are filled with a conversation of ‘how many’ and ‘how many types’ rather than asking ‘which one’ is the authentic prototype [45] and what kind of experiences (aesthetic, cognitive, or conative) are available to the visitor. But in the sustainability view, tourism has been rooted in the idea from three perspectives, including conservation, community vision, and economic theory. It is completely dependent upon a universal view of the importance of a heritage site, namely, in this situation, the Dolmen [96] as a semiotic event [97]. The main contribution and importance of this study is the presentation of a ‘whole story’ that, if replicated at other similar sites, can provide more insight for UNESCO Advisory Experts into regional disparities in views on tourism as either a threat or a step to sustainability [98].

8. Implications

Theoretical implications for tourism suggest that classic tourism theories like ‘Destination Lifecycle’, ‘Sense of Place’, and a ‘Semiotics of Attractions’ include constructs that can be employed in combination to explain or describe fundamental operational and experiential issues of tourism attractions. They also indicate how complex an attraction is as an entity. Attractions are not only an economic enterprise; they include cultural and political aspects [6,8,53]. They identify how sentimental and value-based experiences can connect people and the tourism landscape together emotionally, cognitively, and socially [9]. But they need some level of demarcation or marking to facilitate individual experiences [56]. In this study, these were used to form a theoretical framework to support a social semiotic fieldwork method to document and interpret the significance of signs found mimetically at the three independent tourism attractions involved with the Dolmen UNESCO heritage site, located in the communities of Hwasun, Gochang, and Ganghwa in Korea. Together, the theory and method contribute to the field, suggesting that as tourism attractions, these three locations have not been concerned with survival, based on the fluctuations in visitors and revenue. They exist somewhere among Butler’s stages concurrently [49], with their permanent operations guaranteed by the UNESCO designation and State authorities’ policy. Local management invests its unique cultural identity into the attractions by maintaining Korean cultural continuity of the Dolmen neolithic culture by providing activities that meet the experiential needs of visitors [9,56].

Practical implications for tourism management indicate that chaordic and paradoxical mitigation for the accomplishment of immediate goals is a highly successful approach for some destinations. It works in Korea in the administration of the Dolmen cultural heritage sites by holding together the UNESCO vision on the ‘universal value’ of heritage [30], the State authority’s policy and vision, and the needs, wants, and unique identities of the local communities that operate the tourism attractions. UNESCO’s official supranational designation [36] oversees conformity by solving or correcting micro-problems rather than maintaining a projective and predictive policy management system in the abstract [7]. This approach is strengthened by the UNESCO Nara Document and the 2003 Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage that grants greater interpretive freedom to member states’ inscribed sites. UNESCO world heritage inscriptions now include not only the European view of heritage as ‘very old and well preserved’ but also heritage as relativistic and representative of a cultural legacy or icon (rather than as an item) [45]. This wider focus allows for more attention to be given to cultural sustainability in tourism at UNESCO sites by allowing managers and staff to focus on experiential values that contribute to a guarantee of cultural appreciation and its preservation for future generations [99].

9. Limitations and Future Research

The Dolmen, conceptualized as a semiotic of attractions, achieves theoretical and methodological deployment with empirical results. This study illustrates the operationalization of classic tourism theory and semiotic methodology, revealing insights into sustainable chaordic management [7] of this Korean UNESCO heritage site. The limitations of a social semiotic research approach begin with its dependence on the researcher’s ability to interpret the significance of semiotic signs objectively with methodological rigor [83,84]. The difficulty in balancing an interpretive narrative with the objective documentation of significant semiotic signs and what they signify denotatively and connotatively requires active fieldwork and mimetic observations informed and fully saturated in a pre-determined and appropriate theoretical framework (see Table 3). Another limitation is that the social semiotic method seeks out signs that indirectly signify the benefits and problems associated with Heritage Site management and the involvement of community and national cultural identity. It is not equipped to directly explore how the conditions onsite appear in the eyes and voices of local stakeholders. A third limitation is generalizability. Social semiotics research does not generate data that can be universally applied to any or all other similar situations. Its findings do not explain any universal understanding of the workings of tourism attractions.

