Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Planning and managing interpretive signage at archaeological sites
Ahmed Rjoob
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MA in Managing Archaeological Sites of the University of London in 2003.
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
Note: This Dissertation is an unrevised examination copy for consultation only and it should not be quoted or cited without the permission of the Director of the Institute.
Abstract
Interpretive signage is increasingly becoming a crucial tool to interpret and manage
archaeological heritage places. It is used to conveying interpretive themes and
messages to visitors as well as utilized to keep them far away from vulnerable and
fragile features. However, to be an effective interpretive and communicative
technique, this signage must be flowed out from a comprehensive planning
framework of a particular place. Its chief aim should be interpreting tangible and
intangible cultural values of that place by making them more understandable, thematic
and more meaningful for various categories of visitors. Moreover, this plan must
involve assessment criteria to get feedback for its product through gauging whether or
not its interpretive messages get across. In doing so, this paper will explore the issues
of interpretation by highlighting its methods and principles as well as presenting an
interpretive signage planning model as general guidelines for preparing an effective
interpretive signage as a program and as a technique. In additionally, a case study
from Palestine will be used to uphold this trend, showing how these guidelines can be
adapted to suit local conditions and traditions of particular place, including its special
social, economic, political, and physical environment.
2
Contents
Abstract ..........................................................................................................................2
List of illustrations: ........................................................................................................5
Acknowledgments..........................................................................................................6
Introduction....................................................................................................................7
Chapter One: Holistic approaches to interpretation: basis and theory...........................9
The definition of interpretation..................................................................................9
The uses of interpretation.........................................................................................10
Basic principles of archaeological site interpretation ..............................................12
Planning interpretation.............................................................................................14
Chapter Two: Interpretative signage: a planning model..............................................15
Step 1: Objectives ....................................................................................................16
Step 2: Interpretative themes (stories) .....................................................................16
Effective themes...................................................................................................18
Step 3: Audiences ....................................................................................................19
Psychological and cognitive learning studies ......................................................22
Step 4: Techniques for interpretive signage.............................................................22
Effective interpretive signage ..............................................................................23
Types of signage ..................................................................................................25
Interpretive signage design ..................................................................................27
Step 5: Implementation and evaluation....................................................................34
Implementation ....................................................................................................34
Evaluation ............................................................................................................34
Chapter Three: Planning interpretive signage for Hisham’s Palace: a case study.......36
Objectives and goals ................................................................................................37
Inventory and evaluation of site resources...............................................................38
Inventory of cultural evidence .............................................................................38
Establishing a theme and supporting messages .......................................................46
Establishing interpretive signage .............................................................................47
Recommended guidelines for interpretive signage at Hisham’s Palace ..............48
Specific objectives and purposes of new interpretive signage.............................49
Proposed interpretive signage ..............................................................................51
Evaluation, implementation and maintenance .........................................................54
3
Evaluation ............................................................................................................54
Implementation ....................................................................................................54
Maintenance.........................................................................................................55
Conclusions..................................................................................................................56
Bibliography ................................................................................................................59
Appendices...................................................................................................................64
Appendix 1: Definitions of interpretation................................................................64
Appendix 2: levels of planning in archaeological heritage places...........................65
Appendix 3: Guidelines for better message text ......................................................66
Appendix 4: Fifteen steps to more powerful sign text.............................................67
Appendix 5. Artistic considerations in signage design............................................68
Appendix 6. Readability and viewing distance........................................................70
Appendix 7. Signage materials and comparative attributes.....................................71
Appendix 8: Strengths and weaknesses of common sign materials ........................72
Appendix 9: Specification of effective signage .......................................................73
Appendix 10: List of some main stakeholders of Hisham’s palace.........................74
Appendix 11: Stakeholder questionnaire……………………..……….…………..75
Appendix 12: Visitor Questionnaire…...…………………….…………………....79
4
List of illustrations:
List of figures
Figure 2.1: Interpretive signage planning model…………………………………… 15
Figure 3.1: Geographical location of Hisham’s palace………………..……….…… 36
Figure 3.2: Interpretive signage planning model for Hisham’s palace…..……….….37
Figure 3.3: A plan of the main features of Hisham’s palace………………………...38
Figure 3.4: General plan of the palace complex …………………………………......40
Figure 3.5: The Diwan’s mosaic floor………………………………………………..40
Figure 3.6: The mosque………………………………………………………..……..41
Figure 3.7: The ornamental pool…………………………………….…………...…..41
Figure 3.8: The existing interpretive signage at Hisham’s palace………………...…42
Figure 3.9: The orientation signage at Hisham’s palace……………..…………..…..43
Figure 3.10: Profile of visitors to Hisham’s palace…………………..…..…….…….44
Figure 3.11: A plan for proposed new signage at Hisham’s palace ………….……...51
List of tables
Table 3.1: Results of the visitor questionnaire analysis……….…..….…….....….….44
Table 3.2: Results of the stakeholder questionnaire analysis…………….……...…...45
Table 3.3: Interpretive signage guidelines for Hisham’s palace …………………….48
5
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to many people for helping me accomplish this research. Sincere thanks
to my supervisor Mr. Tim Williams for his help, guidance, patience, and
understanding. Much appreciation should be given to Osama Hamdan, Director of
Hisham’s palace mosaic workshop, and Carla Benelli and Walid Sharif for their
continued support throughout this research. Special thanks to Baha Ju’beh, Ihab Daud,
Zahra Zawawi, Yaqoub, Jaber Rjoob, all of the archaeological students at Jerusalem
University and everybody who provided me with valuable information about
interpretive signage at Hisham’s palace. I also wish to thank my wife for her entire
support and valuable information on colour issues. In addition, I owe a debt of
gratitude to the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, which
contributed to my study costs and thus made possible my attendance at this course.
6
Introduction
Interpretive signage is one of the most common self-guiding techniques used to
interpret archaeological heritage places. It gives immediate meaning to visitor’s
experiences through employing a combination of text and visuals, conveying
interpretive messages of these places (Diment 1998, 3). Nonetheless, a holistic
consideration of interpretive issues is crucial to make this signage thematic, and more
meaningful, containing only one unambiguous theme for the entire site, related to
some key ideas or central message, and coming up with various ways to express and
illustrate that theme by linking it with images and actions of everyday life of the
visitors, making the interpretation easier to follow and more meaningful to them
(Ham 1992, 236; Veverka 1994, 20).
Furthermore, any interpretation process should be emerged from an overall
planning process, especially conservation and management plans, statements of
significance and stakeholders. Obviously, interpretive signage will be more effective
if it is based on information gathered through a framework designed to identify
interpretive programmes and activities, including details of how the site is going to be
interpreted in the light of its current and future opportunities and constraints, who will
be involved in this planning process, what themes and messages will be conveyed, to
whom, and so on. Therefore, as good planning practice, interpretive signage should be
planned and designed to be clear, precise, applicable, exciting, provocative, revealing
and memorable (Veverka 1998, 5).
The overarching scope of this research is to present a planning approach for
interpretive signage, to be seen as part of a holistic planning and management process
at archaeological sites, and to suggest a range of principles and steps to achieve this.
7
The first chapter will explore general issues of interpretation, including its
definition, uses, principles, and planning. It will highlight Tilden’s interpretive
definition and principles, among others, as influential conceptual ideas in interpretive
theories.
The second chapter, which is the core of this paper, will consider interpretive
signage as part of an overall site planning process. In doing so, a model for planning
interpretive signage is presented: this process has five interrelated steps, undertaken in
a logical order and aimed at producing an interpretive signage plan for any
archaeological place, regardless of its size or cultural importance. It gives particular
attention to visitors, interpretive themes and messages, as well as exploring the best
way(s) of presenting these through conceptual and artistic design.
In the third chapter, Hisham’s Palace, Palestine, will be presented as a case
study. It is one of the most important managed archaeological sites in Palestine. This
case study will explore a planning model (developed from the general model set out
Chapter 2) designed to suit the specific local conditions of the site. In doing so, it will
explore the existing interpretive signage at Hisham’s palace, ways to get feedback and
input from the visitors and stakeholders to upgrade it, and how interpretive themes
and supporting messages can be established.
In the light of above observations, this paper will argue that interpretive
signage in the archaeological places should be attractive, thematic, meaningful, based
on a comprehensive planning framework, and stem from an overall site planning
process. It is hoped that raising such issues will enhance the current debate regarding
planning and managing interpretive signage, as well as providing guidelines for
improving interpretive signage in Palestine.
8
Chapter One: Holistic approaches to interpretation: basis and theory
Effective interpretation can only be achieved through a comprehensive planning and
management approach that takes into consideration all the variables of a particular
site. This chapter aims to provide a brief theoretical background to some
contemporary issues in interpretation, through four components:
• The definition of interpretation
• The uses of interpretation
• Basic principles of archaeological site interpretation
• Planning interpretation
The definition of interpretation
Interpretation is a term increasingly used in the field of cultural heritage to describe a
thematic and meaningful interpretation process. It uses a variety of approaches and
techniques, planned and designed to reveal ‘meanings’ and ‘values’ of heritage places
to the public (Pearson and Sullivan 1999, 288; Uzzell 1998, 235; Ham 1992, 4-5).
Typically, any interpretation process consists of two ingredients: a programme and an
activity. The programme establishes a set of objectives designed to build thematic
communication with the visitors, while the activity is the techniques by which the
programme is undertaken (Alderson and Low 1987, 3).
There is no single definition of interpretation adopted by most interpretation
professionals. Freeman Tilden’s definition (who was the first scholar to define
interpretation formally in 1957) is the most commonly used and comprehensive. He
identifies interpretation as “an educational activity which aims to reveal meanings and
relationships through the use of original objects, by firsthand experience, and by
illustrative media, rather than simply to communicate factual information” (Tilden
9
1977, 8). Most heritage scholars and institutions tailored this definition to serve their
own needs, resulting in similar definitions throughout the world (see Appendix 1). For
example, for Ham “interpretation involves translating the technical language of a
natural science or related field into terms and ideas that people who aren’t scientists
can readily understand. And it involves doing it in a way that’s entertaining and
interesting to the people” (Ham 1992, 3). Similarly, it has been identified by
Interpretation Australia as “a means of communicating ideas and feelings which
helps people enrich their understanding and appreciation of their world and their role
within it" (IAA 2003).
Essentially, all above definitions are alike and they include the basic elements
of the interpretation process at archaeological heritage places: cultural significance,
the nature of the visitors, and techniques. These elements are incorporated together to
shape the visitor experience and highlight the key to effective interpretative planning
in any archaeological place (Uzzell 1998, 235-237; Hall and McArthur 1998, 170).
The uses of interpretation
The interpretation of archaeological places is a multifaceted and potentially
controversial issue, either as an interpretive programme or as a technique.
As a programme, it is unambiguous that a diversity of interest groups have
presented their own interpretation of heritage evidence, in accordance with their
cultural backgrounds. Consciously or unconsciously all the players, archaeologists
included, have used heritage assets to serve their own ends. In this sense,
archaeological heritage has lent itself well to serve various interests. For example it
has been used widely to legitimise political positions, claims to land or property,
promote national identity, and enhance ideas of racial and cultural superiority
(Skeates 2000, 89-94).
