ABSTRACT
In previous studies, I have described in detail the origin and development of ecomuseums (Davis 1999), explored the ways in which they have provided a more democratic museum model (Davis 2004) and their relationship to small-scale cultural tourism (Davis 2005). The concept has now been practised for some 35 years and, despite being regarded with some scepticism (see, for example, Howard 2002; Sauty 2001), the movement is still very strong. The principal web-based database on ecomuseums1 suggests there are currently some 400 worldwide, with major growth in recent years in Scandinavia, Italy and Asia. Ecomuseums are dedicated to conserving the special nature of individual places, an idea that has resonance with those promoted by the organisation Common Ground. Clifford and King (1993), when promoting the aims of that body, noted that ‘every place is its own living museum, dynamic and filled with sensibilities to its own small richnesses . . . symbolism and significance cling to seemingly ordinary buildings, trees and artefacts . . . places are different from each other’. Ecomuseums have provided a platform for such ‘living museums’ by promoting the distinctiveness of individual places, sustaining heritage resources and aiding community development. Their basic tenets are (Corsane et al., 2007a; 2007b):
• The adoption of a territory that may be defined, for example, by landscape, dialect, a specific industry, or musical tradition.