Future research can deploy other semiotic methodologies, such as structural semiotics, which works by sorting, categorizing, and analyzing large sets of visual or verbal signs as data to reveal representational typologies of semiotic signs. In addition, forms of micro-research, including site surveys, visitor opinion surveys, Q method, and online research, can be deployed to fill in the gaps concerning the subjectivities of residents, staff, tourists, and policy makers, through their eyes and voices, concerning their perceptions of the specific economic and social benefits associated with the Dolmen Heritage Sites and tourism attractions (see Table 4) [6,8]. These types of studies can offer deeper contextualization to help tourism decision makers to employ better management strategies at specific heritage tourism attractions. While these conventional positivist approaches often include a degree of statistical generalizability, social semiotics is a non-generalizable methodology; however, it can be replicated [75]. Replication is a test of reliability, which enables us to see if similar outcomes occur in other similar research contexts. Social semiotics is a constructivist methodology, meaning that it does not work to pose and then reject or fail to reject any specific hypotheses. It presents a ‘whole story’ in a specific social context, [83] and if replicated, those emergent stories can be shared and compared [100].

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

 Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

 Correction Statement

This article has been republished with a minor correction to the Data Availability Statement. This change does not affect the scientific content of the article.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1 Dolmens, assemblages at the National Museum, and UNESCO qualities of outstanding value. Source: Photos by author [30].

Figure 2 Three Dolmen sites as UNESCO Heritage tourism attractions and topographical maps. Sources: Photos by author; UNESCO topographical maps; https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/977/maps/ (accessed on 24 June 2025).

Figure 3 Site markers offsite (first row) and onsite. Source: Photos by author.

Map, terminology, and chronologies.

[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]
          Archaeological Sites  Dolmen clusters and artifacts

Ganghwa (Gyeonggi-Do)

Gochang (Jeollanam-Do)

Hwasun (Jeollanam-Do)

Shilla remains

Gyeongju (Gyeongsangbuk-Do)

             MEGALITH: 3 TYPES Dolmen: Goindol 고인돌 or ‘Dsisök’ ‘Menhir’: Standing stonesStone cases: Sunken boxes lined with stones		                                                                                    Political Demarcation                                                  ‘North’ (to Manchuria) vs. ‘South’ (to Japan) NeolithicNorth: Ganghwa, North (Gyeonggi-Do)—Goguryeo KingdomSouthwest: Favored by Chun Doo Hwan                                  Gochang and Hwasun: Honam region (Jeolla-Do)—Baekje KingdomSoutheast: Favored by Park Chung Hee (Gyeongju historic areas)                                      Gyeongju: Yongnam region (Gyeongsang-Do)—Shilla Kingdom
          Historical Periods   4000 years of continuous Korean HistoryNeolithic or the Dan-gun period, 2000 B.C.Megalithic/Bronze age culture:   Songgugni way of life

‘Chiefdom’ vs. ‘Egalitarian’ society

 Three Kingdoms Period (57BC–917AD)

Goguryeo, Shilla, Baekje

 Goryeo Dynasty (918–1392)

Yongnam and Honam (respectively)

 Joseon Dynasty (1392–1910)

Gyeongsang and Jeolla (respectively)

Japanese occupation, modern South Korea

                                                                                    Dolmen ‘Genealogy of Discovery

I Sang-Guk visits a ‘Dsisök’, says ‘built by wise men in primeval times’.

W.R. Carles, British consul in Seoul, mentions Dolmen in travel accounts.

W. Gowland, British explorer, travels from Japan to investigate the Dolmen. Late 1800s to early 1900s Other less well-regarded European accounts follow.

R. Torii, Japanese prehistorian, in 1909, surveys Southern Manchuria and the Korean peninsula Dolmen sites. His findings are translated into French ‘in order to enable European experts to read it’.