10
In this sense, interpretation is a subjective and selective issue, designed by
heritage experts in specific formats to communicate with targeted audiences, seeking
to achieve particular purposes. Many scholars argue that there is no such thing as
objective facts or ‘truths’ about the past: the past is only a subjective interpretation
about what happen in earlier periods (Lowenthal 1985, 213-14; Aplin 2002, 31;
Pearson and Sullivan 1999, 291). As a presentation technique “interpretation may be
simple or elaborate, static or interactive, specifically targeted or generalized. It may
relate to the whole place, or to selected aspects or themes within it” (Pearson and
Sullivan 1999, 288).
Nevertheless, interpretation is a dynamic process used by site managers either
to interpret a meaning and/or a cultural significance, making it more clear and
accessible for visitors, or as a preventive conservation tool to protect some fragile
assets: “through interpretation, understanding; through understanding, appreciation;
through appreciation, protection” (Uzzell 1989, 13). This dictum implies that one
outcome of the interpretation process should be an encouragement for protecting
heritage places. However, as Uzzell states, “this model postulates that information
leading to increased understanding of an issue will lead to attitude change and then, as
a consequence, to behaviour change, while this model has appeal, if only through its
intuitive logic and simplicity, more thoughtful consideration will suggest that it is
problematic” (loc cit).
These issues raise crucial questions: why do people visit heritage places? Are
they seeking to understand the values of these places? Clearly there is no simple
answer to such questions: however, cultural heritage studies (Lowenthal 1985; Hall
and McArthur1998; Skeates 2000; Carter 2001) have found that the nostalgia of the
past is one of the prime motivations that makes people sympathetically and
11
unconsciously interest in the past. David Lowenthal argues that the “nostalgia is often
for past thoughts rather than past things, …people flock to historic sites to share recall
of the familiar, communal recollection enhancing personal reminiscence” (Lowenthal
1985, 8). In other words, people visit heritage places because they want to experience
human meanings and values, rather than mute physical remains (Sivan 1997, 52). This
corresponds with Tilden’s perspectives that the objective of interpretation is “to bring
to the eye and understanding of the visitor not just a house, a ruin, or a battlefield, but
a house of living people, a prehistoric ruin of real folks, a battlefield, but where men
were only incidentally - even if importantly - in uniform” (Tilden 1977, 70).
Therefore, in spite of the subjectivity of interpretation, it should go beyond the
tangibility of physical remains of archaeological places to their intangibility,
presenting their cultural values as productions of diverse human activities. These sites
should be treated and interpreted as stores and records of human memory, giving
visitors an opportunity to turn over the pages of these records through attractive and
thematic interpretation that contributes to educate and inform them about various
interpreted features of these sites away from fragile areas.
Basic principles of archaeological site interpretation
Basic principles of interpretation are aimed at guiding professionals to build effective
interpretation, ensuring its ability to communicate with all types of visitors at heritage
places. Tilden’s six interpretative principles (Tilden 1977, 9) are probably the most
important and influential methods articulated. They have been used by most
professionals as indicators of well-organized interpretation, and they have inspired
interpretive scholars for more than forty-five years and are still working forcefully
today.
12
I. Any interpretation that does not somehow relate what is being displayed or
described to something within the personality or experience of the visitor
will be sterile;
II. Information, as such, is not interpretation. Interpretation is revelation
based upon information. But they are entirely different things. However,
all interpretation includes information;
III. Interpretation is an art, which combines many arts, whether the materials
presented are scientific, historical or architectural. Any art in some degree
teachable;
IV. The chief aim of interpretation is not instruction, but provocation;
V. Interpretation should aim to present a whole rather than a part, and must
address itself to the whole man rather than any phase;
VI. Interpretation addressed to children (say, up to the age of twelve) should
not be a dilution of the presentation to adults, but should follow a
fundamentally different approach. To be at its best it will require a
separate program.
(Tilden 1977, 9)
Examination of these principles reveals that Tilden mainly focused on the human
dimension, rather than on the physical dimension, of archaeological places. However,
both dimensions are crucial to promote visitors experience at archaeological places.
They should work together to achieve this. Some additional principles have been
advanced, therefore, by Sivan (1997, 52-3) to enhance site setting as an authentic
resource of visitor experience:
I. Every site is unique, both in its present and past realities. The proper
interpretation depends on the survived physical elements;
13
II. Effective, accurate, sensitive interpretation takes into consideration the
size of the site, its physical conditions, and its heritage and aesthetic
values;
III. Interpretive themes must go far of current physical bounders to include
tangible and intangible values to communicate human history in more
thematic and mindful approach;
IV. Interpretation process should keep intervention on the site to a minimum.
(Sivan 1997, 52-53)
Planning interpretation
Planning interpretation has been identified as “a process that identifies and describes
significant visitor experiences in a park, forest, zoo or other resource-based recreation
area; and recommends ways to provide, encourage, sustain, facilitate or otherwise
assist those experiences” (Harpers Ferry Centre 1998, 2). In this sense, planning is a
dynamic and continuous process, having short- and long-term perspectives. It steers
the interpretive process at a particular place, in light of the place’s statement of
significance and conservation plan, seeking to enhance visitor experience without
jeopardizing or detracting from its values, but rather articulates and makes them more
thematic and meaningful (Alderson and Low 1987, 22-23; Taylor 2001, 3; Kerr 1996,
38) (see also Appendix 2).
In this broad vision, interpretive signage is part of a holistic interpretative
planning process, involving a variety of interpretative programmes, media and
services (‘media-mix’) used to illustrate and interpret a given place, such as printed
leaflets, interpretation centres, exhibits, etc. (Veverka 1998, 5). Accordingly, the next
chapter will explore the issue of planning interpretive signage as an essential element
of management and conservation plans at any given site.
14
Chapter Two: Interpretative signage: a planning model
Figure 2.1 (below) presents a sequence of steps required to prepare an effective
interpretive signage plan for a given managed heritage place. Such planning should
have emerged from a holistic interpretive approach of the place, consistent with its
conservation and management plan. It is assumed, for the purposes of this paper, that
the necessary data for planning interpretive signage would be gathered and analysed
during the preparation of a site management plan, and that this would include the
effective engagement of all stakeholders, especially those who have an interest in, or
impact upon, the place: such as archaeologists, historians, designers, guides, artists,
learning and education experts, local people, and so forth (Sullivan 1997, 17).
• Conservation & management plans and statements of significance
• Stakeholders and archaeological and historical records, etc
• International Conventions and Charters such as Venice, Burra Charter, etc Objectives
Interpretive themes
(Stories)
Audiences
Interpretation signageTechniques (Activity)
Implementation and evaluation
Figure 2. 1: interpretive signage model
15
Step 1: Objectives
From the outset, conceptual objectives for interpretive signage should be identified in
accordance with the site’s management plan and statement of significance. These
objectives form the key stone of any interpretative plan, guiding it toward conveying
interpretative messages, and acting as a monitor to examine whether or not
interpretive signage has achieved its envisaged purposes (Veverka 1998, 6-7).
Clear objectives are the key of any effective interpretive plan: they should be
specific, applicable and measurable, reflecting the interests of stakeholders, and
deriving from long-term considerations of protecting and conserving cultural
significance of heritage places (Sullivan 1997, 16). In doing so, an interpretive
signage plan should include three types of targeted objectives, each of which has its
own specific role in getting across interpretive messages:
1. Learning objectives: these are concerning with what visitors are going to
learn and remember from the site, after they reading/looking at the
signage.
2. Behavioural objectives: these are concerned with what visitors can and/or
cannot do, and how they can use interpretive information.
3. Emotional objectives: these help visitors to remember the theme. They
may help visitors to feel emotions such as surprise, anger, guilty, or
acceptance, and might develop feelings about the protection of the place
and its values.
(Veverka 1994, 45-46)
Step 2: Interpretative themes (stories)
Identifying a theme or themes for interpretive signage is the second step in this
planning model. The aim is to identify key messages, concepts or ‘big ideas’ to be
16
communicated to the visitor about a specific archaeological heritage place, conveying
its tangible and intangible meanings and values. It should be possible to express these
in a clear sentence, possibly supported by secondary point(s), sub-theme(s) or
message(s). The visitor should be able to understand the theme and be able summarize
it in one sentence after viewing the interpretive signage (Hall and McArthur 1998,
171; Harpers Ferry Centre 2000, 8; Serrell 1996, 1-3). The theme should organize and
clarify the structure of the interpretive process, making it more understandable and
comprehensive.
Many interpretation studies (Tilden 1977; Ham 1992; Veverka 1994;
Serrell 1996; Carter 2001) have shown that interpretive themes are one of the most
critical indicators of effective and well-planned interpretation. It organizes and
focuses entire interpretation process on a main story or ‘big idea’, making it more
interpretive, meaningful and memorable, rather than just informative.
As Ham argues that interpretive signage is a thematic as long as it has a
theme; and more meaningful as long as this theme is understandable by visitors. He
goes on stating that “When interpretation has a theme it has a message, we call this
thematic interpretation. When our interpretation isn’t thematic, it seems unorganized,
difficult to follow, and less meaningful to our audiences. This is simply because they
can’t easily see where the communication is going, and they don’t know how to
connect all the information they’re receiving. But when the information we present is
thematic - that is, when it’s all related to some key idea or central message- it
becomes easier to follow and more meaningful to people” (Ham 1992, 33).
This argument reminds us strongly of Tilden’s interpretive principle that
interpretation should ‘provoke’, ‘reveal’ the essence of the message, and ‘relate’ to
everyday life of visitors (Tilden 1977, 9). These issues obviously highlight that the
17
theme is a ‘context’, not only for ideas embedded into text, but also in the outcome of
the interaction of signage elements, including graphics, maps, etc., designed to
communicate with visitors through engaging as much as possible of their senses
(Cross 1998, 12; Veverka 1994, 10).
Research has suggested that most people can handle about seven (plus or
minus two) ideas simultaneously (Miller 2003, 19-20). In the light of this result, Ham
suggests using only one single theme, based on five or fewer main points, in any
interpretation process: “The theme of a presentation, and the five or fewer main ideas
used to develop it, provide the adhesive. In this important respect, themes not only
help interpreters select from their wealth of knowledge which few facts and concepts
to put into their presentations, but if they reveal in advance what the theme is, and
how it will be organized, their audiences also benefit in terms of understanding and
comprehension” (Ham 1992, 23).
Effective themes (see appendices 3- 4)
An effective interpretive signage theme should be understood by all visitors,
regardless of their physical or psychological differences. Its text should be worded
accurately, avoiding bias, jargon, ambiguity, unfamiliar words, or ‘non-visual
reference’ words or illustrations (Masters 2002, 4; Cross 1998, 13). As Veverka
argues, for example, “writing that the site is five acres in size. Consider that most
visitors have never ‘seen’ an acre! Most have no visual reference for just how big an
acre is. If you don’t give them an analogy or some visual frame of reference, this is
useless information for the visitor. There are lots of other words like this, including
technical terms for which visitors may not have any frame of reference” (Veverka
1994, 24). Interpretation, therefore, should be strongly related to the visitor’s
18
experience and built upon their pre-existing experience and knowledge (Uzzell 1998,
244; Zehr et al 1992, 7).
Washburne and Wagar argue that interpretative themes will be more effective
and memorable if interpretive signage uses the story format (as a complete idea,
having a beginning, a core, and a result), or cause-and-effect relationships to narrate
them. Visitors prefer such formats and link these easily with their visual-reference
framework, which often related to their surrounding. In contrast, they do not like
information presented as isolated facts or as identification (Washburne and Wagar
1972, 248-252). Many scholars, therefore, suggest that interpretative text is more
comfortable, for all categories of visitors, if it is presented at a ‘reading age’ of 9-12
(Woods, Moscardo and Greenwood 1998, 50; Masters 2002, 1).
