WIXLIB

135adds 50 yards to the tour, and it is a moderate climb. At 5,000 feetin the desertheat, these decisions are important. The third decisionis whether or not to go from the end of the major ruin complex downto the ball court and blow hole. This adds at least 150 yards to thetrip, with no shade available. Those who do visit the lower part ofthe monument are among the group whose visit lastslonger than theaverage. In almost all casesit is common for the visitors to read thesectionsof the trail guide that describethe areasthey are not visiting,while looking at them from a distance.German Touristsin the SouthwesternDesertThe general demographic surveys done in the park, along withvisitor logs, indicate that approximately 20 percent of the Wupatkivisitors have a Germanic culrural background. One of our srudentethnographers developed an interest in these visitors when heobserved that almost every rental car in the visitor centerparking lotthat had California license plates disgorged a group that was speaking German (Orozco 1989). He began to wonder why Germanswere the most frequent tourists, rather than an even mixture ofpeople from other Europeancountries. British and]apanese visitorswere present on an irregular basis during the summer, and theytended to arrive by bus. The Germans arrived every day by the carload.One of Orozco's findings was that many of the Germanvisitorshad developed an interest in American Indian culrures, and in U.S.prehistory, on the basis of reading children's books written by aGerman author named Karl May. May wrote a large number ofhighly romantic books about Indians, and their treatment by thedominant U.S.culture, at about the turn of the century. Many of thevisitors, especially those over forty, came to the Southwest withexpectations of experiencing contact with Indian groups, and toplay out childhood dreams.The younger visitors were less likely toexpect things to be as Karl May portrayed them, but nonetheless,many had read his books and gained an interest in the regionbecauseof them. Orozco also found a general desire on the part ofthese visitors to have a greatly expanded German language trailguide. Most of the Germans visit a variety of archaeological sites

On Interpretation136throughout Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and California. They are very well educated, as a group, and have a high levelof interest in U.S. prehistory. They commonly read books aboutthe Southwest prior to traveling to the region, and purchase otherbooks during their travels. They also receive large volumes of materials from German travel agencies. The existing interpretivematerials at Wupatki, and most of the other archaeological parksthey visit, provide far less detail than they would prefer.Visitor BehaviorGender Rolesand Family DynamicsVisitors play out a number of middle-class American culturalpatterns as they tour the ruins. The most visible patterns areconsistentdifferencesin genderroles, age-relatedrole behavior, anddifferences in the family dynamics of visitors. These culturaldifferences have important implications for interpretation.After exiting the visitor center, tourists pass a box on a postwhich contains trail guides for a self-guided tour ofWupatki Ruin.Most single individuals pick up the trail guide, and tour eachnumbered station independently of other visitors. If the visitorscome in a group, then one or more members of the group pick uptrail guides and move around the ruins more or less in contact withone another, depending on the composition of the group and thefactors described below.Couplesand families with children tend to take a single trail guide(although children occasionallydemand to have their own separateguides). Usually one of the children or one of the adult males in thefamily takes the trail guide out of the box and carries it to the firststation, an overlook of the ruin. At the overlook, the trail guide ishanded over to the "centralfemale" in the group, who begins to readthe guide to everyone in the contingent. We designatedthis personthe "central female," becausein groups where more than one adultfemale was present only one normally took on the role describedbelow. Shewas typically the oldestfemale, unless the oldest was inher sixties or older. This woman seemedto take the lead in sharinginformation about the ruin with the rest of the family. At the same

o!,ster T!!!!!!-!!nd Other EthnographicInsights137time, the "central male" took on the role of photographer, recordingthe visit with either a still or a video camera.If he used a still camera,he simply alternated between taking photographs and listening tothe female who was reading the guide. If he used a video camera,he normally recorded the sound of the trail guide being read as hepanned acrossvarious scenesin the ruin that corresponded to eachsectionof the trail guide. This division of labor continued throughoutthe ruins.This gender-typed behavior is not universal. Males occasionallyread the trail guide out loud to the family or group, and some womendid a considerable amount of photography. But these were lesscommon. The few times we observed males reading to families,mostsounded asif they did not have much practicereading out loud.This probably ties into the fact that it is much more common inAmerican families for mothers to read to their young children thanfor fathers.In a single-sex group, it is most common for everyone to takea trail guide, but to proceed around the ruin together. Occasionally,especiallywhere the group was two or three females,one individualwould read the trail guide out loud, in the samemannerasin a familygroup. However, it was more common for individuals to readsilently at eachmarker, and then to make commentsto one anotheror ask additional questions raised by the trail guide at that point intheir collective experience.Overall family dynamics were explored through interviews(Winkfield 1989). We found that families differed greatly in theamount of control exerted over various membersof the group. Theyalso differed significantly in the purpose they expressed in visitingthe monument and this often correlated closely with observedbehavior in relation to social control.The behavior of children in these family groups depends on thelevel of social control that the parents exert on them. At one end ofthe spectrum the children stand with the guide book reader and thephotographer at each station, listening and participating in a groupexperience of the ruin. At the other end of the behavioral spectrum,the children range far ahead of the parents, paying no attention to