Han Hŭng-su explores and ‘discovers’ the Dolmen for himself.

Park Chung Hee establishes the Cultural Properties Administration.

Dolmen excavations are made.

The following are designated as UNESCO World Heritage Sites:

Gochang, Hwasun, and Ganghwa Dolmen sites (Map areas 1,2, and 3).

Gyeongju historic areas (Map area 4)

Source: https://whc.unesco.org/en/ (accessed on 24 June 2025)

Source: Adapted from Han, 2012 [13]; Ko, 2007 [14]; Map building, https://snazzymaps.com/editor (accessed on 20 June 2025).

UNESCO brief summary.

 UNESCO   United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization Advisory Bodies ICOMOS   The International Council on Monuments and Sites  IUCN   The International Union for Conservation of Nature ICCROM   The International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property                                                                         Organizational StructureUNESCO headquarters in Paris hosts the World Heritage Centre.World Heritage Committee and Advisory Bodies.World Heritage Convention: An international treaty with governing bodies.State Authorities: Nation states with UNESCO properties.State Delegations: career diplomats, officials from ministries, and public agencies dealing with cultural and natural heritage and other UNESCO concerns, and representatives from World Heritage properties and candidate sites.
                                                                                                   Selected World Heritage Conventions and Other Items

(November 16, London): UNESCO founded.

1946 China joined UNESCO. 1985: ratified the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.

Korea joined UNESCO. 1954: Korean National Commission for UNESCO established. 1963: “Act on UNESCO Activities” passed.

Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.

Defines cultural property as “movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people” from an historical, artistic, or archaeological point of view.

UNESCO “World Heritage Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage”.

Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage, known as the World Heritage Convention—aims to identify, protect, conserve and present properties of “outstanding universal value” (OUV).

ICOMOS Venice Charter—architectural conservation protocol.

World Heritage List.

Defined criteria for the inclusion of cultural property, including “meeting the test of authenticity in design, materials, workmanship, and setting”.

UNESCO “Nara Document on Authenticity”.

The “respect due to all cultures requires that heritage properties must be considered and judged within the cultural contexts to which they belong”.

“Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced, and Credible World Heritage List”.

UNESCO Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.

Korea’s Gochang, Hwasun, and Ganghwa Dolmen sites inscribed.

UNESCO Convention for the “Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage”.To “enshrine and preserve exemplars of the intangible heritage of humanity”.

World Heritage Operational Guidelines document.

Monuments may be understood to meet the conditions of authenticity if their cultural values are truthfully and credibly represented. Outstanding Universal Value is re-defined/refined.

Sources: Adapted from Brumann, 2018 [34]; https://whc.unesco.org/en/ (accessed on 24 June 2025).

Korean Dolmen semiotics and sustainability.

Denotative semiotics of the Dolmen—as Heritage Notes:
The iconic form of the Dolmen:The symbolic form of the Dolmen:The indexical form of the Dolmen:

Probably once covered in earth and containing the buried body and various objects. The exposed stones today are not an exact representation of the original. But it is the contemporary UNESCO icon for the Heritage sites.

A national heritage property, further authenticated by UNESCO designation. A representation of national identity and cultural supremacy.

The iconicity of the stone Dolmen today represents 4000 years of the effects of the elements, re-forming it into its current state. It is now re-formed by curation with paths and numbered plates.
Connotative semiotics of the Dolmen—as Heritage Notes:
The iconic identity of the Dolmen:The symbolic identity of the Dolmen:The indexical identity of the Dolmen:

Established by early researchers and national policy and by the promise of a supranational identity.

President Kim moved to submit the Dolmen sites and Gyeongju to UNESCO as symbols of Korean historical identity.

The 4000 years of an unbroken Korean culture epitomized as ‘Songgugni culture’.
Connotative semiotics of the Dolmen—for Tourism and Sustainability Notes:
Sense of PlaceDestination LifecycleSemiotics of Attractions

Visitors feel an emotional and symbolic attachment to the tourism attraction, and it is infused with a sense of cultural and national identity.