Peter Howard; however, has criticized this trend, claiming that interpretation
with one theme might diminish visitor experience because it is, very often, presented
through only one storyline, or a few ideas, stemming from one paradigm or from one
disciplinary position. As a result, interpretation becomes intrusive and might detract
from the cultural significance of the site (Howard 2003, 247-249).
In spite of this critique, it is obvious that visitors only remember one thing or
message from overall interpretive signage (Veverka 1998, 6). If this message contains
too many ideas, visitors might find it hard to understand and the majority of them
move through it quickly due to overwhelming and confusing with many themes,
which contain too many different ideas (Serrell 1996, 7).
Step 3: Audiences
Concurrently with the identification of the interpretive theme (step 2 above), those
leading the interpretive planning process must identify and understand the physical
and psychological needs of their target audience, who will be the potential viewer and
19
reader of interpretive signage. Basically, the target audience is likely to be those
people for whom the place has value, and for whom it is interpreted. This will vary
from place to place and from country to country; however, in most instances, the
target audience consists of those people who are sufficiently engaged to visit a given
heritage place: be they experts or people with little knowledge; local residents or
tourists; children or retired folk (Veverka 1994, 51-52).
This phase of planning aims at analysing current and/or potential visitors to a
particular heritage place, providing interpretive planning process with information
about the target audience, such as: Who are they? Where are they coming from? What
are their motives and expectations? Why are they visiting the place? What basic
information might they already have? What information do they want about the place?
And so forth. The better the target audience has been understood, the better and more
effective interpretive signage is likely to be (Moscardo1999, 25-26).
Visitor researches (Moscardo1999; Serrell 1996; Washburne and Wagar 1972;
Diment 1998) have shown that target audiences are increasingly heterogeneous rather
than homogenous. Each visitor has his or her own values, interests, motivations, and
physical characteristics, which are different from the others. Understanding these
variables, however, can contribute to identifying common traits, enabling the
interpretive signage to be moulded to them. Visitors represent a ‘non-captive’
audience (in contrast to ‘captive’ audience in classrooms). If they decide to stay, pay
attention, view and read signage, it will only be because they want to. If the
interpretive signage doesn’t interest them, seems too academic, or requires too much
effort to follow, they will probably not pay attention (Ham 1992, 6).
Most often, the primary reason for visiting heritage places, for ‘non-captive’
audience, is not purely for the interpretive experience or taking part in interpretive
20
programmes, but for picnicking and being with friends (op cit). Veverka claims that
“the visitor is in a ‘vacation frame of mind’ and wants to have fun (to recreate). Thus
any learning activity should also be a recreational activity. Interpretive service must
promote the notion that learning is fun and enjoyable” (Veverka 1994, 2). Evidently,
this argument recalls what Tilden raises in his interpretation principles that “the chief
aim of interpretation is not instruction, but provocation” (Tilden 1977, 9).
There are two common approaches used to investigate target audiences:
demographic and psychographic analysis of visitors’ characteristics. Demographic
criteria include personal information (such as age, social-economic background, level
of education, origin, etc.): such information is usually very valuable, used as indicator
of familiarity with the archaeological heritage places and to develop an understanding
of the physical needs of visitors. Psychographic criteria reflect more personal traits
about people, such as motivations, expectations, attitudes, level of interest and
understanding about a theme. This information is very useful to examine
comprehension levels, and the interaction between visitors and various interpretive
messages (Veverka 1994, 52-59; Hall and McArthur 1998, 170-71).
Understanding physical and psychological characteristics of target audiences
is critical to creating an effective interpretive signage plan. It gives interpretive
planners practical clues as to how to capture visitors’ attention, how to enhance their
interpretive experience, and how to make people remember the interpretive messages
after leaving the place. If planners fail in this mission visitors, as ‘non-captive’
audience, may choose not to participate or they may quickly forget all that was learnt.
As has been said “how poorly we understood our visitors, how ineffective we
probably were in communicating with them” (Veverka 1994, 53, 2).
21
Psychological and cognitive learning studies
Psychological and cognitive learning studies have become one of the main tools used
to understand the limits of visitor’s capacity for processing information. The results
can be used to enhance the visitors’ experience of archaeological places by making
interpretive approaches suit their various limitations.
One result from these studies suggests that there is a limit how much
information a visitor can absorb from the interpretation process. It is suggested that
people might retain about:
o 10% of what they hear
o 30% of what they read
o 50% of what they see
o 90% of what they do
(Lewis 1980, 27-28; Veverka 1998, 7)
In addition, studies in museums have raised crucial issues for effective site signage.
For example, they have suggested that people spend an average of forty-five to sixty
seconds in front of an information panel; given an average reading speed for an adult,
who speak the language, standing on their feet, of about 250-300 words per minute,
the potential maximum size of each text panel could be envisaged (Serrell 1996, 125).
The main lesson can be leant is that interpretive signage should be concise,
clearly organized, thematic and meaningful, using all presentation methods to engage
as many as possible of visitors’ senses.
Step 4: Techniques for interpretive signage
Interpretive signage is one of the most practicable interpretive techniques, used at
many heritage places to reveal their meanings and cultural values by making them
more understandable and interpretative for visitors. This technique is an amalgam of
22
many ingredients, including text, illustration(s), photography(s), and map(s),
imaginatively presented to tell a story about an object or a place (Jones 1998, 11;
Diment 1998, 3). Interpretive signage is not only used as a self-guiding technique for
educating and entertaining visitors, at any hour of the day, but also used as an
effective management tool, keeping them away of unsafe and vulnerable features
(Carter 2001, 43; Aplin 2002, 43). Thus individual signs should be carefully planned
as part of an overall signage system, not as a ‘one-off’: signs should both make sense
themselves (recognizing that ‘non-captive’ audience often encounter such signs out of
order - Serrell 1994, 21), with other signs, and as part of the total ‘media-mix’ at any
given place.
Effective interpretive signage
Good interpretive signage should stimulate the visitor to view it, and help make the
site understandable and meaningful. Interpretive studies (Veverka 1994; Ham 1992;
Woods, Moscardo and Greenwood 1998) have outlined four main issues that might be
followed to create effective interpretive signage: attractiveness, clarity, purpose, and
placement (see also Appendices 3-4, 9).
Attractiveness
A sign’s attractiveness is largely based on whether it is aesthetically pleasing, an
appropriate size, and consistent with the landscape or place. As a general rule, the
signage should be totally compatible with the environment of interpreted heritage
place in terms of colours, sizes, shapes, etc., capturing the visitors’ attention and
motivating them to interact with the signage (Veverka 1994, 50).
Clarity of the message
Effective interpretive signage must contain a conspicuous, recognizable and
understandable theme, communicable to viewers within a few seconds. In doing so,
the text should be balanced between brevity and detail, with five or fewer main ideas
23
used to develop the theme. Text should be readable, written in an understandable
language(s), enabling the visitor to follow the structure of the theme and incorporate
its messages into their existing knowledge (Woods, Moscardo and Greenwood 1998,
49).
Purpose
Every sign should be used to achieve learning, behavioural and/or emotional
objective(s) through its various design elements. Signage should influence visitors,
making them interact with the place. These objectives have general and specific
perspectives. The general perspectives are designed to tailor the messages of specific
signs to the general theme, while the specific perspectives connect these messages
with interpreted features or objects, adding new messages and values to the visitors’
experience (Ballantyne, Hughes and Moscardo 2003).
Placement and mounting (see appendix 9)
Intuitionally, interpretive signs will be more effective if those who are writing or
designing them know where they will be placed in advance. Tilden states that “It is
useful to the writer to be familiar with the exact spot where the inscription will be
placed…nor indeed any inscription, should intrude itself between visitor and the
object intended to delight and impress. And there are spots where no interpretive sign
should be erected” (Tilden 1977, 60). Consequently, interpretive signage must be
well-sited, at visible and convenient key locations, attracting the visitors’ eye and
holding their attention. It needs to be mounted carefully, at an appropriate height
(comfortable for seated/standing adults, children, wheelchairs, etc), distance and angle
(for example, to avoid sun dazzle), and matching the view of visitors, with a
connection made between signage and heritage feature (Jones 1998, 10-11). Thus
careful consideration should be given to the placement of every single sign, so as not
24
to detract from the visual qualities of the place or from visitors’ appreciation of it
(Drew 2001, 19). Using angled or ‘lectern’ signs is often preferable in heritage places,
since this type is less obtrusive than upright ones (Diment 1998, 4).
The size and shape of the signage needs to be a convenient size, consistent
with the interpreted feature and with the available space around it, since several
people may view it at once. The signage needs to be erected in a convenient spot; to
avoid potential overcrowding and viewing obstructions, and to ensure that it does not
stand above the horizon of the site’s features or its landscape (Carter 2001, 43; Ham
1992, 237).
Additionally, interpretive signage plan should consider the potential negative
impacts of placement and mounting on site features. In terms of conservation,
interpretive signage is a physical intervention into the heritage place. As such, this
intervention should be reversible, either in its physical material or in its placement
(Australia ICOMOS 2003). Similarly, mounting any type of signage on walls, objects
and/or monuments should be avoided; free-standing signage is less intrusive and
highly recommended. Australia ICOMOS outlines that “New signage where attached
to the place should be capable of being removed without causing damage to the fabric
of the place” (loc cit).
Types of signage
There is no agreed universal terminology for signage types on archaeological sites.
Some institutions use function to describe them (e.g. orientation, introduction,
caption); others use placement (e.g., wall text, feature signage). There is much
confusion in the literature from these contradictory categories. For the purpose of this
paper, interpretive signage will be broadly divided into four main types: introductory,
sub-introductory, feature, and orientation.
25
Introductory signage
This type is mostly placed close to the main entrance of archaeological place, and will
include the main themes of the interpretative programme, often telling the story of the
place. From this signage visitors should get the main story of the place. Obviously,
many visitors will not stop to read a long introduction as they are being drawn into the
site by many competing sights and objects. If the entrance is crowded, visitors may
not want to stop. For these reasons, introductory signage should be placed at an
appropriate spot, its text should be concise, and its typeface clear and large enough to
be read quickly, without stopping for long (Serrell 1996, 21-22).
Sub-introductory signage
Using this type depends upon the interpreted heritage materials and the interpretive
plan. It works as a mediator between the general theme and its supportive messages.
Feature signage
Typically this type of signage is used to interpret individual features at archaeological
sites. It contains brief information about a given feature, including text, illustrations,
plans, etc. as appropriate. As mentioned previously, every feature signage should have
a specific purpose, providing visitors with a specific new message(s) about the
cultural values of the interpreted feature, and clarifying parts of the place’s story.
Although this type of signage is, very often, erected in archaeological places
according to the quality/quantity of their features, these places should not be cluttered
with more signage than their capacity, detracting from the authenticity, integrity and
‘sense of place’ (Jones 1998, 11).
Orientation signs
Orientation signs should contain quiet brief information, such as names, directions,
symbol, maps, etc. They should be written in friendly approachable language, or
illustrated with well understood symbols, informing visitors in how to perceive or use
26
the place, and clarify its story. They are primarily aimed at helping the visitors to find
their way around, keeping them on planned routes away from any potential risk or
fragile features (Serrell 1994, 31; Moscardo 1999, 14). The language of orientation
signage is extremely important: they should be written carefully, avoiding harsh or
ordering words, as Ham states “giving the reason for a rule is almost always going to
be mire effective than just giving the rule, itself…when observing the rule will benefit
the viewer as well as the site, it is best to tell how” (Ham 1992, 287).
