The National Park Service's relocation of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse in North Carolina was a triumph of engineering and historic perservation. In doing so, the distance between the lighthouse and the ocean (1,600 feet) that existed when it was built in 1870 was restored. This not only ensured its continued status as a working lighthouse, but as a culturally and historically significent destination for visitors from around the world.

However, this preservation-through-relocation presents a challange concerning the site's cultural interpretation. With the lighthouse no longer on its original foundations, how should the original and culturally significant historic district be interpreted? How should the "new" (and heretofore culturally insignificant) "historic district" be interpreted? What would be the loss of the original site due to the changing coastline? And how should the relocation effort itself be interpreted?

Cultural sites that include historic structures need to address historic preservation in terms of the cultural significance of the site and its structures as well as the interpretation of the site. Is it in the best interests of the site or structure to have it preserved in its current state, which may be different from its original condition? Or is it "better" to return it to the condition in which it existed when it was built or when it became famous? Will it change the interpretation of the cultural landscape? How does the historic preservation address the needs of your visitors?

What prompted these thoughts was not only the successful relocation of the Capr Hatteras Lighthouse, but recent news about stabilizing the Leaning Tower of Piza. I wondered how famous would this tower be if it had never started to lean. Would it be just another cathedral bell tower? How famous would it have been ha dit leaned past the point of recovery and had collapsed? How would interpretation attempts that seem to be reducing the degree of leaning? And how would interpreters work with the public should the preservation efforts harm the tower beyond repair?

Historic preservation and cultural interpretation should obviously go hand in hand. As historic preservationists' techniques become more sensitive to the original fabric of structures, cultural interpreters need to be more sensitive to the work of the preservationists. I do not insist that all cultural interpreters have a degree in historic preservation, architecture, or engineering, but I do advocate communication between Interpretation an dPreservation. The interpreters at Cape Hatteras learned valuable information from the relocation team, which was intergrated into the site's cultural interpretation. This information helped address the public's need for understanding when it came to the big question ("Why is the lighthouse being moved?"), as well as the subsidiary question of Who, What, Where and When. Had the interpreters at Cape Hatteras not been involved with the preservation team from the start, the cultural interpretation of the site would have suffered.

If your site has an historic preservation effort under way, talk to the professionals. Learn what they're learning from the buildings. Both you and your visitors will benefit.