There is a sustainable sense of security in these tourism attractions based on government, extraterritorial, and commercial support.

The Dolmen sites are deeply symbolic of Korean culture and identity. They represent an experience that indigenous visitors recognize as an idealized sense of self and belonging to Koreaan culture. It is a non-denotative and non-purchasable experience but is perceived as permanent furniture in the country’s landscape.

1. Luo, Y.; Hunter, W.C. A semiology of representations in tourism destination image: Social construction of a Korean Hallyu narrative. J. Tour. Cult. Change; 2024; 22, pp. 421-437. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2024.2402851]

2. Saarinen, J. Traditions of sustainability in tourism studies. Ann. Tour. Res.; 2006; 33, pp. 1121-1140. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2006.06.007]

3. Dans, E.P.; González, P.A. Sustainable tourism and social value at World Heritage Sites: Towards a conservation plan for Altamira, Spain. Ann. Tour. Res.; 2019; 74, pp. 68-80. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2018.10.011]

4. Alvarado-Ramírez, D.F.; Manjarrez, P.L.; García, J.T.S.; Cruz-Cárdenas, G.; Tejeda, P.G. Cultural heritage and lacustrine landscape conservation: The case of “Procession of the Wise Men” in Cajititlán, Jalisco. Sustainability; 2025; 17, 6047. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su17136047]

5. Terkenli, T.S.; Georgoula, V. Tourism and Cultural Sustainability: Views and Prospects from Cyclades, Greece. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 307. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14010307]

6. Andrianto, T.; Kusumah, A.H.G. The journey of mapping the entire destination lifecycle. J. Kepariwisataan Destin. Hosp. Dan Perjalanan; 2021; 5, pp. 10-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.34013/jk.v5i1.278]

7. Olmedo, E.; Mateos, R. Quantitative characterization of chaordic tourist destination. Tour. Manag.; 2015; 47, pp. 115-126. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.09.011]

8. Butler, R.W. The Concept of a Tourist Area Cycle of Evolution: Implications for Management of Resources. Can. Geogr./Géographies Can.; 1980; 24, pp. 5-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.1980.tb00970.x]

9. Relph, E.C. Place and Placelessness; Pion Limited: London, UK, 1976.

10. MacCannell, D. The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class; University of California Press: Oakland, CA, USA, 2013.

11. Peirce, C.S. Philosophical Writings of Peirce; Dover Publications: Garden City, NY, USA, 1955.

12. Soini, K.; Dessein, J. Culture-Sustainability relation: Towards a conceptual framework. Sustainability; 2016; 8, 167. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su8020167]

13. Han, H. The Neolithic Culture of Korea (1940). R. Asiat. Soc. Korea Branch; 2012; 87, pp. 15-34.

14. Ko, I. Constructing Bronze Age Lives: Social reproduction and the construction and use of dolmen burials from the Yongdam complex in Jinan, southern Korea. Doctoral Dissertation; University of Sheffield: Sheffield, UK, 2007.

15. Löwensteinová, M. Han Hŭng-su—Father of Czechoslovak Korean Studies; Nova vlna: Prague, The Czech Republic, 2014.

16. Chun, K.S. 평양정권이 숙청한 인류학자 한흥수 (韓興洙, 1909∼?): 굴절과 파행의 ‘고려인류학 (高麗人類學)’. 근대서지; 2015; 11, pp. 390-465. (In Korean)

17. Nesterkina, A.L.; Portnova, A.A.; Fedorova, A.A.; Yondri, L. The megalithic tradition of East and Southeast Asia. Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia; 2022; 50, pp. 39-48. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17746/1563-0110.2022.50.3.039-048]

18. Rhee, S.N. Emerging Complex Society in Prehistoric Southwest Korea; University of Oregon: Eugene, OR, USA, 1984.

19. Bae, C.J.; Kim, B. Korean Prehistory: Current Perspectives. Asian Perspect.; 2015; 54, pp. 1-10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/asi.2015.0007]

20. Barrett, J.C. A perspective on the early architecture of western Europe. Constructing Power: Architecture, Ideology and Social Practice; Maran, J. Lit Verlag: Münster, Germany, 2006; pp. 15-30.