Interpretive signage design
Interpretive signage must look attractive and be accessible at a glance. Many people
will decide within seconds whether or not to read it. These few seconds, that ‘non-
captive’ audience spend in reading the signage, should be used to provoke and
stimulate their interest and capture their attention: “If there is no reason for visitors to
want to learn this information, it should be created” (Veverka 1994, 49). It should
attempt to communicate its theme, almost regardless of how much time the visitor
spends viewing or following its sequence (see Appendix 9). Ham (1992, 237) argues
that signs that are designed to communicate a theme, and then look attractive, are
more useful than those that are designed solely to look good, and he suggests two
levels of design: conceptual and artistic design.
Conceptual design
In contrasting oral and written presentation, Ham states “in a talk, the communicator
decides the sequence of the presentation; but in an exhibition viewers, themselves,
decide if and when to pay attention to different parts of the exhibition, regardless of
what the designer has planned or hoped” (Ham 1992, 238-239). Normally oral
communication proceeds in a pre-planned sequence from a definite beginning to a
definite ending; but interpretive signage is nonlinear, because it is without a definite
27
ending. If its title or main heading(s) is conspicuous, most viewers will probably start
reading it, but they may then continue in any order they wish and end at any place the
want (loc cit).
‘Theme title’ The ‘Theme title’ is a term used to describe a title that makes reference to the theme in
interpretive signage (Ham 1992, 240). Building a theme into the title is a key point of
any effective interpretive signage. As has been argued, most visitors spend little time
reading interpretive signage; they may read conspicuous titles immediately, although
some interesting objects or illustrations may initially attract their attention.
Nevertheless, if the theme is in the title, most visitors, regardless of how much time
they spend viewing the signage, will recognize and absorb it (Ham loc cit). The best
interpretive signage communicates its theme very quickly (Drew 2001, 9).
Levels of conceptual message design
As visitors read interpretive signage with different motives and different enthusiasms,
Ham argues that interpretive messages should be divided into levels, so as to fit
various types of visitors:
• Theme awareness
• Awareness of the messages components
• Signage elements and details
Theme awareness Demonstrating the theme is the core of this level, which should be easily
recognized within few seconds. The ‘theme title’ can be employed to achieve this
purpose, especially if it is backed by artistic design.
28
Awareness of the message components (five or fewer ideas)
This level can be accomplished through highlighting conspicuous headings or
subheadings, colours, illustrations, or other visual separators, to quickly show the
visitor the main ideas used to support the theme.
Signage elements and details This should be highly selective, including those facts, ideas and other information
directly necessary to communicate the theme and its supporting messages.
(Ham 1992, 242)
The idea of these levels is that most visitors will not read everything in interpretive
signage, and many of them might go no further than Levels I or II, but conceptual
design should enable the visitors to absorb as much of the theme as they want, and in
the order they wish, regardless of the time they spend reading the messages.
Artistic design
After establishing the conceptual design, interpretive planners have to work hand in
hand with designers, thinking how to present the theme and its supportive messages
artistically. They should consider how they will employ design elements, such as
colours, layout, illustrations, unity, emphasis, balance, and so forth, to serve the theme
and its messages (Ham loc cit).
Well-deigned messages should increase the effectiveness of the interpretive
signage (Gertsch 2000, 45). For example, the designer may choose to emphasize the
theme and its messages by breaking up the text into titles and subtitles, through
colours, or through illustrations and photographs. Although each of these ingredients
is a distinctive part of the signage, the viewer often sees them together as a whole, so
all the design elements must visually go together, leading the visitor’s eye through the
29
sign; otherwise the signage will lack unity and attractiveness (Davis 2003; Ham 1992,
250; Serrell 1996, 149).
Well-designed interpretive signage should have four main characteristics (see
Appendix 5):
• Unity of signage design: this includes overall design elements (titles,
subtitles, headings, illustrations, etc.). These elements should be consistent and
look like they go together.
• Emphasis and contrast: these two criteria should be employed to direct the
visitor’s concentration through the signage. As viewers instinctually read the
largest and most prominent letters first, text format should be employed to
guide them to the most important ideas.
• Balance: this should be utilized to offer the interpretive signage design
stability and making it more pleasing to the visitor eye, using formal and
informal balance on signage.
• Colours: the signs should be based on surroundings environment, or related to
the topic of the interpretive signage.
(Ham 1992, 245-256)
Colours issues A key issue in interpretive signage design is that dark colours stand out against light
backgrounds, and vice versa, regardless of the colours involved.
Typically high contrast colours are needed for signage’s letters and
background; otherwise the words will not show up very well. This is especially
important for outdoor interpretive signage, exposed to the fading effects of the sun,
30
which subsequently reduced their contrast. Nonetheless, neutral colours, such as
black, white, grey, and brown look good in any colour scheme (Ham 1992, 261-62)
and for this reason they are commonly used in text and titles of interpretive signage.
These colours often stand out without making the design appear more complex,
whereas ‘true’ colours (yellow, red, etc.) often do (ibid). Additionally, signage located
in open sunlight is more readable if light letters are used on a dark background:
however, if the signage is shaded, dark letters on a light field is preferred (Ham 1992,
287). Basically, combinations of colours that blend or contrast are usually pleasing to
the eye. However, using glared colours should be avoided, as they may confuse
viewers and may make them switch their attention to something more attractive
(Veverka 1998, 6-7).
Maps and plans The maps and plans on interpretive signage need to be simple, selective, symbolic and
easy to read, including only what the visitors need to understand from the site.
Unnecessarily details should be left out, in order to make the main landmarks more
visible and more legible. In addition, the orientation of maps/plans should be
considered carefully during the design process, so that they match the signage
direction on the ground (Drew 2001, 10; Moscardo 1999, 55). The best maps/ plans
should (see Appendix 9):
• include important information, and excluding excessive details;
• highlight important landmarks and major paths or routes;
• use realistic symbols;
• put text on the map instead of beside it;
• use some colours, if possible;
• include ‘ you are here’ to let visitors locate themselves.
31
(Moscardo 1999, 55)
Images and graphics Interpretive signage should not only rely upon text to get across its messages.
Graphics and images can be very effective devices to convey interpretive stories,
along with the text as supportive elements. Historic images or reconstruction
drawings, which show what a site looked like at an earlier time, might be more
valuable and communicative than other kinds of illustrations (Carter 200, 44; Drew
2001, 9-10).
Text Format Typically any interpretive signage should not have more than 300 words per sign,
providing information on one theme, supported with five or fewer messages (see
above). The theme should be obvious, and its supported ideas clear (Carter 2001, 43-
44; Cross 1998, 12). Similarly, text needs to use specific standards for typeface. Even
though there are no firm rules on this issue, the typeface should be visible and
readable; its point size might range between 24 and 40 (according to the context
whether it is a ‘theme title’, headings, etc.). The typeface must be readable from a
distance of at least one meter and often further. Generally ‘serif’ and ‘san-serif’
typeface are used in outdoor interpretive signage because of their high clarity and
readability (Aplin 2002, 43; Veverka 1994, 113; Zehr 1991, 20-21) (See Appendix 6).
Language(s) Effective interpretive signage should not be written in more than two languages. The
local language, of course, should be the main one, along with one other language,
determined according to the majority of visitors in a particular place. However,
bilingual signs should be considered carefully, since using two languages can mean
duplication of costs and words, and possibly graphics as well (Serrell 1996, 101).
32
Shape and size of interpretive signage There is no standard shape or size for interpretive signage. However, there are some
general guidelines that can be used to make signage more durable, attractive and
interpretive. Rectangular signage (c 0.90 x 0.60m) is strongly recommended, and
commonly used, as being more pleasing to the eye (Drew 2001, 17; Diment 1998, 4).
Material and maintenance The range of available materials for interpretive signage should be identified during
the planning process. Local materials are often preferable, as they are more likely to
match the native environment and its vernacular distinctiveness. Choosing signage
materials (metal, fibreglass, aluminium, etc.) should be based on local circumstances,
either in terms of physical environment, or human and financial resources. It is
recommended that all interpretive signs should be constructed of durable materials,
with a life of at least five years. These materials should be maintainable, cost-
effective, corrosion and vandal resistant, and so forth (Davis 2003; Carter 2001, 43;
Diment 1998, 4) (see Appendices 7- 8).
Since signage materials are generally vulnerable and deteriorate, planners
should set up general guidelines, illustrating what procedures are needed to alleviate
its deterioration and estimating how long it will last in site (Davis 2003; Veverka
1998, 6). Thus the decision of signage material must consider:
• long term maintenance requirements;
• budget limitations;
• life expectancy;
• cost benefits of the various materials;
• graphics requirements including the use of colours
(Drew 2001, 13)
33
The effectiveness of interpretive signage, however, is not only dependent upon the
quality of the signage itself, but also on the quality and quantity of visitor facilities at
a certain place. If the interpretive signage is excellent, but other facilities (such as
parking, catering and lavatories) are poor, unsafe and/or uncomfortable, this will have
a detrimental effect on visitors image of the place: visitors will stop paying attention
to interpretive services and instead switch attention to meeting their psychological and
physical needs (Uzzell 1998, 249; Veverka 1994, 15).
Step 5: Implementation and evaluation
Implementation
The main purpose of this step is to provide the planning process with a blueprint as to
how the interpretive signage plan is going to be implemented, in light of current
opportunities and constraints of a particular place (including human and financial
resources). Phasing implementation into a number of stages, with a wide range of
alternatives, is strongly recommended to overcome the lack of resources (Veverka
1994, 78).
Evaluation
This is an important step in the interpretive signage process. It examines whether or
not interpretive messages are getting across to visitors, and whether the plan’s
objectives are being accomplished. Interpretive signage is relatively inflexible, in
terms of evaluation and it does not allow visitors to provide immediate feedback:
consequently, it needs to be much more accurate than other interpretative techniques
(Uzzell 1998, 187-188). There are three evaluative criteria used to appraise
interpretive signage:
34
1. Front-end evaluation: mostly used in the early stages of the planning process
to understand target audiences and their needs. For example, from where they
come and what they expect.
2. Formative evaluation: typically undertaken at the design stage, in order to
examine the efficacy of a particular interpretive technique. It is much more
targeted towards understanding how specific interpretative activities will
work. Most often it uses mock-ups or prototypes to gain audience feedback,
such as testing a map in order to check if visitors can use it, before printing a
final version.
3. Summative evaluation: examines the effectiveness of the programme after it
has been completed, or already exists. It can inform managers as to whether
objectives of the plan are being met; and whether the audience are getting key
message, etc.
(Serrell 1996, 133-137; Moscardo 1999, 102)
There are various techniques that can be used in these reviews, such as readability and
comprehension tests, questionnaires, interviews, focus group, etc (Serrell 1996, 137-
146). The selection of techniques should be based on the purpose of a specific
research and its evaluation criteria.
35
Chapter Three: Planning interpretive signage for Hisham’s Palace: a case study
Introduction
This chapter develops an interpretive signage plan for Hisham’s Palace (see
fig 3.1), within an interpretive planning model (fig. 3.2) that is based upon the
planning framework discussed in the previous chapter, adapted to fit specific local
conditions.
