**PRESENTING THE PAST:**

**A CONFERENCE SERIES AIMED AT PUBLIC EDUCATION**

Peter S. Wells

**Introduction**

The most important way to protect archaeological resources is to raise
the consciousness of the public about the existence and significance of
the remains of the past. We need widespread public awareness and support
to develop comprehensive programs for the protection of monuments on a
nation‑wide scale. We must also develop ways by which we can utilize
archaeological resources to educate the public about the human past.

The Center for Ancient Studies at the University of Minnesota, with the
cooperation of several other institutions (including federal agencies),
has organized a series of conferences on the subject of presenting the
past to the public. Our direct goal has been broader than protection in
the immediate sense. I wish here to discuss these conferences ‑ why we
began them, what we accomplished at them, and how they contribute to
this theme. The views I present here are my own; other participants
might represent the conferences in other ways.

**Background**

Archaeology is a subject of vast potential popular appeal. Newspapers,
magazines, and television regularly carry reports of new discoveries and
new interpretations. All archaeological excavations in populated areas
have streams of interested visitors. Many people are intrigued by the
idea of discovering physical remains of past human activity, whether
they consist of dishes used by people living a few generations ago or
projectile points left by hunters millennia in the past.

As professional archaeologists, most of us could be doing more than we
do to make the results of our work available to public audiences, as
well as to scholarly ones. Many individuals have been engaged in this
enterprise for a long time ‑ presenting public lectures, on both local
and national levels; working with television production companies to
make documentaries that deal with archaeology; writing for popular
journals; conducting site tours for the public; and involving volunteers
in archaeological fieldwork. But most members of the profession could do
much more along these lines, for the benefit of the public and of the
field of archaeology.

During my first year as Director of the Center for Ancient Studies at
the University of Minnesota in 1986, I discussed with Tom Trow, Cultural
Liaison Officer for the College of Liberal Arts at the University and an
alumnus of the Center, the idea of organizing a conference that would
focus on what professional archaeologists and historians do to present
their work to public audiences. We formed a planning committee
comprising individuals from different institutions in the Twin Cities
who were involved in such efforts. The committee included Christy Caine
of the U.S. Forest Service, State Archaeologist for Minnesota; Leslie
Denny of the Department of Professional Development and Conferences
Services of the University of Minnesota; Clark Dobbs of the Institute
for Minnesota Archaeology; Louise Lincoln of the Minneapolis Institute
of Arts; Phyllis Messenger of the Institute of International Studies at
the University of Minnesota; Orrin Shane of the Science Museum of
Minnesota; and Nicholas Westbrook of the Minnesota Historical Society.
After several initial discussions, we found that we all shared a common
perception that this subject was of immediate concern to a great many
people, locally and nationally, but that little was being done to
confront the issue systematically and broadly.

The aim of the conference we decided to plan was threefold. First, we
wanted to learn as much as possible about what was currently being done
in the United States to inform the public about archaeology and to
involve the public in the process of doing archaeology. Second, we
wanted to use that information to formulate working plans for future
action. Third, we wanted to discuss what could be done in the short term
to improve communication between the profession and the public.

**The Conference**

The planning process for the first conference was long and complex. The
subject is immense, as we quickly learned, and we wanted to touch upon
it on local, national, and international levels. This first conference
was conceived as an informational meeting ‑ to provide a means for the
sharing of information about what was being done in different places and
to begin discussion of what could be done on a broader scale. To this
end, we defined several categories of professionals that we wanted to
invite. We needed individuals who had developed well known and highly
successful programs in public archaeology. We also wanted to invite
representatives from abroad, since perspectives from other countries are
always valuable in suggesting different questions and solutions. We felt
that good representation of local Minnesota efforts were important, both
because archaeologists in Minnesota have been active in this field and
because we wanted our local audience to be made aware of the efforts
being made here in the state. Finally, we wanted to involve members of
the local Indian community as representatives of some of the peoples
studied by archaeologists. We designed the first conference (1987) in
two parts directed toward two different, but overlapping, audiences. The
first we called the professional program, and it was intended
principally for people whose professional positions entailed presenting
archaeology to the public. The title of this part of the conference was
\"Perception and Presentation of the Past.\" It ran for three days. This
part included a series of case studies in the presentation of
archaeology and its results to the public. Sets of papers were followed
by formal discussion initiated by scheduled discussants and carried
further by audience participation. The second part of the conference,
entitled \"Presenting Our Past,\" was designed for a public audience. It
was meant to accomplish two aims, to provide a local public audience
with an overview of the issues with which we were concerned, and at the
same time to present to this audience some results of archaeological
research. This public program took place on a Friday evening, and all
day on Saturday.