138On Interpretationthe adult roles being acted out around them, and often straying fromthe trail boundaries. If the family was visiting the monument as onestop on their vacation, they tended to maintain far lesscontrol of thechildren, even encouraging behavior beyond the boundaries ofacceptable behavior in the park. But if one of the main purposes forthe visit was to instill a sense of history, to educate the family andthe children in particular, then the parentstended to show respectfor the ruins and to demand the same respect from their children.Thesefamilies seemedto be more concerned about the preservationof resourcesthan those whose purpose was solely entertainment orrelief from the boredom of a long drive. These differences havesome direct bearing on interpretation in the parks.The behavior in the educationally oriented families was relatively consistent.Thesefamilies nearly always took a copy of the trailguide, and deliberately kept the family together as the guide wasread at each numbered point. If the family had small children, oneor both parents normally held their hands or carried them. Theseparents tended to be proactive in teaching the children properbehavior before they had a chance to misbehave, explaining tothem, for example, why they should stayon the trails and not disturbthe ruins. These families also tended to be very responsive to thepresence of rangers and were eager to talk with them and askadditional questions.The behavior of families lacking an educational orientationdiffered in nearly all respects.There were far fewer attemptsto keepthe family together; individuals were allowed to experience the ruinon their own, at their own pace. Far less behavioral control wasexhibited, and it was nearly always reactive. When the trail guidewas read, it was rarely to the whole family group. These differencesin family dynamics suggestthat at leasttwo different approachestoencouragingappropriate behavior in visitors and their children needto be attempted by Park Service personnel.The following sections provide specific case study materialderived from the ethnographies.These include fmdings on vandalismand monsterchildren; visitorneeds,expectations,and interpretivepreferences; and the implications of our research.

M nsterTim dOt h o raphic Insights139Vanda1ismAll of the ethnographers were alerted to watch for, categorize,and understand vandalism at the monument. This sometimescreated a delicate balance between participant observation andintervention. We needed to see what was happening, in order torecord it and understand it for appropriate park staff intervention inthe future. We also were concerned for protection of the resource.One of the studentsfocused on the issue of social and physicalboundaries in her ethnographic research.Hopkins (1989)describesboundary ambiguities and misbehavior of visitors in a tour ofWupatki Ruin. She also identifies nine forms of ruin abuse, andprovides profiles of the location and frequency of these forms ofvandalism, along with recommendations for reducing both theirseverity and their frequency. Table 1 is an adaptation of Hopkins'sfindings on vandalism.The anthropological literature would predict that the strongestagreementabout the size, shape, and purpose of social boundariesin the parks would exist among Park Servicepersonnel, since theyshare a single corporate culture, while visitors do not. It would alsopredict that many of their beliefs about theseboundaries would notbe shared by visitors until, or unless, visitors are educated aboutthem.This is a classic situation, found in many instances where aprofessional group controls special cultural information and interacts with a public which lacks access to this information. It iscommon for the professional group to believe that their cognitivepatternsare shared.This is why doctors confuse their patientswhenthey use medical jargon instead of normal social language. In thesame vein, we discovered a Park Service culture that includes arelatively well shared cognitive map of the "proper" boundaries atthe monument. As predicted, it is not adequatelyshared by visitors.Hopkins found this creates problems of a number of varieties,including confusion over boundaries in the monument.No culture is completely homogeneous.We found variation inbeliefs about appropriate boundaries among various groups ofindividuals working in the park. The full-time and seasonal staff

On Interpretation140Table 1. Types ofvandalism at Wupatki Ruin.PerpetratorsType of vandalismFrequencyGeneral public Walking on impacted areas, off trail;leaning on ruin sWalking in ruins; climbing walls;picking up and throwing objects;graffitiTouching artifacts; sitting on walls;walking on wallsPhotographers Walking off trail; posing people inrestricted areasVerycommonVerycommonCuriousWalking off terrain into restricted ruinQuiteareascommonNature loversWalking far off trailCommonCollectorsWalking off trail; going into backUncommoncountry; picking up artifacts,rocks,& other specimenswithout permissionWriting marks or ruining ngcattle; offroad vehicles,etc.Commonshared professional orientations and standardsthat tended to makethem relatively consistentin defming both physical and behavioralboundaries. More variation was noted between thesepeople and thevolunteer staff. But all of the staff controlled tacit knowledge thatwas not easily accessibleto visitors. As one of the studentsstated,inconsistenciesin the beliefs of the staff, combined with a lack ofdefinition of some of the boundaries, make it easyfor tourists to belegitimately confused about what is or is not permitted.Loopholes also allow deliberately destructive individuals tomanipulate the situation, since the staff is anxious to maintainpositive relationships with the public. Hopkins cites the examplethat the people who visit the oudying ruins, where there are few

