A Comparison of Interpretation in Honduras and the United States
Veronica Keithley
Introduction
In both Honduras and the United States, citizens and their governments
recognize the wealth of natural and cultural resources and work to protect these unique
areas. The U. S. Department of the Interior National Park Service is responsible for
protecting places like the Grand Canyon to ensure that their natural beauty is not
diminished. Similarly, George Washington’s home is preserved for visitors to
experience the Washington’s’ lives, if only for a few moments. Although these areas
provide opportunities for recreational and aesthetic enjoyment, they also allow visitors
to learn. The Park Service employs interpretation at these sites as a tool for learning.
Interpretation is defined by Tilden (1957) as an educational activity which, through
experience and original objects, attempts to convey meanings and relationships to the
visitor. By providing descriptive signs, oral presentations and informative pamphlets,
the Park Service invites the visitor to enjoy these areas and learn about the place and
its story.
Honduras has reserved areas of both ecological and cultural importance similar
to those in the U.S. National Park System. These areas are also interpreted; however,
the message and style vary from that of the Park Service. Through the application of
the Park Service’s evaluative technique, the fifteen principles outlined by Beck and
Cable (1998), a comparison will be made between Honduran and American
interpretation. Parque Arqueologico de Ruinas Copan will be the basis for comparison
of cultural resources. Parque Nacional Jeanette Kawas will provide the basis for the
comparison of ecological/natural areas; however, due to the minimal amount of
interpretation, not all of the principles will be addressed.
USDI National Park Service Interpretive Principles
The National Park Service mandate encompasses many land management
aspects, including interpreting to the public. To ensure continuity and high quality
interpretation across the Park System, fifteen principles outlined by Beck and Cable
(1998) furnish the criteria by which interpretation is evaluated. These principles, based
on the classic work of Enos Mills and Freeman Tilden, cover many topics, among them
technique, technology, visitor reaction, and information amounts (Beck and Cable
1998).
The fifteen principles, with a brief description of each, are as follows:
1. Lighting the spark - Visitors should become interested and involved with the place
early in their visit.
2. Interpreting in the information age - Information alone is not interpretation
3. Importance of the story - The site (and interpretation) must relate to the personal
experiences of visitors.
4. Provocation - Leave some questions unanswered so visitors are provoked to
research more on their own.
5. Holistic interpretation - Tell a whole story, but not necessarily every story.
6. Interpretation throughout the lifespan - Interpretation should address each age
group individually and uniquely.
7. Bringing the past alive - Connect the past and present, especially at cultural and
historical sites.
1
8. High-tech gadgetry - Use all technological resources that are available, when
appropriate.
9. Enough is enough - It is the quality and not the quantity of information that is
important.
10. Technique before art - Interpretive programs should be factually accurate and well
communicated before they are artistically enhanced.
11. Interpretive composition - Written information should be created with "the authority
of wisdom and the humility and care that comes with it" (Beck and Cable, 1998,
p.137)
12. Attracting support and making friends - Partnerships should be motivated by
interpretation for technical and financial support.
13. Interpreting beauty - Interpretation should recognize and encourage others to
appreciate the beauty of surroundings.
14. Promoting optimal experiences - Good interpretation captivates visitors so that they
lose a sense of time and worry for other concerns.
15. Passion - Interpreters and managers should have a passion for the resource and
visitors.
The justification for using the National Park Service principles for evaluating
interpretation in Honduras is two-fold. First, the areas to be discussed are "owned" by
the government of Honduras, as in the United States, and have similar goals and
responsibilities as U.S. National Park Service sites. Secondly, the principles provide a
comprehensive view of interpretation that includes classic and modern concepts.
Parque Arqueologico de los Ruinas Copan
The site
Parque Arqueologico de los Ruinas Copan (the Copan Ruins) is located in
western Honduras near Guatemala. The Park is managed and administered by the
Honduran Institute of History and Anthropology. As Copan is the major Mayan site in
Honduras that has been excavated, the park provides many opportunities for cultural
interpretation. Also, Copan is an UNESCO World Heritage Center, which mandates
interpretation of cultural and historical information, in addition to preservation of the site.
The Copan Ruins consist of several temples, palaces, and areas used by the
rules, the families and the aristocracy. The park is considered the central area of the
ancient city. It provides opportunities for cultural, biological, and archaeological
interpretation through the buildings, statues, and recreational areas. Additionally, the
historical texts on the stairway and buildings provide information on the lives and
society of the Maya.
