PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY AT CRYSTAL RIVER ARCHAEOLOGICAL STATE PARK: ASSESSMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS

edited and compiled by Thomas J. Pluckhahn with contributions by Laura Collins, Melanie Coughlin, Maura B. Denny, Joseph A. Evans, Katrina M. Heller, Christopher N. Hunt, Lori ONeal, and Thomas J. Pluckhahn

PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY AT CRYSTAL RIVER ARCHAEOLOGICAL STATE PARK: ASSESSMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Prepared for: Crystal River Archaeological State Park 3266 N Sailboat Ave Crystal River, FL 34428

edited and compiled by

__________________ Thomas J. Pluckhahn, Ph.D. with contributions by Laura Collins, Melanie Coughlin, Maura B. Denny, Joseph A. Evans, Katrina M. Heller, Christopher N. Hunt, Lori ONeal, and Thomas J. Pluckhahn

Department of Anthropology The University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Ave, SOC 107 Tampa, FL 33620

March 8, 2012

Abstract
This report presents suggestions for the improvement of public archaeology at Crystal River Archaeological State Park, in Citrus County, Florida. The substance of the report was completed as part of a graduate seminar in Public Archaeology in the Department of Anthropology at the University of South Florida in Fall of 2011, under the direction of Thomas J. Pluckhahn. Students in the class chose different mediums of interpretation, ranging from museum displays, to signage, to tours, and outreach activities for children and adults. After appraising the existing efforts at interpretation in these media, they offered suggestions for improvement based on readings in interpretation and public archaeology. Their reports have been compiled here. Despite the obvious limitations on what can be accomplished in a semester long class, particularly at a site such as Crystal River where modern archaeology is relatively poorly developed, the chapters that follow have suggestions that bear strong consideration if and when the possibility of improving public archaeology at the site becomes feasible; we hope readers of this report agree. We emphasize, however, that as an unsolicited report, this work establishes no official policy, plans, recommendations, or guidelines for Crystal River Archaeological State Park, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the Florida Division of Historical Resources, or the Florida Department of State.

This page intentionally left blank.

ii

Acknowledgments
The authors extend their gratitude to Nick Robins (Crystal River Archaeological State Park) and Brent Weisman (Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida) for taking the time to discuss these projects and share insights on their understanding of Crystal River. Additional assistance was provided by Richard Estabrook and Jason Moser (Florida Public Archaeology Network). However, we alone are responsible for the content of this report.

iii

This page intentionally left blank.

iv

Table of Contents
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Chapter 1: Introduction to the Project, by Thomas J. Pluckhahn and Christopher N. Hunt . . . 1.1 A Brief Overview of Archaeology at Crystal River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 A Brief Overview of the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Chapter 2: A Proposal for Improving the Crystal River Museum, by Christopher N. Hunt . . . . . 2.1 Description of the Current Exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Critique of Existing Displays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.13 Chapter 3: Crystal River Museum: Critique and Proposal for Improved Public Presentation, by Maura B. Denny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Critique of Current Presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Redesigning the Museum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.15 Chapter 4: Guided Tours at Crystal River Archaeological Park, by Melanie Coughlin . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Principles: "Best Practices" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Critique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.12 Chapter 5: Crystal River Archaeological State Park: A Self-guided Tour, by Lori O'Neal . . . . . . . Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.8

Chapter 6: Improving the Presention of Crystal River: Redesigning the Signs, by Katrina M. Heller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Chapter 7: Crystal River Archaeological State Park Proposal for Children's Exhibits, by Laura Collins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Why Archaeology? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interactive Exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Outreach Boxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Past, Present, and Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.2 7.3

Table of Contents, Continued

Chapter 8: Adult Outreach: How to Reach a 21st Century Adult Audience at Crystal River, by Joseph A. Evans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conducting Adult-Oriented Public Outreach Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Foundations of Public Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What is Public Outreach and Why Do We Have It? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Public Outreach as an Idea and Public Outreach as Praxis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Can I Do For Crystal River's Tomorrow? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grow the Past: A Small-scale Gardening Program at Crystal River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8.1 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.5 8.5 8.6

References Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1

vi

List of Figures
Figure 1.1. Figure 2.1. Figure 2.2. Figure 2.3. Figure 2.4. Figure 2.5. Figure 2.6. Figure 2.7. Figure 2.8. Figure 2.9. Figure 2.10. Figure 2.11. Figure 2.12. Figure 2.13. Figure 2.14. Figure 3.1. Figure 3.2. Figure 3.3. Figure 3.4. Figure 3.5. Figure 3.6. Figure 3.7. Figure 5.1. Figure 5.2. Figure 5.3. Figure 5-4. Figure 5.5. Figure 5-6. Figure 5.7. Figure 5.8. Figure 5.9. Location and Map of Crystal River Archaeological State Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2 Map of Crystal River Museum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2 Front desk in alcove A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 Contemporary pottery exhibit on adjoining wall 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 Gift shop window on adjoining wall 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 Alcove B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 Contemporary cultures exhibit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Food sources display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 "Indian Technology" exhibit on adjoining wall 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Alcove D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Adjoining wall 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Chronological artifact profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Central display case with diorama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Map of exhibits intended order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 Example of exhibit from Weedon Island Center's exhibit gallery . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.11 Basic blueprint of the museum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Basic blueprint of museum with current exhibits rendered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Mock-up of Resources of the River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 Examples of potential textual formatting of interpretive front panels and smaller labels for Resources of the River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.10 Mock-up of Reduce, Reuse, Recycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.11 Mock-up of Current Chapters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.14 Building plan with proposed exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.15 Audio box at Crystal River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 The canoe area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Fencing at Mound A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Possible brochure boxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Example of graphic showing comparison of ancient and modern boat technology and use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Suggested fencing style for Mound A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Example of panel for top of audio box . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Alternative style of pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8 Prototype of an enhanced brochure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9

vii

This page intentionally left blank.

viii

List of Tables
Table 2.1. Table 2.2. Table 2.3. Table 3.1. Table 3.2. Table 4.1. Table 4.2. Label Examples for "People in the Period" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Label examples for "Beyond the River's Bank" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Label examples for "At the Trowel's Edge" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Examples of potential textual formatting of interpretive front panels and smaller labels for Reduce, Reuse, Recycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Examples of potential textual formatting of interpretive front panels and smaller labels for Current Chapters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Guided Tour Script Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sample Knowledge Scavenger Hunt for Guided or Self-guided Tours . . . . . . . . 2.11 2.12 2.13 3.12 3.14 4.9 4.11

ix

This page intentionally left blank.

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Project

Thomas J. Pluckhahn and Christopher N. Hunt
This report represents unsolicited suggestions for the improvement of public archaeology at Crystal River Archaeological State Park, in Citrus County, Florida. The substance of the report was completed as part of a graduate seminar in Public Archaeology in the Department of Anthropology at the University of South Florida (USF) in Fall of 2011; after the class was completed, Pluckhahn compiled the papers in to this report to facilitate wider dissemination. As an unsolicited report, it establishes no official policy, plans, recommendations, or guidelines for Crystal River Archaeological State Park, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection [FDEP], the Florida Division of Historical Resources, or the Florida Department of State. Crystal River Archaeological State Park is a 61-acre National Historic Landmark. The first 18 acres of the park were officially deeded to the Florida Park Service on August 6, 1962 (FDEP 2000; Florida Park Service 2011a; Weisman 1995). The park is located in the city of Crystal River, on the banks of the river after which the site and town are named (City of Crystal River 2011; Florida Park Servive 2011b). The archaeological site, which is among the most famous in Florida, functioned as a center of habitation and ceremony for prehistoric Native Americans of the Woodland period (ca. 1000 B.C. to A.D. 1050) (Pluckhahn et al. 2010a; Steponaities 1986; Weisman 1995). The Crystal River Museum was built in 1965 and officially dedicated on November 20th of the same year; final modifications were completed in 1967 with the addition of three new exhibit cases. Since 1967, there have been only very limited changes to interpretation in the museum or grounds, with the exception of the addition of minimal signage and a few audioboxes (Weisman 1995). Our own experiences have suggested a lack of interest by visitors to the park. This lack of interest is measured by the limited amount of time visitors typically spend passing through museum and grounds (Falk 1982). Hence the reason for this report. We begin with a brief overview of the archaeology of Crystal River; for longer reviews see Milanich (1999); Pluckhahn et al. (2010a), Pluckhahn et al. (2009), and Weisman (1995). We follow this with a brief overview of the objectives of the report and the concepts and themes which guided our suggestions for improvement.