Hisham’s Palace does not yet have a conservation plan, or statements of
significance, which would ideally have
provided an understanding the needs of the
place, and the requirements of its visitors.
To compensate for this, within the context
of this project, a sample of stakeholders and
visitors to the site were consulted through
two questionnaires. These were targeted to:
1. Assess the existing interpretive signage
at the site.
2. Elicit input for new signage.
In addition, the results of previous research
undertaken on the site place were compiled
to create an interpretive signage plan.
Figure 3.1: Geographical location of Hisham’s Palace,(modified from
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/cia02/west_bank_sm02.gif)
36
Implementation plan
Inventory of cultural evidence
Evaluation of existing signage, visitors and stakeholders
Establishing a theme and its supportive messages
Establishing interpretive signage
Evaluation, implementation and maintenance
Objectives and goals
Inventory and evaluation of resources
(Figure 3.2 : interpretive signage planning model for Hisham’s Palace)
Objectives and goals
The main objective of this case study is to develop a planning model to improve the
quality and quantity of the interpretive signage at Hisham’s Palace. This will be
explored by:
o Examining the effectiveness of existing interpretive signage.
o Proposing new interpretive signage that might increase knowledge gain
and comprehension.
o Enhancing visitor experience through creating new thematic and
meaningful interpretive signage.
37
o Increasing the public awareness of cultural heritage values of Hisham’s
Palace.
o Developing an interpretive programme and service convenient for all types
of visitors.
Inventory and evaluation of site resources
Inventory of cultural evidence
This step includes two main components: the historical background and a survey of
the sites main features.
Historical background
Figure 3.3: A plan of the main features of Hisham’s Palace (modified from Hamdan 2003)
Hisham’s Palace is one of the most
significant early Islamic monuments in
Palestine, built between 724-743 A.D,
during Umayyad dynasty. It is located
approximately two kilometres north of
Jericho, at Khirbet al-Mafjar
(Bouchian 1999, 115). Excavations
during 1930s and 1940s exposed the
luxury and lavishness of the palace
(Hamdan et al 2000, 10). Without
doubt, Hisham’s Palace shows a
considerable development of
architectural and artistic talent during
the early Islamic era.
38
The complex contains a palace, a bath, a mosque, and a public forecourt (see
fig.3.3), reflecting the Umayyad’s luxurious standard of living and their political and
tribal power (FSTC 2002). In decorative terms, the palace gathered the most exquisite
forms of architectural décor, from polychrome mosaic floors, frescos, and marble to
stucco decorated walls and geometric and vegetal representation (Hamilton 1977, 762-
764; FSTC 2002). Perhaps the most important of these are the six lobed (pointed) rosettes
and octagons that appear in different features throughout the complex. Hisham’s Palace
represents a unique example of the depiction of humans and animals in Umayyad
decorative art (FSTC 2002).
Archaeological investigations indicate that the baths were the only part of the
complex that had been completed and was in use, before the destruction of the site by
an earthquake in 749 A.D (Bouchain 1999, 117).
Main features of the site
For the purpose of this paper, the main features of Hisham’s Palace were identified by
consultations with stakeholders, especially those who have a direct relationship with
the site, such as, department of Antiquities, Municipality of Jericho, and so on (see
appendix 10) and through consideration of its historical and archaeological record.
Four main features (with numerous sub-features) were identified:
• Palace
• Baths
• Mosque
• Ornamental pool
39
The palace
Figure 3.4: General view of the palace
The palace was a square, two-
storied building, constructed
around an internal porticoed
courtyard, and set within a
boundary wall with protruding
towers. Its entrance was in the
west wall of the forecourt, which
was decorated with finely
sculpted niches. The palace included an audience hall, a small internal mosque, and an
underground bath (Hamilton 1977, 755-757). Currently three features stand out: a
circular rose window, a private mosque, and the underground bath or Sirdab.
The baths complex
Figure 3.5: Diwan’s Mosaic floor
The complex consists of a domed
porch, a hall or frigidarium, a
small reception room, a series of
bathing rooms, and a latrine. The
baths are one of the largest Islamic
baths ever built, with possibly the
largest continuous mosaic surface
of ancient times. The fine mosaic
panels have remarkable geometric,
vegetal, and other designs and
motifs, and make it the most attractive feature on the site (Bouchain 1999, 116-117;
Hamilton 1997, 757).
40
The dominating features of the bath are the frigidarium and the reception room
Diwan). The frigidarium is a square hall, with sixteen massive piers (reconstructed
during 1960s), which originally supported the bath’s domed roof. Each of its sides has
of three curves, used for placing statutes. The Diwan, however, is the most lavishly
decorated, not only at the bath, but also among all over the palace components: the
walls were decorated with stucco and the floor was paved with a wonderful
polychrome mosaic, known with the ‘life tree’, containing the scene of a lion
pouncing upon unsuspecting gazelles grazing under a tree (Hamdan et al 2000, 10;
Bouchain 1999, 116-117).
The mosque
This is a rectangular building, lying
close to the north side of the palace,
and built as an open-air mosque. The
area immediately in front of the niche
(mihrab) was covered by a portico,
supported by columns (Hamilton 1977,
757).
Ornamental pool
A square pool, in the centre of the
forecourt, supplied by a central
fountain and covered by an octagonal
pavilion, decorated with stucco and
sculptured relief figures (Hamilton
1977, 757).
Figure 3.6: The mosque
Figure 3.7: reconstruction of the ornamental pool
41
Evaluation of existing interpretive signage, visitors and stakeholders
The effectiveness of existing interpretive signage at Hisham’s Palace was assessed by
undertaking a review of existing signage (from a summative and front-end evaluation)
and through results of previous research (undertaken at the site). The former methods
were used as criteria to assess the effectiveness of the existing interpretive signage,
and to get input from stakeholders and visitors to help inform any upgrading or
replacement of the signage.
This work was carried out through two questionnaires: one for site visitors and
another for its stakeholders (see Appendices 11-12). Both questionnaires were
distributed to visitors and stakeholders for a month (June 2003). Due to the unstable
political situation in Palestine, these questionnaires were delivered to both visitors and
stakeholders through the Internet. Some stakeholders were also engaged through
telephone-interviews (see Appendix 10).
Critical review of existing signage
Currently there are two types of metal
interpretative signs used at Hisham’s Palace:
introductory and orientation signage.
Figure 3.8: existing introductory gn at Hisham’s Palace si
A single introductory sign is used to
interpret the entire site: it is placed vertically,
standing 1.7m high, close to the main entrance
of the palace complex. As seen from the
photograph (right), the sign is bilingual (Arabic
and English), with white letters on brown
background and without illustrations.
Unfortunately, the date of the palace’s
42
construction is different in the two languages. Furthermore, the signage’s mounting
system is not comfortable for either viewing or reading.
Figure 3.9: Orientation signage at Hisham’s Palace
The orientation signage is used
without any clear system. They are marked
with either white arrows, or with feature
names, on a black background. The signage
has often been employed to function as
feature signage, rather than orientation. This
signage does not conform to the standards
for effective interpretive signage as set out
in Chapter 2, and this reflects the results of
P.I.S.A project (integrated planning in the
archaeological sites: it was one of Euor-
Mediterranean cultural heritage projects, undertaken at eight countries in the
Mediterranean region between 1998-2000. Hisham’s Palace was used, among other
sites in Jericho, as a case study for this project) which suggested that the interpretative
signage at Hisham’s Palace lacked the quality and quantity to be effective (Hamdan et
al 2000, 80).
Evaluation of visitors and stakeholders of Hisham’s Palace
Following the discussion of Chapter 2, this section will include three components:
• profile of visitors to Hisham’s Palace
• analysis of the results of the visitor questionnaire
• analysis of the results of the stakeholder questionnaire
43
Profile of visitors to Hisham’s Palace According to results of P.I.S.A. project, in the period between 1996 and 1999
approximately 45,000 visitors annually visited Hisham’s Palace (Hamdan et al 2000,
77-78). Local people constituted the majority of visitors (see fig 3.10), indicating that
the target audience of Hisham’s Palace interpretation should be local visitors.
05000
100001500020000250003000035000
Pal
US
A
Ger Fr It
Sp
UK Ho
Jap
Oth
er
1996199719981999
Pal: Palestinian USA: American Ger: German Fr: French It: Italian Sp: Spanish UK: British Ho: Holland Jap: Japan
Figure 3.10: Profile of visitors Hisham’s Palace (Adapted from Hamdan et al 2000, 77)
Results of visitor questionnaire analysis Visitors to the site completed 44 questionnaires during June 2003. Table 3.1
summarizes the results of these.
Responses Questions Yes No
While you were exploring the site, did you read its interpretive signage?
40 (91%) 4 (9%)
Do you enjoy reading the signage? 19 (43%) 25 (57%) Do you find the signage easy to read? 36 (82%) 8 (18%) Do you like its colours? 22 (50%) 22 (50%) Do you feel that you easily established the main message(s) interpretive signage was trying to tell you?
36 (82%) 8 (18%)
Do you think the signage was sufficiently interpretive? 7 (16%) 37 (84%) Do you think the signage was overloaded with information? 10 (23%) 34 (77%) Do you think its text includes too many technical terms? 19 (43%) 25 (57%) Do you think the signage was well designed? 12 (28%) 32 (72%) Do you think the signage was Lacked of sufficient illustrations?
42 (95%) 2 (5%)
Do you think the number of existing signage sufficient to interpret the site?
6 (14%) 38 (86%)
44
Questions Responses How much time did you spend at Hisham’s Palace on this visit?
25 (57%) spent between 1-2 hours 19 (43%) spent less than 1 hour
Are you Student? 33(75%) were students 15(25%) were not students
Is your age between 10-18, or more than 18? 44 (100%) more than 18
Table 3.1: Results of the visitor questionnaire analysis
Results of stakeholder questionnaire analysis Stakeholders (including professionals and decision makers of the site) completed 13
questionnaires during June 2003. Table 3.2 summarizes the results of these.
Questions Responses Do you consider the current interpretive signage at Hisham’s Palace good enough to interpret the site?
o 11 (85%) said no o 2 (15%) said yes
How do you feel about the current signage?
o 12 (92%) said its quality was very poor. o 12 (92%) claimed there was little information o 9 (69%) reported few technical terms
How many key ideas do you get from current signage?
o 10 (77%) got one idea from the signage o 3 (23%) got none
Do you suggest? - Leaving the signage as it is
- Partially changing it - Totally changing it
o 12 (92%) suggested total change o 1 (8%) suggested partial change
What do think are the main sites and/or cultural heritage features that should be included in the interpretation of Hisham’s Palace?
o 11 (85%) said the palace, the bath, the mosque, and the ornamental pool
o 2 (15%) added to above features the water system, and the service area (out of the compound).
What are the principal messages (themes) that the visitor should remember after leaving the site?
o 8 (62%) said the site should be interpreted as an example of the prosperity of early Islamic art and architecture.
o 4 (30%) said the interpretation should show the early Islamic stratigraphy and its relationship with other civilizations.
o 1(8%) said that the interpretation should underline the early Islamic techniques of using mosaic and stucco.