The interpretation
Because of the wealth of information to be learned from the site, a means of
presenting the information to visitors has been developed through interpretation. The
interpretation centers around guided tours and the museum, but pamphlets, signs, and
the visitor center all aid in educating visitors. The purpose of the interpretation is to
help visitors understand the manner in which the Mayas lived through understanding
the privileged class and its interaction with the peasants.
Several unique characteristics add to the quality of the interpretation. Our guide,
Oscar Lara, is of Mayan descent and mentioned that part of his talk came from the oral
history tradition of his family. His added depth and understanding allowed him to speak
knowledgeably about some intricacies of the culture. In addition, all of the interpretive
guides are trained by the archeologists that have excavated the area; therefore, they
have a fuller understanding of the culture and the methods used for excavating the site.
Unlike in the U.S., interpretation in Honduras is multilingual. The guides speak
2
Spanish, English, French and German, and text is provided in Spanish and English in
displays and pamphlets. Perhaps one of the most unique qualities of Copan, or its
most dissimilar characteristic from U.S. Park Service sites, is that visitors are allowed to
touch, climb, and walk on many of the artifacts. This more intimate contact allows
visitors to immerse themselves in the Mayan culture more than if they were kept at
arms length and ground level.
Evaluating the interpretation
The Copan Ruins and the interpretation conducted there are intended to educate
visitors, and a means of assessing the interpretation's effectiveness is provided by Beck
and Cable's (1998) principles. The evaluation will include the visitor center, tours,
museum, and written materials available. When references are made to guide
presentations and tours, this is based specifically on the programs from Oscar Lara and
Allen Maca, a Harvard archeologist excavating the site. Each principle will be
considered; however, the more relevant principles will be discussed at greater length.
The first principle, lighting the spark, refers to catching the visitor's interest early
in his/her visit. To enter the area of the Ruins, visitors must go through the visitor
center where the "sparking" item, the model of Copan, is located. The model shows
the placement of the buildings and statues, providing a sense of scale and a preliminary
exposure to the Mayas' use of stucco. Visitors get their first taste of the enormity of the
site and the unique quality of the structures.
The second principle is interpreting in the information age. Beck and Cable
(1998) explain that interpretation should provide information, but information alone is
not interpretation. It is the manner in which the information is presented, the
connections made between facts, that interprets. Oscar Lara exemplified this technique
of limiting pure information to that which his audience could absorb by providing
pertinent facts without going into lengthy descriptions of less useful subjects. For
instance, when Senor Lara described the use of stucco, he explained where it was
used, its purpose, and the huge quantities used. What he did not describe were the
intricate details of laying the stucco, facts which would not have added to the visitors
appreciation of Mayan stucco use.
The third principle, importance of the story, refers to relating the site to the
personal experiences of the visitors (Beck and Cable 1998). As an American with
minimal knowledge on Mayan culture, I did not feel a strong connection to the Maya; I
lacked the personal experiences to make it meaningful. However, Allen Maca
increased my connection to the site by speaking in terms of agriculture and
deforestation. I was then able to see Copan for its similarities to areas in the United
States rather than as an abstraction of an ancient culture. Senor Lara knew his "story"
and told it well; the difficulty came in my not having the necessary cultural background
to fully appreciate it.
Provocation is the fourth principle. According to Tilden (1957), interpretation
should provide just enough information to provoke people to explore and research more
on their own. This principle is strongly connected to the second principle of not
overloading visitors with information. Copan has been described as the center of
Mayan art and astronomy (Humphrey 1997) which is apparent through the buildings,
statues, and displays in the museum. The question then arises about Mayan
knowledge of science, politics, and other subjects. Visitors who enjoy Copan must find
answers to their further questions through other sources or sites. In addition, both
Senor Lara and Mr. Maca left certain questions, such as the actual events leading to
the city's downfall, unanswered.
The fifth principle is holistic interpretation. Interpretation should discuss or
explain a complete subject and not leave facts out just to "provoke" visitors. The key to
holistic interpretation is to determine what that story is. The Ruins at Copan, and the
guides, tell the story of the city and its citizens from approximately AD 400 to AD 800.