A Brief Overview of Archaeology at Crystal River

The first published discovery of the Crystal River site came not from an archaeologist; this credit goes to F.L. Dancy, State Geologist of Florida, who first described what would be later designated "Mound A" as a truncated cone in 1867 (Brinton 1859). Later, around the turn of the century, the site was investigated by the famous antiquarian C.B. Moore (1903, 1907, and 1918). His investigations located two temple mounds (Mound A and H), a shell burial mound (Mound G), a main multi-episode burial complex (Mounds C - F), stacked one on top of the other, and the main midden deposit (Area B). However, Moore's primary focus during excavation was the main burial complex, digging primarily in Mounds C, E, and F. Moores excavations remain the most intensive ever completed at Crystal River; 1.1

they produced a multitude of artifacts and the first map of the site. Through his communications with archaeologist Charles Willoughby of the Yale Peabody Museum, Moore recognized similarities between the burial artifacts he recovered at Crystal River and those found on sites of the Hopewell area in Ohio (see also Greenman 1938). Crystal River retains a distinction as the southern-most major outpost for the Hopewellian Interaction Sphere, wherein exotic goods of copper, stone, and shell were exchanged across long distances (see Ford 1966, 1969; McMichael 1960, 1964; Ruhl 1981; Seeman 1979). Hale Smith conducted limited work at the site in February, 1951 (Smith 1951; Weisman 1995:14, 28-29). His investigations included one 2 foot by 2 foot test in the midden area (Mound B), another test of equal size in Mound H, several test in Mounds C and E, and a surface collection of Mound A. In June of 1951, Ripley Bullen, then an archaeologist for the Florida Park Service, began archaeological investigations at Crystal River that would continue intermittently for more than a decade (Bullen 1951, 1953, 1965, 1966; Weisman 1995:28-29). He placed two test units in Area B and another two test units in Mound H. Larger-scale excavations were conducted in Mounds G and the Main Burial Complex. Bullen completed extensive excavations at Crystal River in 1960 (Weisman 1995:37-38). Additionally, Bullens tographic mapping that led to the identification of two additional mounds and an extension of the midden area (Mound B) to the north of Mound A. Unfortunately, much of Bullens work was never properly reported, a fact which served as an impediment to the interpretation of the site. As was previously noted, the state of Florida commenced acquisition of the Crystal River site in 1962 (FDEP 2000:1, Addendum 1). Two years previous, the southeastern two-thirds of the Mound A were removed for construction fill (Weisman 1995:45). The removed material was redeposited to the east of the mound to fill in a lagoon-like area, which housed a trailer park for many years, before this land too was acquired by the state. In 1964, as the site was being cleared for the creation of the state park, two limestone stelae were discovered (Bullen 1966; Weisman 1995:31-32). Bullen excavated the area around Stela 1 (south and east of the main burial complex), which is pecked and incised with a representation of a human face. The identification of these two, plus a third possible stela (Hardman 1971) have fueled speculation about connections between Crystal River and Mesoamerica (Bullen 1966, Ford 1966, 1969; Hardman 1971). Until very recently, contemporary fieldwork at Crystal River has been limited. In 1985, Brent Weisman and Jeffrey Mitchem excavated core samples and two 2-x-2-m test units in the midden north of Mound A, with the goal of obtaining samples from the Safety Harbor component on the site (Weisman 1995:35-36). These excavations have never been thoroughly reported. More recently, Gary Ellis has conducted work at Crystal River in response to natural disasters and general park maintenance (Ellis 1999, 2004; Ellis and Martin 2003). Beginning with a pilot study in 2008 (Pluckhahn et al. 2009), and continuing through th present with funding from the National Science Foundation (Pluckhahn et al. 2010b), Pluckhahn and colleagues Victor Thompson and Brent Weisman began a program of more intensive, yet minimally invasive archaeological research at Crystal River. In addition to new field research, the project includes the reanalysis of ceramic and other artifacts collected by Ripley Bullen and others (Estabrook [2011] analyzed the lithics from previous work in a USF dissertation). Although still in its early stages, this work promises to produce significant new understandings of Crystal River (e.g., Pluckhahn et al. 2010a; Thompson and Pluckhahn 2010).

1.2

A Brief Overview of the Project

Why should we be concerned with the public interpretation of the Crystal River site? Of course, one reason is obvious; the site is preserved as a state park, and effective interpretation is in the best interest of the public who have, and continue to support the park as taxpayers. In addition, museums act as cultural and civic symbols that can be leveraged for local economic regeneration (Merriman 2004). Beyond these immediate and practical concerns, museums act as a powerful medium for the representation of past peoples, and it is important that such representation be undertaken with dignity and respect. Additionally, from an archaeological perspective, the engagement of the public is critical to the future of our field (Davis 1972; McGimsey 1972). For all of these reasons, and bearing in mind the history described above, we think the time is long overdue for a critical evaluation of current public archaeology at Crystal River, as well as for suggestions for how interpretation of the site and engagement with the public can be improved. As a baseline for this project, graduate students in the Public Archaeology seminar read and discussed recent works in interpretation. Much of this literature is grounded in the less-recent, but seminal work of Freeman Tilden ([1957] 1977), who defined interpretation not as the simple communication of factual information, but instead as an educational activity that strives to reveal meanings and relationships through the use of original objects, firsthand experience, and illustrative media. Tilden emphasized that interpretations that dont relate to something within the personality or experience of visitors will be sterile. He further argued that the chief aim is not instruction but provocation. Tildens principles of interpretation have been explicitly adopted by archaeologists with the National Park Service (Little 2004); archaeologists elsewhere have incorporated many of the same ideas albeit sometimes in different terms and with varying emphases (e.g., Merriman 2004, Potter 1994, 1997; Potter and Chabot 1997; Stone 2004; Swain 2007; Thomas 2002; Young 2002; Zimmerman 2003). As Little (2004) notes in her discussion of public archaeology at national parks, the ultimate goal of interpretation is to tell a compelling story. The effectiveness of the story can be measured in regard to a series of questions: Does it move visitors? Do visitors care more about the resource as a result? Are visitors moved to actions that support stewardship? Does it have larger meaning? Can visitors clearly see the connections? Does it touch on universal concepts? Is it something people care about? Further applying these principles to archaeological interpretation, Copeland (2004) describes a shift from a positivist approach (where the public is told what to see) to a more open rationale of what archaeologists do, why they do it, and why they should care. He refers to this as a constructivist approach, by which he means a process in which individuals are constantly constructing and reconstructing meaning. As he describes it, a constructivist approach is guided by a visitor perspective as opposed to exhibit perspective, and by the separation of interpretation (expert construction) from presentation (public construction). The keys to a greater understanding, according to Copeland, include: giving visitors a variety of experiences, giving visitors control over their experiences; make connections to personal experiences; and, presenting interpretations that challenge visitors. These same themes have been echoed in many similar works of public archaeology over the past two decades (e.g., Potter 1994, 1997; Potter and Chabot 1997; Stone 2004). Students in the Public Archaeology seminar also read works of a more methodological bent. As the following chapters suggest, one of the more fundamental in this regard is Serrels (1996) discussion of museum labels, which provides excellent advice regarding not only the mechanics of 1.3