21. Barrett, J.C. Archaeology as the investigation of the contexts of humanity. Deconstructing Context: A Critical Approach to Archaeological Practice; Papaconstantinou, D. Oxbow Books: Oxford, UK, 2006; pp. 194-211.

22. Zoh, M. The Impacts of Authorised Dictatorial Discourse on Heritage Management-Case study: South Korea’s Military Dictatorship Era 1961–1988. Doctoral Dissertation; University of Cambridge: Cambridge, UK, 2018.

23. Yu, S.H. Hyeonjang Sokui Munhwajae Jeongchaek [Cultural Heritage Policy in the Field]; Minsokwon: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2004.

24. Lee, H. Dealing with Difficult Heritage: South Korea’s response to Japanese Colonial Architecture. Doctoral Dissertation; University of Cambridge: Cambridge, UK, 2015.

25. Jang, S.H. A representation of nationhood: The National Museum of Korea. Doctoral Dissertation; University of Leicester: Leicester, UK, 2015.

26. Lurie, E.; Stocking, G.W. Race, Culture, and Evolution: Essays in the History of Anthropology. J. Am. Hist.; 1970; 56, 943. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1917575]

27. Kroeber, A.L.; Kluckhohn, C. Culture A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions; Vintage Books: New York, NY, USA, 1952.

28. Tylor, E.B. Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Art, and Custom; J. Murray: London, UK, 1974; Volume 1.

29. Hahn, G.S. Korean Museums, Intangible Heritage, and the formation of national identity. Doctoral Dissertation; University of Leicester: Leicester, UK, 2022.

30. Labadi, S. UNESCO, Cultural Heritage, and Outstanding Universal Value: Value-Based Analyses of the World Heritage and Intangible Cultural Heritage Conventions; Rowan & Littlefield: New York, NY, USA, 2013.

31. Smith, L. Uses of Heritage; Routledge: Oxford, UK, 2006; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203602263]

32. Alvarado-Sizzo, I. Spatial representations, heritage and territorial-synecdoche in contemporary tourism. Tour. Geogr.; 2021; 25, pp. 467-486. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2021.1905708]

33. Buonincontri, P.; Marasco, A.; Ramkissoon, H. Visitors’ Experience, Place Attachment and Sustainable Behaviour at Cultural Heritage Sites: A Conceptual Framework. Sustainability; 2017; 9, 1112. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su9071112]

34. Brumann, C. Anthropological utopia, closet eurocentrism, and culture chaos in the UNESCO World Heritage Arena. Anthropol. Q.; 2018; 91, pp. 1203-1233. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/anq.2018.0063]

35. DeLanda, M. Assemblage Theory; Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, UK, 2016.

36. DeSoucey, M.; Elliott, M.A.; Schmutz, V. Rationalized authenticity and the transnational spread of intangible cultural heritage. Poetics; 2019; 75, 101332. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2018.11.001]

37. Elliott, M.A.; Schmutz, V. World heritage. Poetics; 2016; 40, pp. 256-277. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2012.03.003]

38. Brumann, C. Shifting tides of world-making in the UNESCO World Heritage Convention: Cosmopolitanisms colliding. Ethn. Racial Stud.; 2014; 37, pp. 2176-2192. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2014.934261]

39. Hollinshead, K.; Ateljevic, I.; Ali, N. Worldmaking Agency-Worldmaking Authority: The Sovereign Constitutive role of Tourism. Tour. Geogr.; 2009; 11, pp. 427-443. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616680903262562]

40. Scott, D.A. Conservation and authenticity: Interactions and enquiries. Stud. Conserv.; 2015; 60, pp. 291-305. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1179/2047058414Y.0000000159]