3
The guides do not try to tell the complete history of the area from prehistory to present
nor do they attempt to describe the whole Mayan culture. On a smaller scale, the
programs involve information on certain rulers and noteworthy events without delving
into the lineage or daily activities of the rulers. The managers at Copan understand that
this city can tell a whole story of a certain place and period of Mayan society effectively
and does not need to tell every story of the Maya.
The sixth principle, interpretation throughout the lifespan, is one area in which
Copan is lacking. This principle addresses the need for interpreting to different age
groups. Children do not enjoy or understand the same topics as adults; therefore, the
interpretive technique must vary depending on the age and maturity level of the
audience. The guide's presentation, the museum displays, and the visitor center are
aimed at high schoolers and older; it is interpretation for adults. Children and younger
teenagers would probably not be interested or understand the majority of the
information, especially the written text. It was unclear whether youth interpreters are
available or not. The only sign of age differentiation in interpretive materials was a
coloring/story book for young children. Limiting the interpretation to a single age group
limits Copan's effectiveness; however, cost and expertise are always considerations.
Bringing the past alive is the seventh principle. This principle addresses the
specific need to relate the present to the past when dealing with historical or cultural
resources. Both the written materials and the speakers showed the strong influence of
Mayan culture on present Honduran society, as a historical progression and as societal
characteristics. The current issues of tropical deforestation for cropland parallel directly
with the current theory for Copan's abandonment. The city of Copan deforested and
farmed to a point that the land could no longer produce enough food to feed the
population. Although contemporary Hondurans do not face starvation through a lack of
arable land, but this could be a potential consequence of uncontrolled deforestation and
cultivation. This is just one of many connections that were vital to show the Maya as
post mortem teachers to current land managers.
The eighth principle is high-tech gadgetry. Based on the subject of Copan's
interpretation and the financial resources of the site, high-tech gadgetry is not
appropriate or relevant.
The ninth principle, enough is enough, refers back to the amount of information
presented to the public. The area in which Copan's managers have not adopted this
philosophy is in the museum. Long descriptive texts accompany almost every display.
The quantity of facts and the unappealing presentation technique is prohibitive to real
understanding. If a visitor actually takes the time to read the full text, which appeared
rare, he/she would not be able to assimilate or remember all he/she had read. The
main concern with regards to the appearance of the text is that it is a rather small font
and has large paragraphs of uninterrupted sentences. In addition, the graphics on the
signs are minimal and do not illustrate very well what the visitor is seeing. The museum
exhibits would be improved by limiting the amount of text and making it more visually
appealing.
Technique before art is the tenth principle. Guides and speaking presenters
should be aware of how speech patterns, body language, and voice control affect their
audience (Beck and Cable 1998). The two presenters both had a fairly firm grasp of
effective presentation techniques. In addition, their knowledge and enthusiasm for the
subject matter made them engaging speakers.
The eleventh principle, interpretive composition, refers to written materials.
Written interpretation at Copan is seen in displays in the museum and visitor center and
in pamphlets that visitors may purchase. As described previously, the amount of text in
the displays is overwhelming and appears to be only peripherally considered by most
visitors. The written guide to the site provides extensive historical and cultural
information that is mainly "what readers would like to know" (Beck and Cable 1998,
4
p.137). Changes could be made to improve the quality of all the written materials, but
the pamphlet is a great improvement over the display texts.
The twelfth principle is attracting support and making friends. Because of
relative limited exposure to the site and lack of further information, evaluating the
interpretation based on this principle is impossible.
Interpreting beauty is the thirteenth principle. Although this refers more to
interpretation of natural resources, beauty is a consideration for cultural interpretation. I
do not personally find the rust and teal colors used by the Maya as that attractive;
however, there is a symmetry and grace to the descriptions Senor Lara gave. His
discussion of how the stucco lawns would look reflecting the colored facades offered a
perspective on the "beauty" of the site as a whole.
The fourteenth principle is promoting optimal experiences. Good interpretation
creates a sense of "flow," a stretching of time in which the visitor is so focused on the
interpretation that other concerns lose importance (Beck and Cable 1998). Story after
story told by Senor Lara was woven together as the tour moved from one structure to
the next. This sense of flow did not carry over to the museum, however. Flow comes
from careful planning by interpreters and through their continued experience with the
site; therefore, it is easier to create with oral presentations than with text. An objective
for Copan's managers might be to improve this sense of flow within their text.