museum labels, but also the overall design, and even the development of content. Among Serrels fundamental principles of interpretation is the need for a single big idea. Bearing in mind the themes expressed in the literature cited above, the class began by developing a single theme that could guide interpretation across various media, from museum exhibits, to signage, to tours, to outreach activities. This was not an easy task, especially given the complicated history of Crystal River. On a field trip to the state park, we discussed interpretation of the site with Park Supervisor Nick Robbins and archaeologists Brent Weisman Department of Anthropology, USF), Richard Estabrook and Jason Moser (Florida Public Archaeology Network [FPAN]). We then discussed several possibilities as a class. Ultimately, we decided on one umbrella theme that could be further developed in a series of shorter sub-themes, as indicated below: Theme: Crystal River Archaeological State Park preserves the remains of one of the most important ceremonial centers of the Woodland period of prehistory, created by Native Americans with intimate connections to the local environment, but also with surprisingly far-reaching connections to the larger world. Sub-theme 1: Part of the Crystal River archaeological site was destroyed for modern development, and more would have been lost without its acquisition by the state. Sub-theme 2:The mounds and other features at Crystal River were built and used mainly during the Woodland period, from around 1000 B.C. to A.D. 1050. Sub-theme 3: The people who lived on and near the Crystal River site were hunter-gatherers with deep connections to the local environment. Sub-theme 4: Crystal River was a place of ceremony that attracted people, ideas, and materials from far-away places. Sub-theme 5: Crystal River remains important to contemporary Native Americans. While lacking the brevity of Serrels (1996) big idea or Littles (2004) high concept, we believe the main theme is short and touches on universals that can be made relevant to visitors personal experiences. To divide the public interpretation of Crystal River into manageable tasks, each of the students was encouraged to pick a different medium of interpretation. Ultimately, however, we agreed that the museum itself was large enough to benefit from having two students assigned to this facet of the overall project. Students in the seminar were encouraged to assess the existing interpretation through participant observation, then develop suggestions for improvement in keeping with the literature on interpretation they read and discussed in the seminar. Recognizing the reality of fiscal constraints, especially for state agencies, Pluckhahn challenged the students to think of two plans: one short-term, small-scale, and low-budget (in the range of a few thousand dollars) and the other long-term, large-scale, and big-ticket. In the chapter that follows, Christopher N. Hunt outlines his assessment of the existing museum displays and his conceptual model for the ways in which these might be improved. Maura B. Denny provides her own vision for the museum in Chapter 3. Chapter 4, by Melanie Coughlin, tackles the issue 1.4

of guided tours of the site. Relatedly, Lori O'Neal (Chapter 5) considers improvements to self-guided tours, and Katrina M. Heller (Chapter 6) reflects on signage at Crystal River. In Chapter 7, Laura Collins present suggestions for children's exhibits. Finally, in Chapter 8, Joseph A. Evans considers how adult-oriented public outreach could be enhanced. There are obvious limitations on what can be accomplished in a semester long class, particularly at a site such as Crystal River where modern archaeology is relatively poorly developed. Perhaps most fundamentally, many of the students were unfamiliar with the site, and even the archaeology of Florida and the Southeast more generally; thus, their recommendations had to be more conceptual than concrete. Even for those students with greater baseline knowledge of the archaeology, the time to observe visitor experiences at Crystal River or to appraise the interpretation on their own is extremely limited. Nevertheless, we believe that each of the chapters that follow have suggestions that bear strong consideration if and when the possibility of improving public archaeology at the site becomes feasible; we hope readers of this report agree.

1.5

This page intentionally left blank.

1.6

Chapter 2: A Proposal for Improving the Crystal River Museum

Christopher N. Hunt
The Crystal River Museum was built in 1965 and officially dedicated on November 20th of the same year; final modifications were completed in 1967 with the addition of three new exhibit cases. Since 1967, limited interpretive exhibit changes have taken place (Weisman 1995). Several recent trips to the museum suggested to me a lack of interest by visitors. This lack of interest is exemplified by the limited amount of time visitors spent passing through the exhibit gallery (Falk 1982). I describe the existing museum facility and displays, then offer a critique in the interest of identifying possible reasons for the lack of visitor engagement. Finally, I offer some conceptual plans for more effective displays and use of space.

Description of the Current Exhibits

The museum is housed in a square-shaped building with four alcoves set inside towers at each of the four corners of the building, designed to cool the building using natural circulation; this feature was utilized when the building was originally built because it lacked centralized air conditioning. Three of these alcoves - designated B, C, and D - serve as exhibit areas for different artifact interpretive displays, with the fourth alcove - designated A - serving as the front desk and welcome lobby. Between each alcove are perpendicular adjoining walls - designated 1 through 4 - that also contain mounted display cases with text, images, and artifact reproductions. Finally, a central display case containing a diorama is centered inside the museum building, surrounded by all four alcoves (Figure 2.1). Alcove A & Adjoining Wall 1 This area serves as the designated front entrance of the museum. Here a visitor is met with a semicircular receptionist desk, a welcome sign decorated with pottery sherds labeled "Crystal River State Archaeological Site: A National Historic Landmark, Sacred Ceremonial and Burial Ground," and a plethora of literature about the site and various other Florida Park Service sponsored material (Figure 2-2). Directly to the left and perpendicular to the alcove, is the first adjoining wall (1) consisting of a window peering into the locked gift shop followed by a display of contemporary pottery with the Weeden Island period (Figures 2.3 and 2.4). Alcove B & Adjoining Wall 2 This area consists of three mounted exhibit cases centered on each of the three walls. The theme of this area is focused on stone (lithic) artifact types grouped and labeled according to the time periods during which pre-historic people who occupied Crystal River might have used them. Moving from left to right, the display cases focus on (1) projectile points, (2) Indian tools, and (3) projectile points and ornaments, with a considerable redundancy in artifact type interpretations (Figure 2.5). Directly perpendicular to this alcove, when moving to the right, is the second adjoining wall (2) that supports a mounted display case. This case houses a background of a map showing contemporaneous cultures to Crystal River, across the entire known world at the time. In the foreground, replica artifacts representing each of the designated sites on the map are displayed on the bottom ledge of the case (Figure 2.6). 2.1

Figure 2.1. Map of Crystal River Museum.

Alcove C & Adjoining Wall 3 This area includes two mounted display cases and an enclosed video room. The case on the far right wall encloses a poster explaining the early excavations of C.B. Moore and Ripley P. Bullen with some of the explanation as to why Crystal River is famous for its archaeological record. Directly perpendicular to this case is the entrance to an enclosed room housing a video presentation of the site's history, which repeats every 15 minutes. Continuing to the right is a simple vertically rotated mounted display case. This case displays five black and white sheets showing examples of the different food sources available to the pre-historic people who inhabited the Crystal River area (Figures 2.7). Perpendicular to this alcove is an adjoining wall supporting the largest of the mounted display cases. This case exhibits the different tools manufactured by local populations during the Woodland period, and the various raw material (i.e., animal bone, stone, and shell) from which they were manufactured. This case has a background comprised of text and pictures showing how and where these materials were acquired; attached to this background are examples of artifacts at various stages of production (Figure 2.8).

2.2

Figure2.2. Front desk in alcove A.

Figure 2-3. Contemporary pottery exhibit on adjoining wall 1

Figure 2-4. Gift shop window on adjoining wall 1. 2.3

Figure 2-5. Alcove B

Figure 2.6. Contemporary cultures exhibit.

Figure 2.7. Food sources display.

Figure 2.8. "Indian Technology" exhibit on adjoining wall 3. 2.4

Alcove D & Adjoining Wall 4 The last alcove is similar to the layout of alcove B in that they share the same three case configurations. In addition, this area has a (not yet functioning) interactive archaeology cart. The theme of this alcove is the three cultural periods that were contemporary with the occupation of Crystal River. These three periods were the Deptford, Weeden Island, and Safety Harbor cultural traditions. Each one of these exhibits are comprised of a background sketch map of the mounds, highlighting the portions of the burial mounds that are associated with their period, and artifact types that correspond with each period. The artifacts are both mounted to the background image and set on the bottom ledge of the case. Each artifact type is labeled with the type name and a small - usually one or two short paragraphs - explanation of the corresponding cultural period (Figure 2.9). In addition, six painted hollow wooden boxes explaining various archaeological laboratory analysis and general terms (e.g., post hole patterns, pollen analysis, trade items, etc.) are randomly ordered on top of the first two display cases (the far left and center cases). The last adjoining wall is perpendicular to the last alcove. This has a full wall-sized map of North America showing the perceived flow of cultural relationships with Crystal River at the time of the exhibit's construction (Figure 2.10), and a display showing the sequence of mound construction evolution. Just off-set and to the right of the map is a display case showing a vertical chronology of artifacts (lithic and pottery) in profile for the entire occupation of Crystal River during pre-Columbian Florida (Figure 2.11). Central Display Case Centered in the middle of the museum is a large square box display case, clear on four sides. This case houses a diorama model of what Crystal River is believed to have looked like at the time right before abandonment, with all of its anthropogenic landscape and mound building completed (Figure 2.12).