The presentations and formal discussion in both the professional and
public programs were of high quality and raised many topics of concern
to the participants. Most satisfying for the planners of the program,
however, was the level and quality of audience participation. The lively
discussion and debate that followed the papers indicated the high level
of interest in the subject on the part of a wide range of professionals.
Two field trips to local archaeological and historical sites provided
case studies for on‑site consideration, as well as informal settings in
which people could continue discussions initiated during the sessions.

It was clear from the enthusiasm shown by participants in the conference
that the issue was important to people involved with public archaeology
on many different levels in the late 1980\'s. Conference participants
included personnel from federal agencies; from state, county, local, and
university museums; from state and local historical and archaeological
organizations; and from academic departments at universities. Most were
directly involved in the planning and implementing of public programs in
archaeology. It became clear that many people were grappling with the
same issues, and that all could benefit by sharing experiences and
ideas. We often observed that different individuals and groups were
working on the same problem, without being aware that others were
involved in very similar efforts.

As a result of the strong demonstration of interest in this issue and
the enthusiasm of the participants at the first conference, we decided
to plan a second one for the next year, 1988. Several federal agencies
agreed to help sponsor the second conference, including the National
Park Service, the Soil Conservation Service, the Bureau of Land
Management, and the Tennessee Valley Authority. The National Park
Service also played a major role in the planning of the second
conference.

Whereas the first conference had been a very general one aimed at
presenting cases for discussion and opening dialogue about presenting
archaeology to public audiences, the second conference (1988), was more
tightly focused. The title was \"Presenting the Past: Media, Marketing,
and the Public,\" and the theme was the use of media and marketing in
the presentation of archaeological sites, materials, and information.
Speakers addressed the role of newspapers, television, and other media
in disseminating information about archaeology. Others spoke on the use
of volunteers from the public in excavating and protecting
archaeological sites, and about lecturing to public audiences. In
addition to the lecture presentations, we organized workshops in which
small groups could discuss particular themes with individuals
knowledgeable in the subject.

The third conference (1989) focused on public education, specifically
the presentation of the past in schools and museums. The title of this
program was \"Presenting the Past to the Public: History and Archaeology
in Schools and Museums.\" We invited speakers to discuss specific
projects they had initiated in presenting archaeology and history in
museum and school contexts. Others addressed broader issues of
curriculum development and the politics of education and public
awareness. A public program associated with this conference was entitled
\"Confronting Columbus: Contact and Cultural Diversity in America.\" In
this program, speakers addressed the question of presenting subjects
bearing on cultural diversity in the past, with particular reference to
the upcoming commemoration of Columbus\' voyages. We were fortunate to
have The Honorable Bruce Vento of the United States House of
Representatives, Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and
Public Lands, as the first speaker in this public program.

**Discussion**

The principal result of the three conferences in 1987, 1988, and 1989
was the demonstration that a large number of individuals throughout the
United States and Canada, working in many different federal, state,
local, and private agencies, are deeply concerned with how we present
the past. Many people made substantial commitments of time and effort to
participate in the conferences. There have always been archaeological
and historical sites and museums whose staffs have made major efforts to
communicate with the public ‑ Plimoth Plantation, Colonial Williamsburg,
and Sturbridge Village come to mind as outstanding examples in North
America, but hundreds more could be mentioned. What is new, I think, is
the groundswell of concern that we have seen through these conferences
for improving communication with the public and for involving the public
more fully in the future of the past. This concern has been shown by the
participation of numerous individuals, and by many letters and telephone
calls we have received requesting information about the programs.