What type(s) of interpretive media do you think would be suitable for interpreting the site?
o 11 (85%) strongly recommended using signage o 2 (15%) recommended using guided tours and
brochures o 12 (92%) strongly recommended using brochures
along with signage o 12 (92%) strongly recommended avoiding
reconstruction as an interpretive media What kind of signage do you think would be most suitable for the site?
o 9 (69%) said metal signage is the most convenient for the site
o 4 (31%) said mosaic signage is the most convenient
45
for the site Questions Responses How many languages do you think the signage should be written?
o 10 (77%) said Arabic and English o 3 (23%) said Arabic, English and Hebrew
What kind of mounting system would you consider the best?
o 3 (23%) said upstanding signage (mounted on two posts)
o 8 (62%) said lectern signage (mounted on two posts) o 2 (15%) said lectern signage (mounted on one post)
Do you think the signage should be equipped with lighting system (to be lighted at night)?
o 7 (54%) thought the signage should not be lighted. o 6 (46%) thought it should be lighted
What media do you think should be used to best communicate with visitors?
o 12 (92%) strongly recommended using a combination of text, reconstruction drawings, and maps
o 1 (8%) strongly recommended using a combination of text and maps
Do you think the interpretation of this site?
Should the site be part of a wider interpretation strategy?
OR
Should the site be interpreted as an individual archaeological landscape?
o 9 (69%) advocated wider interpretation strategies o 4 (31%) advocated interpreting the site as an
individual archaeological site
Table 3.2: Results of the stakeholder questionnaire analysis
The information gained from the questionnaires sheds new light on the issues of the
quality and quantity of the interpretive process at the palace. A clear message is that
the current interpretive signage at this site is considered to be ineffective as an
interpretative medium. It is suggested that it should be replaced, by new well-planned
system, presenting the site in a more thematic and meaningful way.
Establishing a theme and supporting messages
On the basis of the planning steps in this chapter, and the results of the questionnaires,
the interpretative theme for Hisham’s Palace might be the architectural and artistic
splendour of the early Islamic era. This theme should be worded clearly and supported
with three to five messages, which jointly form the content of the interpretive signage
throughout the site. A combination of text, photographs, maps, and illustrations is
suggested. The messages could be:
46
1. The palace shows the Umayyad’s considerable architectural and decorative
talents.
2. The design and layout of the palace reflects the nature of the early Islamic
regime, which linked between the politics, religion and public.
3. The palace represents an elaborate use of a mixture of architectural décor,
extending from mosaic floors to stucco decoration, with geometrical and
vegetal representation.
4. The palace has high quality Islamic architectural and artistic features, such as
the six lobed (pointed) rosettes, octagons, circular rose windows and the
depiction of humans and animals in decorative art.
5. The palace shows considerable influence from other cultures, mainly Sasanian
and Byzantine.
The stakeholder survey suggests that various interpretive strategies (regional,
national, and local) should be used for interpreting this site. The above theme and
supportive messages can be used to serve these strategies as follows:
• For the regional interpretive strategy Hisham’s Palace can be presented as
one of Umayyad palaces in Syrian-Jordanian-Palestinian desert.
• For the national interpretive strategy the palace can be interpreted as a good
example of early Islamic artistic and architectural monument in Palestine.
• For the local interpretive strategy the palace can be presented as an example
of the prosperity of early Islamic period in Jericho district.
Establishing interpretive signage
The philosophy of developing new interpretive signage for Hisham’s Palace will be
based on:
• The standards of effective interpretive signage discussed in Chapter 2
47
• The results of the visitor and stakeholder evaluation
• And, take into consideration the local conditions of Hisham’s Palace, such as
its cultural significance, physical and financial circumstances, and local
distinctiveness.
This section will attempt to highlight the issues that are related directly to the locality
of this site, in signage design, placement, etc. (see Table 3.3); general standards were
detailed in Chapter 2.
Recommended guidelines for interpretive signage at Hisham’s Palace
Based on Item Recommendation and description of use
stakeholders Chapter 2
Notes
Signage Material
Metal See page 45
See Appendices 7-8
Metal signage is the most convenient for this site because of its durability, cost-effectiveness, resistance to weathering, fading, vandalism, capability to include texts, graphics, etc.
Shape Rectangular lectern See page 46
See page 25 & Appendix 9
Rectangular shapes are visually more pleasing to the eye. Lectern signage is preferable since it is much less obtrusive than upright signs at archaeological sites.
Size Fitting with the size of interpreted features and its landscape.
See page 25, 33 & Appendix 9
There is no firm standard size for signage to be followed. However, some scholars prefer the size 900x600mm, which is commonly used.
Mounting and placement
- Should use free standing lectern signage, mounting upon two posts accommodating all categories of visitors. - It should be deliberately placed subservient to the landscape without dominating views and avoiding direct sunshine.
See page 46
Page 25 & Appendix 9
Free standing signage can be easily sited as irreversible intervention at this site. It is safer and stronger if it is mounted upon two posts. Using lectern signage is more comfortable for seated/ standing adults, children, and disabled visitors than up standing ones.
48
Based on Item Recommendation and description of use
stakeholders Chapter 2
Notes
Language Bilingual: Arabic and English
See page 46
See page 32
Since most visitors are locals, Arabic should be the first language for the signage. English speaking visitors are the second largest group at the site.
Colour White letters on brown background regardless of the language.
See pages 31-32 & Appendix 5
Since these signs will not be shaded, they will be more readable if light letters are used on a dark background.
Typeface - Serif for main English text and san-serif for titles and headings, ranging between 24-36 point.
- Traditional Arabic typeface for the main text and its headings with the same point as English text.
See page 32 & Appendix 5
These typefaces are commonly used in interpretive signage due to their high clarity and readability.
Graphics, maps, other illustrations
Colourful graphics and maps should be used so as to make the theme more readable and easy to get across.
See page 32 & Appendix 5
Mostly using graphics, coloured maps, etc. makes signage more readable and attractive, communicating with visitors not only by reading but also by seeing, giving them a visual image about the site.
Locality
The signage should reflect the local spirit of Jericho either in the design or in the context.
See pages 32-33
Locality of Hisham’s palace can be reflected through design, language, interpretive theme and messages.
Table 3.3: Interpretive signage guidelines for Hisham’s Palace
Specific objectives and purposes of new interpretive signage
The main task of this signage is to present the site’s story through its dominating
features, to attract the visitor’s attention and strongly reflect its significance.
Therefore, as has been repeatedly outlined, this signage should be designed as part of
the site, consistent with its integrity, minimising its visual intrusion, and serving as
49
the best way for conveying its messages and inspiring its visitors. In this light, the
main objectives of the signage will be:
o The majority of visitors should be able to recognize Hisham’s Palace as a
unique example of early Islamic artistic and architectural development.
o The majority of visitors should be able to understand the role of the
mosque in the early political Islamic regime.
o The majority of visitors should be able to notice the animals and human
depictions in the mosaic floors and stucco decoration.
o The majority of visitors should be able to recognize the mixture and
coexistence of different artistic and architectural material.
o The majority of visitors should be surprised to see various polychrome
mosaic floors and stucco decorations.
o The majority of visitors should feel a sense of pride that this artistic and
architectural treasure has been preserved to illustrate the Umayyad
architectural splendour.
o The majority of visitors should be aware of the importance of the
conservation efforts needed to preserve this unique asset.
All the above objectives have been designed to be measurable criteria, so that they
can be used to examine the effectiveness of the interpretive signage and to ensure
whether that these objectives are being achieved. According to Veverka “when you
have the panel text and graphics working at a 70% or greater level of objective
accomplishment - then send it out for final production” (Veverka 1998, 6). Thus the
figure of 70% can be used to gauging the effectiveness of interpretive signage.
50
Proposed interpretive signage
In this stage four types of interpretive signage will be proposed for Hisham’s Palace:
• Orientation
• Introductory
• Sub-introductory
• Feature.
Numbers are assigned to every proposed sign, with its location indicated on the site
plan (fig. 3.10).
Figure 3.11: placement of new signage (modified from Hamdan 2003)
Orientation signage
Orientation signage should include coloured maps, plans and/or symbols, presenting
the main features of the site and its landscape.
51
• Sign Map no.1: this will be the first sign at Hisham’s Palace, placed close to
the entrance, showing the relationship of this site with the other major
Palestinian cities, including Jericho, Jerusalem, and Ramallah. Essentially the
aim of this sign is to give the visitor a sense of the location of the site through
linking it with the well-known Palestinian cities.
• Sign Map no. 2: this should be placed close to the entrance and cover the
dominating features of the site. The aim of this sign is to give the visitor an
overview, presenting the whole picture of complex, helping them to
understand the layout of the site and subsequently connect its various
components.
• Arrows signage: these, marked with white arrows against a brown
background, will be sited at appropriate points to direct visitors to the
interpreted features at the site.
• Names signage: this type of sign will be used to include the names of some
features that are important, so as to help the visitor to understand the different
components of the site.
Introductory signage
One introductory sign will be used (no.3) to conveying the main interpretative theme,
using a combination of text, illustrations and reconstruction drawings. The main text
should not be more than 200 words in each language. This sign should be sited at an
appropriate place between the main entrance and the entrance to the palace, so as to
enable the visitor to view the site at a comfortable perspective.
Sub-introductory signage
At Hisham’s Palace this signage technique should be used as a mediator between the
general theme and its specific supportive messages. Two sub-introductory signs
52
should be used: one close to the east entrance of the palace (no.4), and the other
before the south entrance to the baths complex (no.7).
Interpretive feature signage
This type of signage conveys precise message(s) and presents the specific value(s) of
a particular feature. At Hisham’s Palace this signage will be used to provide visitors
with one or two messages about a given feature, chosen from above listed of
supportive messages of the site’s theme. These messages should relate to the general
theme, although every sign should have the ability to communicate its message(s)
independently, taking into consideration that ‘non-captive’ audience might read them
out of order (see Chapter 2). The text of every sign should not have more than 150
words in each language, with supporting reconstruction drawings and plans.
The palace
• Sign no.5: placed close to the circular rosette window to provide the visitor
with the fifth supportive message, through text and reconstruction, showing its
location at the facade of the second floor.
• Sign no.6: sited close to the entrance of the sirdab, addressing its function and
conveying the third supportive message of the theme.
The baths
• Sign no.8: an appropriate spot in the frigidarium, conveying parts of the
fourth supportive message.
• Sign no.9: erected outside the bath complex, close to the north-west side of
the reception room, demonstrating the first and fourth supportive message.
• Sign no.10: sited at an appropriate spot close to the furnace, demonstrating its
function and relationship with the bath.
53
The mosque
• Sign no.11: placed at a suitable location in front of the mihrab, presenting the
third supportive message, and illustrating its function and role in the early
Islamic regime.
The ornamental pool
• Sign no.12: sited close to the monument, reflecting the fourth and first
supportive messages.
Evaluation, implementation and maintenance
Evaluation
As it has been stated, the planning process should not be an end in itself, but rather a
dynamic process with effective criteria to assess its impact and to improve and update
its products (Alderson and Low 1987, 22). In doing so, it is preferable to use
evaluation criteria, and mock-ups technique during the planning process, to examine
whether the planned signage is likely to work, before implementing expensive
signage. Such step can also allow visitors and local residents to contribute their ideas
to the design, before producing the final version.
Summative evaluation is also highly recommended, to ensure that whether the
signage is meeting its objectives. Using such evaluation criteria may reveal issues that
need further refinement, or that could not have been anticipated earlier.
Implementation
The implementation of any interpretive signage plan always depends on the quality
and quantity of available human and financial resources. Splitting the implementation
process into phases may help the decision-makers of Hisham’s Palace to overcome
such circumstances.