Critique of Existing Displays

As with the initial description of the museum exhibit area, a critique of these interpretive displays needs to be approached in the same matter, by describing each alcove (A - D), adjoining wall (1-4), and central display case. The reasoning behind this approach is to address the disjointed flow of themes being conveyed and the varied logic in exhibit display grouping. Therefore, each alcove and perpendicular adjoining wall will be grouped together and the central display case will be evaluated individually (see Figure 2.1 for a map of the museum). The museum does have some overall issues and constraints. First, is the overall design and layout of the facilities. The open square design with alcoves does not lend to a natural flow for visitors to follow, and the lack of instructional and directional signs make the cohesion of the exhibits wanting. This prevents museum audiences who prefer a more structured experience from fully enjoying the exhibit layout. Even those who do not prefer a structured approach would have trouble understanding some of the sequence or cohesion of individual alcove exhibits (Serrell 1996).

2.5

Figure 2.9. Alcove D.

Figure 2.10. Adjoining wall 4.

Figure 2.11. Chronological artifact profile. 2.6

Figure 2.12. Central display case with diorama.

Alcove A & Adjoining Wall 1 The first alcove and adjoining wall comprise the front reception desk and gift shop, respectively. The front desk houses a considerable amount of pamphlet literature about the cultural and natural resources that might be encountered by the public during their visit. This area helps with the variety of visitors to the park by addressing some of the diverse park services, both environmental and archaeological. This also presents the first opportunity for analytical learners to begin their preferred interpretation by providing sequential facts and ideas. Similarly, this gives alternative learners a chance to bypass (Serrell 1996). In addition, this multiple choice approach helps the visitor construct their own experience, giving the visit more meaning and substance, thereby providing a positive perception of the museum's purpose (Copeland 2004). This same diversity can be seen in the adjoining gift shop, housing literature and gifts geared to both the archaeology associated with the area and its surrounding natural landscape. On the contrary, the visitor is also faced with a contradiction in the exhibit's tone and theme. The sign welcoming park guests to Crystal River has a second title sign that reads: "Variations in Pottery Design." This leads to the belief that the exhibit's theme has to do with variations in pottery and misleads visitors into a false apprehension about the exhibit's theme (Serrell 1996). Alcove B & Adjoining Wall 2 This alcove is focused on the stone tool and ornaments types found at Crystal River. These three display cases demonstrate the variation in tool and ornaments types and the variation in size and color within each grouped type. These displays are an example of information overload and repetition, not through an overabundance of text but of objects being interpreted in one place. Furthermore, displays say little beyond the caption with the type name. They do not convey any information of substance or context within the framework of the site or archaeology. A visitor leaves knowing only the name of certain projectile points or ornaments, but nothing about why or who used them and what accounts for the variation. A visitor would leave from this alcove with little information about projectile points and stone ornaments beyond that they existed at Crystal River. These are simply identification labels, which by their nature are not interpretive, so they fail to address a narrative of interpretation to any audience or learning style. Thus, they miss most - if not all - of the proven principles of museum interpretive labels (Ham 1992; Serrell 1996; Zimmerman 2003). The adjoining wall containing the display of contemporaneous sites to Crystal River is clear in its message on what site existed during the occupation of Crystal River. However, the display does not contain supporting section labels explaining why the sites were grouped in this fashion or how the display fits into a larger narrative of the exhibit, thereby failing to lend meaning through a lack of cohesion (Copeland 2004; Serrell 1996). Alcove C & Adjoining Wall 3 This exhibit space has two display cases; the first explains the early excavation of Crystal River and the second demonstrates examples of food sources that exist in the surrounding environment. The first display of early excavations is the most recent exhibit and utilizes excellent principles of interpretation. In addition, this display speaks to multiple audiences and styles of learning through an interpretation narrative and layers of information in both text and visual formats. However, the second exhibit display is lacking in substance, narrative, and context. Like the display in alcove A, it lacks any interpretation and only provides non-interpretive identification labels (Ham 1992; Serrell 1996).

2.7

Adjoining Wall 3 supports the mounted display labeled "Indian Technology." This exhibit uses many of the effective interpretive label principles by demonstrating sequential display, layered interpretive elements, and information presented in multiple formats (text and visual). However, minor changes in vocabulary and updates in content are needed to convey the correct interpretation of Native American technology (Milanich 1994; Serrell 1996; Smith 1986; Steponaitis 1986). Alcove D & Adjoining Wall 4 The final alcove displays the culture periods associated with Crystal Rivers' occupation (Weisman 1995). Each of the three display cases exhibit the Deptford, Weeden Island, and Safety Harbor periods, respectively. These displays also include information about the association of the culture period with use of the burial mounds by incorporating a site map with occupation areas of the mounds highlighted in the background. This is a good example of information layering; however, it lacks interpretive elements that put this information into context, substance, or effective use of different label types. For example, why are they grouped in this way or what does a culture period evens mean? Again, supporting signage explaining how this relates to the people who used Crystal River or why it is important is missing, giving no interpretation narrative or important meaning to site visitors (Copeland 2004; Merriman 2004; Serrell 1996). Lastly, the non-functioning archeology cart distracts and confuses the visitor who might be wondering what this is and why it is not working. The last adjoining wall contains a large map of cultural relationships with Crystal River. This map is outdated and lacking supporting interpretation and context; however, it does visually convey to the visitor that a relationship existed between Crystal River and northeast cultures. Unfortunately, why this is important, what it is called (Hopewell), or what they exchanged is not incorporated, again failing to demonstrate cohesion to the exhibit's narrative or meaning to visitors. Directly adjacent to the map is an interpretive display showing a vertical chronological order of occupation at Crystal River. This kind of display is visually effective; however, it lacks some of the supporting layers providing the information for various learning styles and is out-of-place with the adjacent display (Serrell 1996). Central Display Case The central case displays the diorama of what Crystal River may have looked like after the last mound was constructed. This display is easily understood and well crafted, and supporting captions are short and easily convey the intended message. However, it does not support any larger theme or overall message. While it is effective separate from the exhibit, it could be better paired with another area to support an overall theme or message (Ham 1992; Serrell 1996).

Recommendations
The following section discusses a series of recommendations for redesigning and re-purposing the exhibit spaces at the Crystal River State Archaeological Site Museum. These recommendations are founded on the current museum critique and will incorporate established principles of archaeological interpretation and display, narrative, and label design (Copeland 2004; Ham 1992; Merriman 2004; Serrell 1996; Zimmerman 2003). The proposed redesign will be divided into small- and large-scale budget categories. The reasoning behind separating the recommendations into two budget categories is to allow flexibility for funding sources and/or staggered phases of exhibit redesign. However, the first priority will be

2.8

development of an overall museum theme and several sub-themes, to help create an interpretation narrative and reinforce the exhibit's message. Building on the central theme and sub-themes described in Chapter 1, several new exhibit ideas are proposed. The following recommendation will focus on three of the six exhibit designs: "People in the Period: More than projectile points and pottery," "Beyond the River's Bank: Far-reaching connections from far-away places," and "At the Trowel's Edge: Archaeology in practice." People in the Period: More Than Projectile Points and Pottery The design will incorporate the existing alcove and wall spaces, and painted footprints will be added to the floor in a specific sequential flow (Figure 2.13). This allows visitors to experience the interpretive exhibits by their psychological comfort level (sequenced or un-sequenced) (Serrell 1996).