In order to assure the protection of our archaeological and historical
sites, so that they survive for the enlightment of future generations,
we need to continue our efforts at bringing the public into the
discussion about presentation, in all contexts. Major questions that
have emerged from the conference are discussed below.

How can we involve members of the public in the early stages of
archaeological discovery? We can develop programs through which
volunteers can assist archaeologists map, survey, and excavate sites.
One of the best ways to instill an appreciation for the informational
value of archaeological sites is to involve people in archaeological
excavations. Only a small minority will have the time and sufficient
interest to actually work at archaeology, however. For others, the
organization of site tours during excavations is an important means of
showing people why archaeological sites are important and why they must
be treated properly. The public needs to be informed about significant
new discoveries, and thereby encouraged to learn more about the
archaeological record. We need to develop systematic ways of cooperating
with the media in order to disseminate such information. Yet as several
conference speakers noted, information must be made public carefully and
with appropriate education; we do not want inadvertently to stimulate
the looting of archaeological sites.

How can the public be involved in later stages of archaeology? Sites can
sometimes be preserved as they are revealed by excavation, with
appropriate signs, maps, explanations and, in some cases, parks
constructed to enclose the remains. Museum displays can be developed to
show what materials have come from a site and what we can learn through
proper excavation and analysis.

Most important is the need to educate early. Many professionals that
attended our conferences agreed that the key to developing a broad‑based
appreciation of archaeology and history is education at the primary
school level. If we can develop means to teach school children why the
archaeological and historical remains are important ‑ what kinds of
information we can learn from them through proper research techniques ‑
then we shall succeed in raising the awareness level of the general
public on an unprecedented scale. Only then will it be possible to
generate widespread support for protection of archaeological resources
(see Rogge, Smartz, McNutt, and Hawkins this volume for discussions of
archaeological education and children).

The next conference, planned for 1991, will focus on the development of
curricula for schools. This theme emerged in the concluding discussion
at the 1989 conference as the critical issue for the immediate future.

**Conclusion**

In closing, I should like to make a few general observations about the
process and outcome of the three conferences. We found that it was
valuable to have speakers from a wide range of different backgrounds and
institutions. It was instructive to hear about large scale and well
known programs, but equally important to hear from people involved in
smaller, local community efforts. The latter often provided a
perspective unfamiliar to many of the participants. Many common themes
emerged from varied experiences where we did not necessary anticipate
them. Many participants remarked that they were interested to learn that
numerous others around the country were facing the same issues and
dilemmas.

Perspectives provided by people working in other countries were
valuable. European archaeologists have been facing these issues for a
much longer time than we in the New World have. In Britain and Germany,
for example, countries from which several of our speakers came, issues
of public access to archaeological and historical sites, and protection
of those sites, have histories of many centuries, in some cases.
Stonehenge is the most familiar example ‑ a site of great cultural
importance of our understanding of Neolithic northwest Europe, and also
one severely threatened by public over‑use. Christopher Chippindale, a
participant in the 1988 conference, has documented (1983) the long and
complex history of the public presentation and official protection of
this most famous of monuments.

The three conferences have been successful in bringing together many
people concerned with the presentation and protection of archaeological
sites and materials. The discussions have been productive, and we now
need to develop our ideas into specific plans for public education.

**Acknowledgements:** I thank especially the planning committees and the
participants in the three conferences for their dedicated work and their
excellent presentations. Both groups have now grown much too large to
name all of the individuals here. The Department of Professional
Development and Conference Services, Continuing Education and Extension,
University of Minnesota, has supported all three conferences; Leslie
Denny and Steven Weiland have been particularly helpful. The Minnesota
Humanities Commission supported the public portions of the 1987 and 1989
conferences. The National Park Service and the Soil Conservation Service
helped sponsor the 1988 and 1989 conferences; Frank McManamon, George
Smith, and Diane Gelburd have been especially supportive. The Bureau of
Land Management and the Tennessee Valley Authority helped sponsor the
1988 program. I thank all of these institutions for making this
conference series possible.

**References Cited**

Chippindale, C. (1983) [Stonehenge Complete]{.underline}. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.