54
Maintenance
Although it is important to choose durable, vandal and fade resistance signage for
Hisham’s Palace, monitoring issues are also extremely important. Maintenance should
be part of an overall maintenance programme, to ensure a prolonged life-span for the
signage, with replacement whenever required.
55
Conclusions
Interpretive signage is one of the most important media for both site and visitor
management, used for conveying interpretive messages and inspiring visitors, keeping
them on designated routes, out of vulnerable areas, for promoting heritage-friendly
behaviour, and for avoiding damage and injury (Aplin 2002, 43). One cannot consider
interpretive signage without equal thought to the entire planning and management
process at a particular site, including its conservation and management plan, statement
of significance, stakeholders, visitors, interpretative programmes and services.
This research project has focused on key components to planning a successful
interpretive signage programme. In Chapter 1, the importance of a holistic
interpretive approach was highlighted; a crucial foundation for any interpretive
planner before starting to develop an interpretive plan for a given site. It explored the
issues of interpretive definitions, uses, debates, principles, and planning. Tilden’s
definitions and principles of interpretation were outlined as the most influential
literature in interpretation theory. Also this chapter attempted to demonstrate different
uses of interpretation that are often utilized to serve political and self objectives.
In Chapter 2, a planning model for interpretive signage was outlined as an
ideal planning approach for archaeological sites. Basic considerations and guidelines
for preparing effective and thematic interpretive signage were established through five
ingredients: identifying measurable objectives; establishing main themes and
supportive messages; understanding intended audiences; exploring interpretive
techniques; and the process of implementation and evaluation. The principle objective
of this model was not only to interpret cultural values of a particular site, as identified
in its conservation and management policies, but also to understand the physical and
psychological characteristics of target audiences, including their capability to process
56
interpretive messages and the ways they learn and absorb these messages. This led to
identifying an obvious theme supported by fewer than five messages, conveying the
main story of the site and matching this to the needs of a ‘non-captive’ audience.
In addition, to make sure the interpretive objectives will be achieved, this
model uses two levels of design: conceptual and artistic. The conceptual design
should be developed before the artistic in order to yield not only attractive, but also
interpretive and meaningful signage. Moreover, it includes crucial criteria to gauge
the effectiveness of the interpretive signage, either as a technique, or before, during
and after the planning process. The real value of this approach is to strengthen and
add a new dimension to planning principles and practice at archaeological sites.
The steps outlined in Chapter 2 can be used and adapted to fit local conditions
of a particular site. As good planning practice, Chapter 3 tested the model, adapting
it to fit the local conditions of Hisham’s Palace. Accordingly, an implementation
interpretive signage plan was established, including an interpretive programme with
one theme and five supportive messages, with twelve planned interpretive signs.
These signs were proposed as an example for interpreting the entire site, designed to
suit most categories of visitors, and to be attractive, provocative, interpretive,
thematic, memorable and meaningful, conveying the story and messages of the place.
The case study helped to emphasize two key points:
• The necessity to consider all the cultural values, and the main physical
features, of a given archaeological place when preparing an interpretive plan,
and understanding their conditions before implementation.
• The importance of involving stakeholders and visitors in the planning process,
identifying their needs and pre-existing knowledge regarding cultural values in
order to produce a realistic and workable interpretive plan.
57
Finally, I would like to end this paper with the words of Bob Jones on the preparation
of interpretive signage: “see your panel as others see it! Put yourself in the mind of
the user, leave your own baggage to one side and don’t hesitate to start again. Better
still, do some pre-testing with cheap laser-print” (Jones 1998, 10).
58
Bibliography
Alderson, W, and S, Low 1987. Interpretation of historic sites. Nashville: American
Association for State and Local History.
Aplin, G, 2002. Heritage: Identification, Conservation, and management. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Australia ICOMOS, 2003. Draft guidelines for the assessment of heritage planning
applications[online] http://www.heritage.vic.gov.au/plan_guide_n.html
[27/06/2003].
Ballantyne, R, Hughes, K, and G, Moscardo 2002. Interpretive signage principles and
practice [online]
http://www.interpretivesigns.qut.edu.au/signs_construction/strengths.html
[13/07/03]
Bouchain, J, 1999. Endangered cultural heritage in the west bank governorates.
Ramallah, MOPIC.
Carter, J, (ed), 2001. A Sense of Place: an interpretive planning handbook [online]
www.scotinterpnet.org.uk [18/6/2003].
Cross, S, 1998. The tip of the iceberg, Interpretation: a journal of heritage and
environmental interpretation, 3, 12-13.
Davis, K, 2003. Components of an interpretive station, sign, or label [online]
http://www.sfasu.edu/ag/arboretum/pgm/signage/Signage-6.htm [2003, 24/06/
2003]
Diment, N, 1998. Not another boring panel!, Interpretation: a journal of heritage and
environmental interpretation, 3, 3-4.
59
Drew, G, 2001. Guidelines for producing Outdoor interpretive signage [online]
http://www.coastal.southaustralia.com/new/documents/Sign%20manual.pdf ,
[23/06/03].
FSTC 2002. Khirbet al-Mafjar [online]
http://ic.ucsc.edu/~langdale/arth139/khirbet.htm [05/07/03].
Gertsch, F, 2000. Compliance with Wilderness Campsite Closure Techniques:
Quetico Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada [online]
http://www3.sympatico.ca/fgertsch/PDFversion.html [02/07/03].
Hall, C and S, McArthur 1998. Integrated heritage management: principle and
practice. London: The Stationary Office.
Ham, S, 1992. Environmental interpretation: A practical guide for people with big
ideas and small budgets. Golden: North American Press.
Hamdan, O, 2003. A plan of Hisham’s palace. Unpublished work, al-Fenon
Engineering office, Ramallah.
Hamdan, O, Zawawi, Z, and S, Zaina 2000. Research action, Jericho case study: final report [online] http://www.pisanet.org/pagina.asp?num=360andlang=1 [05/07/03]. Hamilton, R, 1977. Al-Mafjar, Khirbet, in M Avi-Yonah and E Stern(eds),
Encyclopoidia of archaeological excavations in the holy land, 754-765.
Jerusalem: Israel exploration society and Massada press.
Harpers Ferry Centre 2000. Comprehensive interpretive planning [online]
http://www.nps.gov/hfc/pdf/cip-guideline.pdf [ 28/06/03].
Howard, P, 2003. Heritage: management, interpretation, identity. London:
Continuum.
IAA 2003. What is interpretation? [online]
http://www.interpretationaustralia.asn.au/aboutwhatis.htm[25/06/03]
60
Jones, B, 1998. Rules of engagement: the forest experience, Interpretation: a journal
of heritage and environmental interpretation, 3, 11.
Kerr, J, 1996. The conservation Plan: A Guide to the Preparation of Conservation
Plans for Places of European Cultural Significance. Sydney: National Trust of
Australia (NSW).
Lewis, W, 1980. Interpreting for park visitors. Philadelphia, Eastern Acorn Press.
Lowenthal, D, 1985. The past is a foreign country. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Masters, D, 2002. Writing interpretation[online] http://www.snh.org.uk/wwo/Interpretation/pdf/writing.pdf [23/06/2003].
McVerry, J, 2001. Interpretation: a magnificent conservation tool? Interpretation: a
journal of heritage and environmental interpretation, 6, 8-11.
Miller, G, 2003. The magical of number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our
capacity for processing information [online] http://www.ti.et-inf.uni-
siegen.de/Lehre/OOS/The%20Magical%20Number%20Seven.pdf [28/06/03].
Moscardo, G, 1999. Making visitors mindful: Principles for creating quality
sustainable visitor experiences through effective communication. Champaign,
IL: Sagamore.
Pearson, M, and S, Sullivan 1999. Looking after heritage places: the basics of
heritage planning for managers, Landowners, and administrators. Victoria:
Melbourne University Press.
Serrell, B, 1996. Exhibit labels: an interpretive approach. Oxford: Altamira Press.
Sivan, R, 1997. The presentation of archaeological sites, in M De la Torre (ed), The
conservation of archaeological sites in the Mediterranean Region, 51-59. Los
Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute.
Skeates, R, 2000. Debating the Archaeological Heritage. London: Gerald Duckworth.
61
Sullivan, S, 1997. A planning model for the management of archaeological sites, in M
De la Torre (ed), The conservation of archaeological sites in the
Mediterranean Region, 15-26. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute.
Taylor, R, 2001. Foreword: what is sustainable tourism? Interpretation: a journal of
heritage and environmental interpretation, 6, 3-4.
Tilden, F, 1977. Interpreting our heritage. Chapel Hill: The University of North
Carolina Press.
University of Texas 2003 [online]
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/cia02/west_bank_sm02.gif [18.07.003]
Upitis, A, 1989. Interpreting cross-cultural sites, in D Uzzell (ed), Heritage
interpretation: the natural and built environment, 153-160, vol. 1. London:
Belhaven Press.
Uzzell, D, 1989. Introduction: the Visitor experience, in D Uzzell (ed), Heritage
interpretation: the natural and built environment, 1-15 vol. II. London:
Belhaven Press.
Uzzell, D, 1998. Planning for interpretive experiences, in D Uzzell and R Ballantyne:
Contemporary issues in heritage and environmental interpretation: problems
and prospects, 232-252. London: The Stationary Office.
Veverka, J, 1994. Interpretive Master Planning: for parks, historic sites, forests, zoos
and related tourism sites. Montan: Falcon Press Publishing.
Veverka, J, 1998. Planning truly interpretive panels, Interpretation: a journal of
heritage and environmental interpretation, 3, 5-7.
Washburne, P, and J, Wagar 1972. Evaluating visitor response to exhibit content,
Curator, 15, 248-254.
62
Woods, B, Moscardo, G, and T, Greenwood 1998. A critical review of readability and
comprehensibility tests, Journal of Tourism Studies, 9, 49-61.
Zehr, J, Gross, M, Heintzman, J, and R, Zimmerman 1991. Creating Environmental
Publications: A Guide to Writing and Designing for Interpreters and
Environmental Educators. Stevens Point, WI: UW-SP Foundation Press.
63
Appendices
Appendix 1: Definitions of interpretation
The communication process which aims at helping people to discover the significance of things, places, people and events…helping people change the way they perceive themselves and their world through a greater understanding of the world and themselves.
Colonial WilliamsburgUSDA
A planned effort to create for the visitor an understanding of the history and significance of events, people, and objects with which the site is associated. Interpretation is both program and an activity. The program establishes a set of objectives for the things we want our visitors to understand; the activity has to do with the skills and techniques by which the understanding is created.
Alderson and Low Interpretation is how people communicate the significance of cultural and natural resources. It instils understanding and appreciation. It helps develop a strong sense of place. It presents an array of informed choices on how to experience the resource.
Paskowski The process of stimulating and encouraging an appreciation of our natural and cultural heritage and communicating nature conservation ideals and practice.
Queensland NationalParks and Wildelife
Services Creating an experience or situation in which individuals are challenged to think about and possibly make decisions concerning natural resources.