Figure 2.13. Map of exhibits intended order. 2.9

D, ending at the start of the paved outdoor trail through the mound complex. Furthermore, the sign in alcove A titled "Variations in Pottery Design" will be changed to reflex the overall theme. For example: "Crystal River's Connections with People, Practices, and Places." Small Scale. This exhibit will utilize the space designated alcove B and the three existing display cases. First, a motif will be painted on the existing wall as a background for the exhibit. A background scene consisting of gender neutral Native American figures engaging in daily and ceremonial activities at Crystal River (e.g., tool manufacture, burial interment, and fishing) will be added to the background wall, including three-dimensional recreations of plants and trees to accent the background wall and immerse a visitor into the scene. This would convey how people during the Woodland period might have lived, conveying the message that people of Crystal River used their environment as huntergatherers and held a shared belief system expressed through ceremony and mound construction. Second, the three exhibits from alcove D (the material culture of each period of occupation) will replace the stone tool and ornaments displays. Next, a raised horizontal exhibit case will be installed in the center of the alcove floor. This display will have a background showing pictures of stone tool manufacture and use with artifacts labeled and placed in-between the photo. The artifacts will provide examples of stone tool types and reduction stages from the existing stone tool displays; remaining examples will be added to the cultural period displays to distinguish which stone tool examples fit into the three periods. This layering will reinforce the displays and visual information suited to accommodate the various forms of audiences and learning styles. Lastly, interpretative labels will support each exhibit display with additional information, positioning the exhibits within a narrative that explains why and how people of the Woodland Period lived and practiced at Crystal River. These signage panels would be placed next to each case and three smaller panels would attach to the bottom of each case, facing the visitor at an angle. Label examples are provided in Table 2.1. Large Scale. Changes for the large-scale exhibit include the use of the existing display cases and the background scene. First, the background consisting of the natural landscape and images of daily life and ceremonial practices would be projected on the scene by ceiling-mounted projectors. These images would be live action black shadows reenacting various pre-historic Woodland activities (e.g., mound building, fishing, interning a ceramic vessel, or flintknapping). Included would still be the three-dimensional forest accents that would provide an immersion experience to a visitor. Secondly, instead of using three large display cases exhibiting each cultural period, there would be a series of smaller mounted clear cases grouping different artifact types. A three-dimensional diorama of the landscape would extend to the foreground where additional small clear cases and signage panels will be attached too (for an example of similar design from the Weedon Island Center in St. Petersburg see Figure 2.14). Each wall will represent a cultural period and the stone tool display will remain the same as in the small-scale design. Lastly, iPads with interactive links will be placed at each exhibit wall of the alcove (three walls), giving visitors additional information and interactive demonstrations. Coupled with the text panels and visual displays, this exhibit gives visitors a chance to learn by their preferred style (i.e., imaginative, analytical, common-sense, experimental) (Serrell 1996).

2.10

Table 2.1. Label Examples for "People in the Period."

Exhibition Title: People in the Period: More than projectile points and pottery Deptford Period Weeden Island Period Safety Harbor Period Introductory Labels: Point and pottery styles mark periods of change among the people of the Crystal River and B.C. 1000 to A.D. 1000, known as the Woodland Period. Follow these exhibits through time and see if any of these artifacts remind you of objects you use around your own house. Group Labels: How much has your style changed? Each wall represents a distinct period of change that was seen by archaeologists in the things Native Americans left behind. What can you make with a rock? Native Americans used whatever resources were available as tools. Even though stone is not common everywhere in Florida, people who lived at Crystal River were excellent crafts people when it came to shaping tools out of stone. Put your shell collection to use. Pre-historic people who inhabited this area had an abundance of shell that there crafted into tools, ornaments, and even foundations for their mounds. Caption Labels: The Woodland Period marked the start of widespread burials being placed into some of the mounds you see at Crystal River. This practice was important to the people then and to their ancestors, who still visit the site today.

Figure 2.14. Example of exhibit from Weedon Island Center's exhibit gallery. 2.11

Beyond the River's Bank: Far-reaching Connections from Far-away Places The supported sub-themes of this exhibit include: "Crystal River was a place of ceremony that attracted people, ideas, and materials from far-away places." Small Scale. This exhibit would use the existing central display case and current diorama of Crystal River. The exhibit case extends from the floor to the ceiling, with only a relatively small area dedicated to the diorama. This leaves considerable space above the diorama on all four sides which will be used to mount three large maps (from the top of the diorama display to the ceiling). The first map will be of North America and show the spatial connections between Crystal River and the Hopewell Exchange Sphere, placed on the side of the central display facing visitors as they enter form alcove A. The second map will keep the same dimensions as the first, but scaled down to show only Florida and the connections between Crystal River and sites within Yent Complex. This map will be placed on the perpendicular side, just right of the first map. Continuing to move right, the next perpendicular side will have a map scaled down to show only the surrounding local connections the site had with other contemporaneous locations. This would demonstrate the shared connections Crystal River had, both near and far. See Table 2.2 for label examples. Large Scale. The larger budget idea would maintain the same connections on the same geographic scale and in the same sequential order. However, instead of being mounted above the diorama, it would take the place of the map diorama. This would consist of three panels printed with each of the map scales imprinted with fiber optic lights showing the sites; the connections would be color-coded and lit up to demonstrate a kind of network analysis of traded materials and ideas. These lights would be shown "zooming" from Crystal River outward toward the associated sites in multiple directions. At the Trowel's Edge: Archaeology in Practice The supported sub-themes of this exhibit include: "Part of the Crystal River archaeological site was destroyed for modern development, and more would have been lost without its acquisition by the state" and "Crystal River remains important to contemporary Native Americans."

Table 2.2. Label Examples for "Beyond the River's Bank."

Exhibition Title: Beyond the River's Bank: Far-reaching connections from far-away places Introductory Labels: How far can you paddle? The Native American who used the Crystal River site traded goods and ideas far beyond the shores of mound A, reaching distances as far north as Ohio. Group Labels: How well do you know your neighbor? The people who occupied Crystal River spent considerable effect getting to know their surrounding, both locally and over great distances. Caption Labels: Can you picture it? The following diorama shows what the Crystal River might have looked like after all of the mounds were constructed. This was accomplished over a span of about 1000 years.

2.12

Small Scale. This exhibit area will be located along adjoining wall 4 and will require the removal of the wall-mounted map and pottery chronology profile, therefore, completely starting anew. First, a full-length horizontal wooden ledge would be installed approximately four feet above the ground. This ledge would then have archaeological field (i.e., trowel, measuring tapes, field note books, etc.) and lab equipment (i.e., microscope, sorting tray, curation supplies, etc.) grouped together; the first half would have field and the second would have laboratory equipment. In front of each object would be a small panel showing a picture of it in use, therefore, defining how it is used in archaeology. Second will be large paneled pictures attached to the background wall above the display of archaeological tools. The panels are pictures of non-destructive techniques in archaeology for both field (e.g., ground penetrating radar and other remote sensing technology) and laboratory (e.g., 3-D laser scanner) methods, with minimal corresponding interpretive text. Therefore, they demonstrate how the practice of archaeology has gone from invasive to non-invasive through the advancement in technology and the idea of being non-destructive at archaeology sites. Lastly, above all the panels will be the title of the exhibit "At the Trowel's Edge: Archaeology in practice." Please see Table 2.3 for label examples. Large Scale. There are two distinct changes from the small-scale design. First, the background panels: instead of picture panels on the wall there will be a 32-inch monitor inverted vertically on a track. Visitor will then move this monitor along the track to reveal the previously described pictures of non-invasive techniques. Furthermore, when the monitor is moved to transition from one non-invasive technology to the next, an image of what the previous technology's results might look like would be the transition between them. For example, moving from ground penetrating radar (GPR) to digital total station mapping would contain an image of a GPR profile. Second would be the addition of interactive demonstrations grouped along the side of the ledge display containing laboratory equipment. For example, where the pottery chronology profile now sits would be a microscope that people would look through to see different pottery tempers and/or broken ceramic sherds that have been impregnated with metal cores so that when they are reassembled on a magnetic plate they will hold their form. These would demonstrate to active learners some of the widely practiced laboratory methods in a fun and visual way.

Summary
In short, the new museum redesign will apply many of the new principles of museum interpretation and labeling. This gives the overall exhibit gallery a theme, narrative, and updated information, and caters to multiple audiences and learning styles. This report has demonstrated the need for Crystal River to update and redesign its museum and the benefits of doing so. The previous recommendations can be flexibly applied to a variety of budgetary scales or may even be split up and completed in phases as funding becomes available.

2.13

Table 2.3. Label Examples for "At the Trowel's Edge."