41. Cameron, C. The UNESCO imprimatur: Creating global (in)significance. Int. J. Herit. Stud.; 2020; 26, pp. 845-856. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2020.1746923]

42. Huttunen, M. Heritage for sustainable peace: The politics of contested histories and the Nanjing controversy at UNESCO. Front. Political Sci.; 2024; 6, 1249745. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2024.1249745]

43. Funk, W.; Groß, F.; Huber, I. Exploring the empty plinth. The Aesthetics of Authenticity: Medial Constructions of the Real; Transcript Verlag: Bielefeld, Germany, 2012; pp. 1-9. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/transcript.9783839417577]

44. Stovel, H. Effective use of authenticity and integrity as world heritage qualifying conditions. City Time; 2007; 2, pp. 21-36.

45. Gfeller, A.É. The Authenticity of Heritage: Global Norm-Making at the Crossroads of Cultures. Am. Hist. Rev.; 2017; 122, pp. 758-791. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ahr/122.3.758]

46. Zhu, Y. Cultural effects of authenticity: Contested heritage practices in China. Int. J. Herit. Stud.; 2015; 21, pp. 594-608. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2014.991935]

47. Ballantyne, R.; Hughes, K.; Ding, P.; Liu, D. Chinese and international visitor perceptions of interpretation at Beijing built heritage sites. J. Sustain. Tour.; 2013; 22, pp. 705-725. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2013.861469]

48. Lumbanraja, V. Tourism area life cycle in Lake Toba. Indones. J. Geogr.; 2012; 44, pp. 150-160.

49. Hovinen, G.R. Revisiting the destination lifecycle model. Ann. Tour. Res.; 2002; 29, pp. 209-230. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(01)00036-6]

50. Getz, D. Tourism planning and destination life cycle. Ann. Tour. Res.; 1992; 19, pp. 752-770. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(92)90065-W]

51. Martin, B.S.; Uysal, M. An examination of the relationship between carrying capacity and the tourism lifecycle: Management and policy implications. J. Environ. Manag.; 1990; 31, pp. 327-333. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4797(05)80061-1]

52. Cole, S. Synergy and congestion in the tourist destination life cycle. Tour. Manag.; 2012; 33, pp. 1128-1140. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.11.018]

53. Baum, T. Taking the exit route: Extending the tourism area life cycle model. Curr. Issues Tour.; 1998; 1, pp. 167-175. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683509808667837]

54. Hay, R. Sense of place in developmental context. J. Environ. Psychol.; 1998; 18, pp. 5-29. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1997.0060]

55. Hummon, D.M. Community attachment: Local sentiment and sense of place. Place attachment; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1992; pp. 253-278.

56. MacCannell, D. Reciprocal reviews. Places; 1987; 1, pp. 54-57.

57. Kyle, G.; Chick, G. The social construction of a sense of place. Leis. Sci.; 2007; 29, pp. 209-225. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01490400701257922]

58. Williams, D.R.; Patterson, M.E.; Roggenbuck, J.W.; Watson, A.E. Beyond the commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leis. Sci.; 1992; 14, pp. 29-46. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01490409209513155]

59. Shamai, S. Sense of place: An empirical measurement. Geoforum; 1991; 22, pp. 347-358. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0016-7185(91)90017-K]

60. Low, S.M.; Altman, I. Place attachment: A conceptual inquiry. Place Attachment; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1992; pp. 1-12.

61. Stokowski, P.A. Languages of Place and Discourses of Power: Constructing new senses of place. J. Leis. Res.; 2002; 34, pp. 368-382. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2002.11949977]

62. Lee, R.G. The social definition of outdoor recreation places. Social Behavior, Natural Resources, and the Environment; Burch, W.; Cheek, N.; Taylor, L. Harper Row: New York, NY, USA, 1972; pp. 64-84.