The final principle, passion, describes managers' and interpreters' feeling toward
the resource and the visitors. Without a passion for the resource, information seems
stale and unconnected; without a passion for the visitors, interpreters cannot effectively
communicate a love for the resource. Senor Lara had these passions and passed them
on through appreciating the Ruins and understanding visitor interest and need to learn
more in a short amount of time.
Overall, the interpretation at Copan would be evaluated as good; although
improvements could be made. Modifying the displays to limit text and to make them
more visually appealing is the first suggested change. Age differentiation would also
improve the site's attraction to families. One outstanding attribute, tours by skillful
guides, makes the interpretation superior to that of the U.S. Park Service, who has
steered away from guides in recent years. Copan showed that guides are a very
effective form of interpretation.
Parque National Jeanette Kawas
Parque National Jeanette Kawas is a biological reserve in northern Honduras
that includes several forest types including mangrove forests, tropic wet forests, and
coconut palms. Several villages and communities exist within the boundaries of the
park.
Interpretation at the park is limited to guided tours and a small visitor center. The
tours, often by boat followed by hiking, provide a minimal amount of information on the
plant and animal life in the area. The guides are enthusiast about the park; however,
the lack of common language and high noise level of the boat made questions difficult.
The nature center is a small building on the beach. Inside there are posters describing
the local flora and fauna in addition to a game for children. Many of the displays are
handmade and not of the quality visitors associate with U.S. National Parks.
Evaluating the interpretation
Evaluating the interpretation at this site is difficult because of the lack of it;
however, certain principles were evident. The third principle, the importance of story, is
evident through the connections made by the guides between Honduran vegetation and
that in the United States. Other similarities were also discussed in land management
styles. Provocation, the fourth principle, and setting information limits, the ninth
principle, were apparent at the visitor center. There was a scarcity of interpretation
5
either resulting from a conscious effort by Prolansate, the managing non-governmental
organization, or resulting from limited funding allocated to creating interpretive materials
for the visitor center. It was unclear which of these possibilities was the reality of the
situation, although it appeared to be a lack of funding.
The function in which Jeanette Kawas National Park's interpretation excelled was
interpreting throughout the lifespan, principle six. The small, single room visitor center
provided information for adults through signs and for children through a mystery game.
It is encouraging to see Prolansate address multi-age interpretation as this may predict
the high level of interest they will take in interpretation given time to develop a program
and financial resources to realize these goal.
Overall the interpretation at Jeanette Kawas National Park is similar in format
and content to that of biological reserves in the U.S. Park System. The interpretation is
limited in quality and quantity, but the current interpretation suggests there is a potential
for improvement and subsequent education of the public.
Conclusion
Many similarities exist between Honduran and American interpretation. The
underlying philosophy and purpose is the same: to broaden people's understanding and
commitment to natural and cultural resources. Interpretive techniques such as guided
tours, oral presentations, and museum displays appear universal. These common
characteristics make comparison between techniques in Honduras and the United
States possible.
The real differences in interpretation between the two countries stems from the
unique qualities of the resources, in addition to the relative age of the parks. The
uniqueness of the site affects interpretation through specific qualities that are
addressed, such as at Copan. Being an active archeological site allows researchers to
interpret new knowledge to visitors as it becomes available. The age of the park is
another key factor affecting interpretation, specifically with Jeanette Kawas Park. This
park has only existed for five years (Humphrey 1997), providing little time for
development of interpretation. In addition, the park and its managers have to address
many pressures on the land from farmers, ranchers, and indigenous peoples that have
traditionally used the land for purposes that do not coincide with park management
objectives. These critical concerns for Prolansate obviously overshadow the need for
interpretation.
So why do we care? Interpretation stems from managers recognizing that
visitors come to a place to be entertained but also to gain an understanding of the
place's meaning. Meanings, purposes, and techniques vary within countries and
between countries. Regardless of how education is accomplished, it is the fact that
people are learning the value of Honduran and American resources, respecting those
resources, and preserving the resources that makes interpretation important, in any
language.
Literature Cited
Beck, L., and T.T. Cable. 1998. Interpretation for the 21st century: Fifteen guiding
principles for interpreting nature and culture. Champaign, IL: Sagamore
Publishing.
Humphrey, C. 1997. Honduras handbook. Chico, CA: Moon Publications, Inc.
Tilden, F. 1957. Interpreting our heritage. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North
Carolina Press.
6