Exhibition Title: At the Trowel's Edge: Archaeology in practice To dig or not to dig? That is the question Tales from the Field Notes from the Lab More than a shovel and a trowel Introductory Labels: To dig or not to dig? That is a question that all archaeologists must answer before the shovel hits the soil. This is because archaeologists have incorporated non-destructive technology to get the information without having to dig it up. The truth is in the soil! Archaeologists don't just throw around dirt casually. Lots of time is spent recording the very dirt we dig up. Group Labels: Look how far we have come! These sets of tools traditionally used by archaeologists in the field are slowly being replaced by the new technologies you see above. Archaeology is a science! Archaeologists spend more time in the lab than in the field. They incorporate many of the tools that you see in a biology class. Caption Labels: Not just for laying bricks! The trowel has been a staple of the archaeologist's tool bag for generations. Its precision tip and sharpened edge is used for the careful excavation of archaeological information. What do you see? Archaeologists use microscopes to carefully record how Native Americans made pottery or to analyze the foods they ate.

2.14

Chapter 3 Crystal River Museum: Critique and Proposal for Improved Public Presentation
Maura B. Denny
After spending my first five minutes in Crystal River's museum, I found it hard to keep interested in the exhibits, which as a museum addict was a new and strange experience. Museum interaction of information and visuals creates fantastic ways to engage and facilitate learning, and yet there I stood, head cocked to the right, staring at a case of projectile points and finding my museum enthusiasm flagging fast. I was reading, but I wasn't learning. The only thing becoming clearer the longer I wander past exhibit cases was the current museum presentation of Crystal River is not the addition to the archaeological site it should be. To say the museum at Crystal River lacks cohesion is a rather large understatement. At best, it is a confusing jumble of time periods and artifacts, at worst it is a huge deterrent to public interest and appreciation of the archaeological site. What should be an important exhibition of the cultures of Crystal River falls far below the bar of current museum standards for presentation in a vast number of ways which once addressed will hopefully be able to garner public interest in not just Crystal River itself, but Floridian Archaeology as a whole. The layout of the museum, the types of exhibits, and the presentation of the artifacts all combine into a chaotic mix of item, words, and dates detracting from the overall understanding and interpretation of the significance of this important ceremonial center. Several attempts to observe and question the public about opinions of the museum proved fruitless when visitors failed to appear. Although not conclusive, these visits on various days and times, having been suggested by Crystal River employees as the 'busiest' times, did seem to bring to light the general disinterest in the site museum. According to visitor record books of the museum, the majority of visitors are children brought on school field trips and the unique Floridian 'Snow Birds' on their migratory route south for the mild winter. One visit did produce a family with three young children, but they did not wander through the museum on their way to the picnic tables by the river; employees relayed this was not an A-typical pattern of visitors. Good on-site presentation of the archaeology raises awareness, creates good public relations and for generates income and support. Visitors should go away interested in understanding the value of the "digging up the past" (Copeland 2004:132). As it stands now, the museum does not generate a great deal interest in the site nor does it contribute much to the understanding and interpretation of why this place should be protected, preserved, and promoted as something worth learning about. Comparing the museum's current exhibits against the best practices for museum presentation, first the museum must be critiqued so the proposed renovations can rectify the present museum's failings.

3.1

Critique of Current Presentation

The Anti-flow Architecture The layout of the building currently works against itself as a museum. The floor plan, built in the 1950's to accommodate the weather without air-conditioning, presents the challenge of many small niches. No natural flow exists in the design of the building, and the layout of the exhibitions fails to encourage a path for visitors to follow. The flow of a museum helps to focus attention and strengthen exhibits connections. Flow involves immersion in an aesthetically pleasing, physically comfortable space with well organized, clear, enticing information (Serrell 1996:93). Coming in the main entrance, visitors are herded through a narrow opening by the front desk and a strategically abandoned table into the center of the museum space, but from there they receive no direction or inkling of where to go next. Here begins the confusion and inevitable by passing of whole exhibits. The three corner alcoves, labeled B, C, D in Figure 1, are seemingly identical and, when one attempts to view the exhibits at random, it is difficult to determine what has or has not been seen. The display cases do not help the confusion as the identical dark paneling closes off the artifacts, making them only accessible to those standing directly in front of the case. Visitors can easily assume they have already seen the exhibit before deciding to make a break for any one of the four exits to the less disorienting outside.

Figure 3.1. Basic blueprint of museum (illustration by the author). 3.2

The building, built for natural air, is also built for natural light which is both cost effective and allows visitors to still be linked with the archaeological site while viewing the museum concerning it. However, with the air and light came the museum's natural acoustics which would thrill a choir, but makes for an awkward visiting experience. Every step, sniffle, and sentence uttered echoes through the building creating an uncomfortable silence and unwillingness to speak. Museum exhibits should encourage discussion among visitors, challenging and discovering information that leads to conversation (Serrell 1996:92). Social interaction can aid museum learning by offering occasions for questioning and exploration of concepts in order to form shared opinions (Copeland 2004:134). The acoustics of this museum deter visitors from speaking to each other and generating a dialogue about the information they are receiving. The echo factor is most directly demonstrated when the site video, which resides in a separate room, starts playing. The monotone voice drones on, rolling around the whole museum while visitors try to determine what is going on and from which of the identical alcoves it is coming. Recognizing this as a problem, the museum staff has taken some measures to mitigate this. The addition of carpeting to some areas of wall and the installation of some sound absorbent panels to the ceiling potentially cut some of the reverberation, but the problem is still obvious. The Exhibits and Presentation People remember themes; they forget facts (Ham 1992:34). A successful exhibit presents an idea which will "clarify, limit, and focus" the nature and scope of the exhibition and provide a well-defined goal to the audience (Serrell 1996:1). The main statement of an exhibit should not be vague or compounded and must be fundamentally meaningful to human nature. The focus of the exhibit should be unambiguous, explaining and tying back to a component of the overall cohesive theme of the museum (Serrell 1996:2). Aside from content, the wall color, lighting, font style, physical barriers between audience and artifact, and special relationships of the artifacts and text all affect the visitors over all perception and enjoyment of the museum (Lindauer 2006:210). With this in mind, the exhibits of Crystal River's museum (Figure 2) are not exactly public-friendly. Site Diorama. After being corralled through the front desk, visitors are most likely to view the central exhibit first. Approximately 2 x 2 m, this site diorama is as old as the museum itself. The artwork now falls far below par and would not receive a passing grade as a school project. While it attempts to show the site as a whole, with miniature mounds and tiny reconstructed houses, the diorama lacks orientation of any kind. Although it can be inferred one views a reconstruction of the archaeological site, there is no description or indication of what exactly the audience is looking at. While there should be an introductory label to introduce the big idea and orientate visitors, at the very least there should be identification labels to clarify the objects being viewed (Serrell 1996:33). Which cultural period is represented? Is this the site as it stands currently? Is this what visitors should expect to see on their tour? While a good museum should generate questions of their audience, these are not the type that should be up for interpretation. Visitors walk around the display, but no side provides them with any concrete clue as to what the diorama represents. Contemporary Southeast Cultures (Adjoining Wall 1). After circling around the central display, the case containing reconstructed pottery of the contemporary Southeastern Cultures which parallel Crystal River should be the next exhibit visitors encounter. However, they are presented with a solid plank of dark brown paneling. This small, movable case, standing two meters high and one meter in length, houses some remarkable pieces, but the orientation of the case does not make this readily apparent to visitors. Because of its placement the exhibit is visually closed off and assumed uninteresting, making it easy to pass by. If visitors do not see from a distance what information is potentially available, they are less likely to investigate (Diamond et al. 2009:64). Should one stumble upon this Southeast Cultures case, 3.3

Figure 3.2. Basic blueprint of museum with current exhibits rendered (illustration by the author).

the information hangs on the interior sides of the case making for an awkward reading experience. The information presents a map of North America with colored dots corresponding to names of cultures on the artifacts. While this gives the pottery a name, it does not give any cultural context. There is no exhibition title, no introductory label explaining why these artifacts are grouped together, and no caption labels for interpreting or conveying information to the public. The artifacts have such potential to draw public interest and yet somehow the exhibit manages to avoid all of it. Assuming the blank wood paneling did not deter the visitor from making a rational starting point by which to skate around the exhibits lining the interior perimeter of the building, they would notice several common themes linking the exhibits together. However, these common themes are not big ideas which draw interest, focus exhibits, and clarify information goals such as Serrell suggests. The common links between these exhibits are presentation and style choices that would give an interior decorator nightmares. The museum walls are painted a light blue-grey which helps to utilize the natural light. However, the clashing dark brown cases have interior backgrounds of similar blue-grey not making the displays a lively contrast or inherently interesting. The plain, light colored background makes the text and artifacts look scanty and haphazardly presented in a way a dark back ground would not. The light backing highlights the areas presenting nothing instead of drawing attention to what is there. Style influences the way visitors perceive the exhibit (Lindauer 2006:210). The museum may not