Vermont Department of Forests,Parks and Recreation USA
(Source Hall and McArthur,1998)
64
Appendix 2: levels of planning in archaeological heritage places
65
Appendix 3: Guidelines for better message text
1. Interpretation contributes directly to the enrichment of visitor experiences; 2. Interpretation makes visitors aware of their place in the total environment and gives them a better understanding of the complexities of coexisting with that environment;
(Source: Ham, 1992 as cited in Gertsch, 2000)
3. Interpretation may broaden the visitor’s horizons beyond the park or forest boundary, giving a greater understanding of the total natural resources picture; 4. Interpretation informs the public and an informed public may make wiser decisions on matters related to natural resources management; 5. Interpretation may reduce the unnecessary destruction of park property, resulting in lower maintenance and replacement costs; 6. Interpretation provides a means of moving people subtly from sensitive areas to sites that can better sustain heavy human impact, thus protecting the natural environment; 7. Interpretation is a way to improve public image and establish public support; 8. Interpretation may instil in visitors a sense of pride in their country or in the region’s culture or heritage; 9. Interpretation may assist in the successful promotion of parks where tourism is essential to an area’s or country’s economy; 10. Interpretation may be effective in preserving a significant historic site or natural area by arousing citizen concern; and 11. Interpretation may motivate the public to take action to protect their environment in a sensible and ecological way.
66
Appendix 4: Fifteen steps to more powerful sign text
1. Use theme titles, not topic titles. 2. When possible, build sub-themes into level II headings. 3. Limit your organization of the message in level II to five or fewer main ideas. The fewer the better. 4. Think visually: use illustrations or visual metaphors. 5. Limit the main copy in level II to the amount that could be read by an average reader in 45 to 60 seconds maximum (about 225 to 300 words). 6. Don’t include transitions from one part of the text to another: readers don’t always read the text in order. 7. Keep it simple and easy. Avoid having even one technical term in your text. Use as many one-syllable words as possible. 8. Limit sentence length to 10 to 15 words where possible. If the sentence is more than 22 words, cut it in two. 9. Use short paragraphs: two to three sentences is not too short. 10. Edit out passive tenses and substitute active verbs. 11. Put main clauses first in a sentence and subordinate clauses second. 12. Be personal. Use personal words as much as possible, and stay informal in tone. 13. Use bridging techniques. Brief examples, analogies, and comparisons will link your explanations to things viewers already know or care about. 14. Always think thematically even when writing texts for markers and regulatory signs. 15. Proofread and spell-check the text at least three times. (Source: Ham, 1992 as cited in Gertsch, 2000)
67
Appendix 5. Artistic considerations in signage design
CHARACTERISTIC
CONSIDERATIONS
Unity BOUNDARIES
· Signs must have defined space (boundaries). · Use conspicuous lines or bars on one or more of the margins of the design. · Keep a constant band of empty (‘void’) space around the margins of the design. · Paint or colour the outside edge of the exhibit.
TEXT and TYPE STYLES
· Use consistent type styles. · Avoid using more than two different typefaces. · Avoid signs with text in “all caps,” often even in titles. · Use appropriate sizes for text.
· Use what “looks right” to determine spaces between letters. . Use1 ½ times the width of the letter “I” as a guideline. · Use one of two guidelines: space of the width of the capital letter “M” to space of the width of the lower case “t”. The maximum number of characters per line should be between 50 and 65.45,46 Space between words should be the same, rather than variable as in “justified” text. · The space between lines varies with type styles, type sizes, line lengths, and intended viewing distances. Again, arrange the lines so as they look right in the same circumstances the audience will be viewing the sign. · Keep the lettering style conservative and readable. The words on a sign are meant to be read and nothing more. Times New Roman and Helvetica typefaces are recommended.
COLOUR SCHEMES
· Use a predominant colour through the sign. · Choose colour combinations that make sense. · Avoid using too many different colours in one design (one or two often enough). · Typically, dark letters on a light background are easier to read that light letters on a dark background. The reverse is true in darker environments or at night.
SHAPES ·
· Use consistent shapes, either regular or irregular.
LINES and ANGLES
· Repeat predominant angles and lines in the design.
ILLUSTRATIONS
· Use variety, but don’t mix a lot of different kinds of illustrations in the same design.
68
CHARACTERISTIC
CONSIDERATIONS
Emphasis DIFFERENTIATION (SIZE, SHAPE, and COLOUR)
· Create emphasis with conspicuous contrast in the sizes, shapes, and colours of design elements. · Colours that contrast the most forcefully with the rest of the colour scheme will draw the most attention.
ISOLATION
· When left and right sides of a sign are identical.
INFORMAL (ASYMMETRICAL) BALANCE
· Achieved by positioning dissimilar elements so that their visual weights compensate each other.
Colours TOPIC-RELATED COLOURS
· The topic may suggest a predominant starting colour: a point from which other colours for the exhibit can be selected.
COLOURS BASED ON SURROUNDINGS
· The predominant colours in the environment may suggest the first colour for the sign.
COLOURS IN EXISTING MATERIALS
· Make use of the predominant colours of something that is to be part of the exhibit or sign (e.g. photograph).
(Source: Ham, 1992 as cited in Gertsch, 2000)
69
Appendix 6. Readability and viewing distance
VIEWING DISTANCES and MINIMUM HEIGHTS OF LETTERS
0-1.5m
(Source: Ham, 1992 as cited in Gertsch, 2000)
1.5-2 m 9m 18m TITLE 2cm
> 72 point 2.5 cm > 96 point
10 cm > 384 point
15 cm > 576 point
HEADINGS 1.3cm >28 point
2 cm > 72 point
8 cm > 288 point
13 cm > 480 point
BODY TEXT 0.6 cm > 24 point
1.3 cm > 48 point
6 cm > 192 point
10 cm > 384 point
TY
PE O
F T
EX
T
CAPTIONS and SPECIMEN LABLES
0.5 >18 point
0.6 cm > 24 point
N/A N/A
70
Appendix 7. Signage materials and comparative attributes
Sign Material co
st
Dur
abili
ty
Rep
air
Phot
os
Fram
e
Col
our
Cop
es
PORCELAIN ENAMEL: ENAMEL SURFACE ON STEEL
High Very high, no fade
Easy clean even paint
Yes Need Yes, full range
Expensive
FIBERGLASS EMBEDMENT
High High, may fade
Wax the scratches
Yes Need Yes Inexpensive
SILK -SCREENING ON ACRYLIC BASE
High High Scratches
Not easy Yes Need acrylic
Yes Easy
METAL-MICRO IMAGES
High High, will not fade, Scratches
Eyebrow Pencil
Yes No Shades of grey
Expensive
WOOD, PAINT, CARVE ROUT, SANDBLAST
Low-High
Medium- High
Easy No No Paint = original
LAMINATED OR “PLASTIC” PAPER
Low Medium (often Temporary)
Replace easily
Yes Yes Yes (box)
Easy, cheap
VINYL ADHESIVES,
Medium
Medium scratch
Medium No Yes acrylic font easily PLASTIC BASE
Limited Easy, cheap
MOLD-CAST ALUMINUM, PLASTIC, CONCRETE
Medium
High
Not easy No Usual Paint Expensive = original
(Varies)
(Source: Knudson, Cable, and Beck, 1995, as cited in Gertsch, 2000)
71
Appendix 8: Strengths and weaknesses of common sign materials
MATERIAL STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
WOOD - Blends with natural environment - Easy to construct
- Easy to vandalise - Difficult to carve detailed graphics - Can be individually shaped and
carved - Can be painted - Ages well
FIBREGLASS - Wide range of colours available - Good for detailed graphics - Can simulate natural features such as rock walls and stone - Cheap to make duplicates - Resistant to weathering and vandalism
Colours fade over time
METAL - Resistant to fading and discolouration - Good for detailed graphics - Can reproduce black and white photos - Range of 'earthy' colours available - Resistant to weathering and vandalism
- Expensive to duplicate - Reflects bright sunlight
PORCELAIN ENAMEL
- Good for detailed graphics - Photographs can be reproduced - Wide range of colours available - Resistant to weathering and vandalism
- Expensive - Susceptible to chipping and subsequent rusting
STONE - Good for black and white images - Good for detailed line art - Resistant to weathering and vandalism - Easy to maintain
Natural contours may make words difficult to read
(Source: Ballantyne, Hughes and G. Moscardo 2002)
72
Appendix 9: Specification of effective signage
Item Specifications Mounting • Angled at 40 degrees from the horizontal
• Set low with the bottom of the sign about 600 mm above the ground. This makes them easy for children to read as well. • Located directly in front of the feature to be interpreted with a connection made with a photo or illustrations. • Sited carefully so as not to interfere or obscure the view. • Panel sizes generally range between A3 and A0 the most common size being 900x600 mm. • Rectangular shaped panels which range between a 5 to 3 and 5 to 4 ratio are visually more pleasing to the eye.
Design • Include some form of interesting graphic in addition to text. • Appropriate text sizes and styles. • Break up text by using it as a caption to a photo or graphic. • Don’t clutter. • Allow a constant band of void space around the margins of signs. • Be creative in the use of colour. If restricted in the use of colour by cost or printing method consider the use of screens to give the impression of extra colour. • Maintain consistency in design across a set of signs. • Make sure the designer is familiar with the printing method to be used for the production of the sign.
Maps and plans
• Scale and north sign • Plan should be laid out in same orientation as the proposed sign, i.e. if sign faces south then the plan should be drawn facing south so that people looking at the map are facing in the right direction. • A YOU ARE HERE to enable the reader to locate themselves. • Appropriate sized line thicknesses. • Lettering of a modern simple style and appropriate size.
Text • Use a maximum of 150-200 words. • Use simple and readable language that is commonly used in speech. • Avoid technical terms and jargon. • Arrange text in blocks or short paragraphs. • Subheadings attract attention and allow readers to scan and find information of interest. • Short sentences of 10-15 words are easier to read. • Use active not passive verbs. • Ask questions to make the text more interactive. • Where possible try to refer to people in the text or illustrations. • Text should be 24-36 point ( 7-10 mm high) and captions 18-20; point at final size. • Proofread and check the final text many times using different readers. • Check the text against standard readability tests.
(Source: Drew 2001)
73
Appendix 10: List of some main stakeholders of Hisham’s palace
Name Persons Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities: - Department of National Park - Department of Antiquities - Department of Tourist Promotion - Department of Conservation
Dr. Hamdan Taha Mr. Walid Sharif Mr. Ihab Daud Miss Zahra Zawawi Mr. Awni Shawamri Mr. Atiya Sartawi Mr. Mohamad Diab
Municipality of Jericho Mr. Basel Hijazi Miss Samar Zaina
Cooperazione Internazionale Sud Sud (CISS) Miss Carla Benelli
Mosaic workshop of Hisham’s palace Mr. Osama Hamdan Committee for tourist promotion in Jericho (President Office in Jericho)
Mr. Sami Mosalam
RIWAQ: Centre for Architectural Conservation Dr. Suad Amiry Dr. Nazmi Jubeh Mr. Baha Jubeh
PACE: The Palestinian Association for Cultural Exchange
Dr. Adel Yahya
Studium Biblicum Francescanum Father Piccirillo Jerusalem University Dr. Marwan Abu Khalaf
Dr. Issa Sari’ Dr. Yosif en-Natsha Dr. Hani Nor ed-deen
74
![Commented [R1] - SIIT · (1) Thesis Title DISSERTATION TITLE DISSERTATION TITLE DISSERTATION TITLE DISSERTATION TITLE Author Mr. International Institute Degree Doctor of Philosophy](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/5f15f57a7867284d112eafe5/commented-r1-siit-1-thesis-title-dissertation-title-dissertation-title-dissertation.jpg)