63. MacCannell, D. Keeping symbolic interaction safe from semiotics: A response to Harman. Symb. Interact.; 1986; 9, pp. 161-168. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1525/si.1986.9.1.161]

64. MacCannell, D. Symbolic Capital: Urban design for tourism. Journeys; 2000; 1, pp. 157-182. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3167/146526000782488054]

65. Naegele, K.D.; Goffman, E. The presentation of self in everyday life. Am. Sociol. Rev.; 1956; 21, 631. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2089106]

66. Boorstin, D.J. The Image, A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America; Vintage: New York, NY, USA, 1961.

67. Levine, D.N. Simmel as a resource for sociological metatheory. Sociol. Theory; 1989; 7, 161. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/201893]

68. Simmel, G. The Sociology of Georg Simmel; Simon Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 1950.

69. Frisby, D. Georg Simmel: First sociologist of modernity. Theory Cult. Soc.; 1985; 2, pp. 49-67. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276485002003006]

70. Levine, D.N. Simmel at a Distance: On the history and systematics of the sociology of the Stranger. Sociol. Focus; 1977; 10, pp. 15-29. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00380237.1977.10570274]

71. Kilzer, E.; Wolff, K.H. The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Am. Cathol. Sociol. Rev.; 1950; 11, 172. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3707052]

72. Hunter, W.C. The good souvenir: Representations of Okinawa and Kinmen islands in Asia. J. Sustain. Tour.; 2012; 20, pp. 81-99. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.586571]

73. Yakin, H.S.M.; Totu, A. The Semiotic Perspectives of Peirce and Saussure: A Brief Comparative study. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci.; 2014; 155, pp. 4-8. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.247]

74. Hénault, A. Semiotic theory and experiences of life: The vital abstraction. Chin. Semiot. Stud.; 2014; 10, pp. 409-426. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/css-2014-0034]

75. Frohlick, S.; Harrison, J. Engaging ethnography in tourist research: An introduction. Tour. Stud.; 2008; 8, pp. 5-18. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1468797608094926]

76. Manning, P.K. Symbolic Communication: Signifying Calls and the Police Response; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1988.

77. Gobo, G. Re-Conceptualizing Generalization: Old issues in a New frame. The Sage Handbook of Social Research Methods; SAGE Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2012; pp. 193-213. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446212165.n12]

78. Ding, E. Towards a dynamic model of the sign. Semiotica; 2017; 2017, pp. 137-144. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/sem-2016-0140]

79. Chandler, D. Semiotics: The Basics; Routledge: London, UK, 2007.

80. Keane, W. Semiotics and the social analysis of material things. Lang. Commun.; 2003; 23, pp. 409-425. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(03)00010-7]

81. Berger, A.A. Tourism as a postmodern semiotic activity. Semiotica; 2011; 183, pp. 105-119. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/semi.2011.006]

82. Bramham, P. Review of Rojek and Urry’s “touring cultures, transformations of travel and theory”. Leis. Stud.; 2000; 19, pp. 301-303.

83. Smith, A. Conceptualizing city Image Change: The ‘Re-Imaging’ of Barcelona. Tour. Geogr.; 2005; 7, pp. 398-423. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616680500291188]

84. Knudsen, D.C.; Soper, A.K.; Metro-Roland, M. Commentary: Gazing, Performing and Reading: A Landscape Approach to Understanding Meaning in Tourism Theory. Tour. Geogr.; 2007; 9, pp. 227-233. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616680701422681]

85. Masood, A.; Rahim, A.A. Synergising Hallyu and halal economy for wealth creation. Malays. J. Soc. Space; 2020; 16, pp. 23-35. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17576/geo-2020-1601-03]

86. Culler, J. SEMIOTICS OF TOURISM. Am. J. Semiot.; 1981; 1, pp. 127-140. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5840/ajs198111/25]

87. Baudrillard, J. The vanishing point of communication. Jean Baudrillard: Fatal Theories; Clarke, D.; Doel, M.A.; Merrin, W.; Smith, R.G. Routledge: London, UK, 2009; pp. 15-23.