3.4

have an abundance of artifacts to show, but these display cases make the museum appear to the victim of years of looting. Projectile Points (Alcove B). The three cases displaying projectile points are an archeological tease. The three cases clustered together in what this report labels Alcove B, display projectile points, tools, and ornaments of Crystal River, but they do not do so well. There should be an exhibit title to attract attention and inform the overall theme (Serrell 1996:22). Each of the three cases should have a "group label" which explains why these artifacts have been grouped together, introducing a sub-theme (Serrell 1996:33). None of these useful tools have been applied. The first case holds a number of replicas from multiple cultures and time periods, but does not attempt to explain how they differ in creation, use, or temporal/geographical location. No obvious pattern exists to the layout of this display case and the few exhibit labels present are written poorly. While it remains important not to bombard the visitor with textual information, the use of short interpretive labels can inform and entertain without being a visual burden (Serrell 1996:27). The labels used lack contextual interest, but to add insult to injury, the print is very small on a board with a lot of open space. The text in this case which comes closest to Serrell's ideal of an interpretive label is a small paragraph situated at the absolute bottom of the backboard which speaks about weaponry used for bison hunting. There is no cohesive topic to explain this exhibit and leaves the audience only with something they most likely already knew: Native American cultures had projectile points. The panel does not contribute to the expansion of understanding nor does it give any narrative thread for the audience to follow. In an exhibit dealing with weaponry there are so many ways to draw the public in, yet sadly the display by passed them all. The other two display cases in this alcove dealing with tools and ornaments have the same textual and visual problems. They do not explain the function or manufacturing of any tool. In fact, past the categorical type "ornament", "pendant", "arrow head", etc. the text provides almost no information at all. Also, after reviewing many of the artifacts, there is a very real chance quite a few of them may be wrongly categorized. If reviewed by experts, there stands a good chance some of those "pendants" belong to "fishing weighs" and "hair pins" belong to "needles". The public's fascination revolves around people, places, and events; they retain the larger picture well and only dates, data, and facts if they prove relevant to the main story (Young 2002:239). The tools and weaponry of a culture provide such a great insight into the lives of the people who used them, and yet these three cases refuse to delve into any of wealth of information the public wants to know. Contemporary World Cultures (Adjoining Wall 2). The irony of the exhibit "Contemporary World Cultures" being the most visually interesting exhibit lies in the fact this one exhibit without doubt should not be in the museum. This map showing what other civilizations were up to while Crystal River was minding its own business causes endless confusion. The cultures pin pointed on the map have no connections with this archeological site or its inhabitants. To further convolute the message, artifacts representing these non-connected cultures are displayed in front of the map. This has lead many people, according to site personnel, to assuming the artifacts were found on site and the occupants of Crystal River had connections with Easter Island, China, Europe, Africa, etc. In a museum focusing on an entirely Pre-Columbian site, this exhibit has no reason to be there and it has proved detrimental time and again to the overall understanding of the museum and site. Excavation Information (Alcove C). Walking past the Contemporary Cultural confusion, the visitor will find an exhibit focusing on the two main archaeological excavations of Crystal River. This display 3.5

gives much more information textually than any of the previous installments. However, the text is small and the formatting is long, large columns of text which make even the public archaeology student critiquing it not want to start reading. These walls of text take more time to read than the average visitor is willing to spend (Lindauer 2006:213). The information in the text does focus on the archeologist and comes closest to a narrative the museum presents, but it is choppy and proof just putting sentences together does not necessarily create a paragraph. This section could be broken up easily into shorter separate paragraphs maximum four lines long to instantly look more approachable (Serrell 1996:25). There are some good visuals to go with the text illuminating the nature of the excavations which took place, but as there are no artifacts to break up the two-dimensional feel nor many images to combat the invading army column of text, the exhibit fails to grab the audience's attention. Food Sources (Alcove C). This exhibit, from a personal point of view, falls by far the most pathetic. Food sources and the environment are crucial for understanding why a culture has situated itself on a particular site. The site of Crystal River exemplifies a unique riverine ecology which shaped so many aspects of the site. Yet the only bow to that importance and information comes in the form of posters tucked in an out of the way corner. The posters have stenciled drawings of aquatic life of Florida, but aside from wildlife names this exhibit fails to mention any connection of the ecology to the site. Furthermore, the animals displayed cover Florida in general and not Crystal River in particular. This exhibit may in actuality be National Geographic's posters used to fill space, but aside from helping visitors be able to distinguish a gull from a gopher turtle, the display does not contribute to understanding the environment as an important cultural foundation. Indian Technology (Adjoining Wall 3). The display labeled "Indian Technology", goes the furthest to attempt explaining cultural aspects to the public by showing a step by step process of how raw materials are shaped into tools, weapons, or accessories. The information in this area is good, but it could use a more narrative bent to the labels such as Serrell has described to continue to draw the audience through the process. It gives the information, but it never made the audience ask questions or created the desire to investigate what the display is about. This display demonstrates the problem of the light background color and the small text. The display lacks visual interest and at a glance looks tedious as it spans the whole length of the wall and has scattered lines of small text with few artifacts. This exhibit by far explains the most about indigenous practices, but it fails to tie into Crystal River's ecology, culture, or archaeology. It is an interesting, but unconnected component of the museum. The Cultural Periods (Alcove D). Being previously unfamiliar with the site of Crystal River and its cultures, it was expected the most usefully place to start would be with this exhibit. It was assumed the portion of the museum dedicated to the three major cultural periods of the site would do just this: explain the cultures of the site. However, the displays in Alcove D illuminated almost nothing about the actual people. Museum visitors in general struggle with context and relevance of exhibits (Little 2004:274). These cases display pottery shards and projectile points, but the Native People and story have been very removed from the culture debris, making it more difficult for the public to connect to. The narrative of Crystal River should come alive in this section, yet exhibit labels yielded almost nothing beyond what could already be observed. This section does generate questions: who are these people? How did they live? Why did they choose this are? Why is one period separate from the other? But it does so by failing to provide any insight which illuminates or expands the audiences understanding of the site. From here, the audience is invited to "start the trail" to go view the archaeological site. This inevitably cuts off the last wall of the museum making it potentially skipped altogether. 3.6

Cultural Relations Map (Adjoining Wall 4). This last wall which might be missed out altogether has the beginnings of a good exhibition. A large map covers the wall demonstrating trade routes of materials throughout North America and bringing to light the far reaching networks in place in Pre-Columbian society. The visual display challenges audiences pre-existing thoughts of how the indigenous people interacted and to what extent. However, the map legend is not as explicit as it could be, and while the map does show a more global outlook, it could do more to tie this exhibit back into the site of Crystal River. The legend of the map, which should be "explicitly clear" (Lindauer 2006:222), causes some confusion does not make this relatively good exhibit easy to read. Archaeology cannot just be brought to the public for the sake of archaeology, but must meet the general public's educational, social, and cultural needs (Copeland 2004:142). On a whole, the museum of Crystal River does not contribute much to the public's understanding of the site. It lacks not only visual interest, but in many cases it lacks intellectual interest and information. The museum should explain and expand on the people and importance of the site and make the information accessible to a wide range of audiences (Serrell 1996:37). In truth, from the time spent evaluating and critiquing the museum exhibits, there is not much about Crystal River to actually be gleaned from the museum. Lacking not only connection between the exhibits, the museum lacks a connection to the site it is built on. It is not hard to understand why the public is not lining up to get in. Museums are a significant and powerful vehicle for the public construction of the past and for public involvement in archaeology. They have the ability to play a powerful role in the community, bridging the gap between academia and the public (Merriman 2004:85). As it stands now the museum at Crystal River does not contribute to the understanding of the site. Undoubtedly it has the issues of building design and limited artifacts, but these are challenges, not excuses for failing to present a coherent and relevant message about the archeological site.