Monster Time and Other Ethnographic Insights141clear boundaries, expect to have the same freedom of accessat themain ruin. They occasionally become angry when confronted byofficial requests to not behave at Wupatki in ways that wereuncontrolled at Wukoki or the Citadel. The inconsistency of thecontrols placed on visitors leadsto confusion and other more seriousproblems, permitting deliberatelydestructiveindividuals to manipulate the situation, since the staff is anxious to maintain positiverelationships with the public. The information provided in Hopkins'sreport actsas an excellentmodel for similar studies at other sitesandcould be useful for establishingand maintainingworkable boundarycontrols for archaeologicalparks.Monster Time at Wupatki RuinOne type of vandalism that occurred regularly in the parkbecame the focus of much interest during our research. Wediscovered that Wupatki Ruin had a special time of day that welabeled "monster time." This was a very predictable form of childmisbehavior which occurred in the ruins every afternoon.Monster time begins at approximately 3:00 P.M.and lasts until4:00 or 4:30 P.M.During that time period at least one child, andfrequently more, would be observed actively climbing all over theruin and getting into areasthatwere far outside of appropriate visitorboundaries, despite the numerous signsrequiring visitors to stay onthe paths, stay off the walls, and not disturb the ruins.We developed a basic profile of the "monster child." The mostcommon monster was a young Anglo male, between the agesof 10and 13, distinguished from non-monster children by severalcharacteristics. Monster children tend to wear clothing that hasbright colors, or they are dressed all in black. Their t-shirt normallyhas a logo with a rebellious message.The monster child visits theruin with his parents, but quickly leavesthe family group. Monstersmove very rapidly into the ruin and begin cutting trails, walking onwalls, and moving into restricted rooms in the middle of the ruin.They continue to exhibit this behavior, ignoring any parentalcomments, throughout their visit. The monsteralways appearsto bevery full of energy at a time when the rest of the family is dragging.The parentstend to lag far behind, probably becausethey have been

142On Interpretationcooped up in a car with a monster child for the entire day, or longerif they are traveling on a family vacation. In no casedid we observefamily members effectively controlling the monster'sbehavior. Mostof the time their parentswere not close enough to comment to themanyway, let alone close enough to control their behavior. The onlycondition that appearedto determonsterbehaviorwas the immediatepresence of a uniformed ranger.Monster children tend to take signs very literally, as a manipulation device. For example, we interviewed one monsterchild after hehad jumped three walls and was climbing up into the middle of theruin. He belligerently stated that he had strictly obeyed the sign thatsaid, "please stay off the walls." He had carefully jumped the wallsand not touched a single one of them. Another child said, when askedto get off a wall, that the sign which said to stay off the wall was in anentirely different part of the ruin (about 25 feetaway), not right whereshe was sitting. She felt the sign didn't apply to this particular place.This instance of a female monster child was unusual. Monsterchildren are rarely female. We did observe instances of femalemonster behavior, but almost all were accompanied by males thatfit the primary monster profIle. Their behavior in most casesappeared to be tagged to male monster behavior, rather than beingself initiated. Most girls were simply accompanying a monster maleon his run through the ruins.The ethnographers also noted monster behavior at the outlyingsites, but it was not as easyto cOnflfffi the timing of theseevents. Itdid become apparent that some of the children who performedmonster activities at Wupatki exhibited the same type of behaviorat outlying sites. This was confirmed by direct observation whenstudentsmoved from one site to another at the end of the day, firstobserving monster behavior of a particular child at an outlying ruin,and then, when they returned to the visitor center, observing thesame child in the Wupatki ruins. It was also confirmed by indirectevidence as the students compared notes which allowed them torecognize similar individuals who were observed in two differentlocations by different ethnographers.

143Vis tor Needs and Expectationse student ethnographers spent several hundred hours intervie ing visitors about their interests and interactions with themo ument. In addition they recorded natural conversations betwe n visitors, between visitors and Park Service personnel, andbe een visitors and other visitors. This allowed us to explore thetyp s of questions that visitors would like to have answered aboutarchaeologicalin general,in particular.Thisi ' ars to be anruinsexcellentguide forandtheWupatkidevelopmentof interpretiveapmat rials, and for training Park Service personnel for interpretivedu' s. The areasnoted below are describedin more detail in severalof e ethnographic reports, and especially in Cha (1989).ifesty/esne of the majortopics of interestto visitors is finding out detailsabo t the lifestyles of the people who lived at the site. Theirque tions provide an excellent profile for the development of trailgui es at any archaeological park, and for the types of interpretivemat rial that can be transmitted by park personnel.The mostcoon things visitors wanted to know were:1. The physical characteristicsof the people at Wupatki. Whatdid e people look like? How big were they? (Some thought theymu t have been very small because of the small doorways atWu atki, not realizing that small doorways lose less heatduring the er).1

Arizona University. The project was funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education and included a companion archaeological field school at Wupatki Ruin. In addition to the research questions being answered by the field schools, the tWo field schools were designed to provide research training to undergraduate minority students, to encourage those students to seek graduate careers. Both .