88. Kim, D.W. Goindols and prehistoric East Asian life: The secret landscape of Dolmens on the Korean Peninsula. Int. J. Crit. Cult. Stud.; 2023; 21, pp. 1-23. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18848/2327-0055/CGP/v21i02/1-23]

89. Ashworth, G.J. Senses of Place: Senses of Time; Routledge: London, UK, 2017.

90. Shin, G.; Freda, J.; Yi, G. The politics of ethnic nationalism in divided Korea. Nations Natl.; 1999; 5, pp. 465-484. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1354-5078.1999.00465.x]

91. Lowenthal, D. Counterfeit art: Authentic fakes?. Int. J. Cult. Prop.; 1992; 1, pp. 79-104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0940739192000067]

92. Csurgó, B.; Smith, M.K. Cultural Heritage, Sense of Place and Tourism: An Analysis of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Rural Hungary. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 7305. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14127305]

93. Broćić, M.; Silver, D. The influence of Simmel on American sociology since 1975. Annu. Rev. Sociol.; 2021; 47, pp. 87-108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-090320-033647]

94. Yi, X.; Fu, X.; Lin, B.; Sun, J. Authenticity, identity, self-improvement, and responsibility at heritage sites: The local residents’ perspective. Tour. Manag.; 2024; 102, 104875. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2023.104875]

95. Bornstein, M.H.; Gibson, J.J. The ecological approach to visual Perception. J. Aesthet. Art Crit.; 1980; 39, 203. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/429816]

96. Hardy, A.; Beeton, R.J.S.; Pearson, L. Sustainable Tourism: An Overview of the Concept and its Position in Relation to Conceptualisations of Tourism. J. Sustain. Tour.; 2002; 10, pp. 475-496. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669580208667183]

97. Köksaldı, E.; Turkan, Z. Urban Furniture in Sustainable Historical Urban Texture Landscapes: Historical Squares in the Walled City of Nicosia. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 9236. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15129236]

98. Schmutz, V.; Elliott, M. Tourism and Sustainability in the Evaluation of World Heritage Sites, 1980–2010. Sustainability; 2016; 8, 261. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su8030261]

99. De Oliveira, R.A.; Baracho, R.M.A.; Cantoni, L. The perception of UNESCO World Heritage Sites’ managers about concepts and elements of cultural sustainability in tourism. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev.; 2022; 14, pp. 297-311. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-03-2021-0058]

100. Hunter, W.C. Performing culture at indigenous culture parks in Taiwan: Using Q method to identify the performers’ subjectivities. Tour. Manag.; 2014; 42, pp. 294-304. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.12.014]

Word count: 11226

Show less

© 2025 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.

Abstract

Dolmens are neolithic burial artifacts scattered across the Korean landscape. In 2000, they were inscribed as UNESCO heritage sites, and they have been developed as sustainable cultural tourism attractions in Gochang, Hwasun, and Ganghwa. In this study, social semiotics using fieldwork was conducted with the employment of some traditional tourism theoretical themes. It was found that when only a single theoretical metric is used, there are too many contradictory interests and messages involved in the three sites, confusing national identity, heritage, and tourism development. But semiotic analysis reveals that nuanced articulations of denotative signs with their many connotative signifiers enable a unique chaordic Korean management style built on embracing paradox in tourism attractions, particularly in terms of sustainability. Culture is the foundation for the sustainability of monuments and heritage sites. Findings show that the Dolmen UNESCO sites maintain a sustainable identity through government support and represent a narrative that describes an unbroken link to a neolithic Korean past as well as a diversified framing of heritage in community-based tourism attractions.

Details

Title
Dolmen UNESCO Sites Are Tourism Attractions in Korea: Semiotics of Sustainability for Cultural Heritage
Author
Hunter William Cannon
First page
8021
Publication year
2025
Publication date
2025
Publisher
MDPI AG
e-ISSN
20711050
Source type
Scholarly Journal
Language of publication
English
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/su17178021
ProQuest document ID
3249721484
Copyright
© 2025 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.