Redesigning the Museum

After reading through the critique of the current presentation of this museum, the outlook might seem bleak. Given the sound issues combined with the lack of public interest, the lowest budget adjustment might simply be to take out the central display and rent out the space to musical performances. The acoustics are great and at least people would be coming into the building. Since the exhibits lack visual interest, there is relatively little chance they will distract the audience and detract from the musical experience. Although suggested jokingly, I am not entirely convinced this is a bad idea. Music at the Mounds has a nice ring to it. The public has both high and low levels of interest in archaeology and cultural heritage and museums should strive to encourage both (Swain 2007:199). To recreate the museum as a public attraction focused on the archaeology, understanding, and interpretation of the site takes more work, but if approached appropriately and given the forethought necessary, the museum could be reinvented as not only a useful tool for understanding the site, but an attraction. Right now the building is being seen a space to fill, not a space to use. To be sure there are issues which must be factored into this museum's plans. Since the flooding and looting are both a real and documented problem of this building, it is probably not in the best interests of preservation to bring more of the actual artifacts from excavation, housed in other museums, back to the site. This does not necessarily mean a deficit to the museum. In fact since the 3.7

site is already dealing with replicas in almost all cases, there is a chance to do more with the space and exhibits. Since the protection of artifacts is not the primary concern, interpretation can be (Merriman 2004:87). A museum that reaches out to and encourages interpretation by the public should be pleasurable, relevant, organized, and built around a theme (Ham 1992:4). To start to reorganize the museum logically, as well as tie the museum back to the archaeological site, a central theme must be agreed upon. A central theme creates the first and overarching impression of the museum and defines the scope of the exhibits (Serrell 1996:11). Understanding currently the main deficits of the museum converge on a lack of connection between the site's native people, environment, and remains, the central theme of the museum needs to bring the human narrative back to the site in order to make it understandable and relevant to the public. The central theme suggested for this renovation project is: Crystal River Archaeological State Park preserves the remains of one of the most important ceremonial centers of the Woodland period of prehistory, created by Native Americans with intimate connections to the local environment, but also with surprisingly far-reaching connections to the larger world. Focusing on this central theme several suggestions could be implemented to make the museum more attractive, engaging, and informative to the public. This theme statement should be placed beside the front desk making it the first text available to visitors and thus giving focus to their time in the museum. Beside this introductory statement of theme, a large, simple floor plan with exhibit layout should be placed in close proximity to the entrance as even small spaces, such as Crystal River's museum, show visitors to spend more time and get more out of the experience when they are aware of what is offered (Serrell:1996:22). As shown, the museum layout itself is naturally against flow. Trying to implement one without flat out painting it on the floor is difficult. Although the above suggested floor plan can help facilitate a flow, one of the goals of renovation work should be to suggest a path of movement, but not necessitate one. Each exhibit needs to be able to function as a cohesive whole, but in order to create a coherent message, they must all draw on part of the central theme. This provides the freedom to move about the museum at will. In order to create a message which flows in either direction, it is suggested to view the museum in two parts playing on the two distinct aspects of the central theme. The central display, currently the site diorama, would be redeveloped to an exhibit exploring the "surprisingly far reaching connections to the larger world." The interior perimeter of the building would then be responsible for expanding on the importance of Crystal River as a "ceremonial center of the Woodland period of prehistory, created by Native Americans with an intimate connection to the local environment." The suggested layout for Global Connections and People in Period are described by Christopher Hunt in Chapter 2. These exhibits should draw from a more global perspective in the middle down to a more microscopic analysis of the site and cultures of Crystal River as the visitor moves along the perimeter of the museum. Resources of the River: How Hunter-Gathers Find Home (Adjoining Wall 2) Drawing on the central theme, this exhibit focusing on the environment and ecology of the site. It plays on the sub-theme: the people who lived at and near Crystal River were hunter-gathers with deep connections to the local environment. This exhibit would demonstrate how Crystal River is a unique riverine niche environment in Southeastern Archaeology and the environmental factors of the location provided the loom on which the fabric of the culture could be woven.

3.8

Since the environment is essential to the appreciation of this site, but there is not much in the way of exciting archaeological evidence to display, this exhibit would be a chance to step outside of the unattractive wall cases the current Crystal River museum format is so fond of. Following in the footsteps of Weedon Island's Museum, it is suggested this wall be dedicated to a combination wall mural and three-dimensional foreground replica of some of the prehistoric environment as shown in Figure 3.3. This emphasis on the environment would take into account and encompass the currently glossed over areas of food sources and raw materials utilized by the natives. This approach not only Figure 3.3. Mock-up of Resources of the River allows for the audience to learn and explore the (illustration by the author). resources of this environment, but it also creates a visual link from their time in the museum to their time out on the trail. It will help the public see some of the visible aspects of this ecosystem still functioning today. The creation of this three dimensional foreground, while following in the spirit of Weedon Island, does not need to follow in the budget of Weedon Island. Using fake plants, sand, shells, and other appropriate materials, combined with the right artistic skills set and know how, the exhibit could be produced well for only a few hundred dollars over the span of a week. The project could reach out to local artist and interested populations in the area to come in and collaborate on this section's planning and production. Using hooks, telling a story, labels directed at a single reader, and presenting data visually are good principles of conveying information to a wide range of public (Allen 2002:248). The environmental information can be presented through the use of interpretive labels seen throughout the diorama. Allowing for rocks and shells in the foreground to flip upwards to expose more information and eco-facts the exhibit would encourage interaction which would be delightful to children, but not undesired to adults. Larger labels would use lists, bullets, and separate paragraphs to convey more in-depth analysis of the sub-theme without becoming an overwhelming block of text. Examples of potential textual formatting of interpretive front panels and smaller labels to be used to convey information for this exhibit have been provided in Figure 3.4. By engaging parts of the community and not a company to produce this section of the museum the cost can be kept relatively low. However, on a higher scale budget, the addition of two or three interactive touch-screen tablets could be mounted (above potential flood level) in the front of the exhibit that could be easily navigated to find more information about different aspects of the environment for those inquisitive visitors. Museum goers have different speeds and levels of interest (Swain 2007:199). These tablets not only allow the audience to have more control over their own museum experience, but it would have the information there for the interested parties without daunting the mildly curious or cluttering the space with columns of text and lengthy labels. Tablets could also direct visitors from one exhibit to another if, for instance, they are interested in the transition from shell to ornament, see exhibit A, if they are interested in how archaeologists determined fact 1, 2, and 3, see exhibit F. 3.9

Figure 3.4. Examples of potential textual formatting of interpretive front panels and smaller labels for Resources of the River (images from deviantart.com). Exhibit Title: Resources of the River: How Hunter-Gathers find Home Section sub-theme: The people who lived at and near Crystal River were hunter-gathers with deep connections to the local environment. *Disclaimer: The information provided in these examples is for demonstration purposes only and is not grounded in solid research or information. Examples of larger front panel and interpretive labels: Example 1

Example 2

Textual examples of short labels for diorama (each bullet is a separate label): Oyster reefs offer the best places to fish . These reefs teem with life attracting large predator fish, such as striped bass and sea trout. During dry-down periods fish and other prey are concentrated and attract wading birds like this great egret. Hunters beware! Water snakes like this poisonous water moccasin lurk in the dark waters.

3.10

Another high budget element of this exhibit could be the use of a looped sound track of the environment: birds, crickets, etc. This would give the exhibit just a bit more life, but would also possibly combat the awkward silence of the museum by creating enough of a noise level visitors would feel comfortable engaging in conversation. This proposed exhibit would cultivate appreciation for the remaining elements of the local environment should the visitors choose to then view the site itself. Furthermore this potential exhibit asks questions of how the environment affects the visitor's own culture and ways of life more generally. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle (Adjoining Wall 3) The above environmental exhibit Resources of the River would create a natural flow to another which demonstrates the native local cultural ability to shape raw material elements of the environment to fit their needs. Under the proposed exhibit title "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" the exhibit would take the place of the museum's current "Indian Technology" to show the process of tool, weapon, and ornament production, but not in the general scope it currently encompasses. It would be focused on the local production of local materials. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle is a clever turn on a modern phrase but does not make the local cultures out to be eco-harmonists as some sources choose to portray early indigenous societies. This exhibit would be broken into three parts each focusing on one aspect of the exhibit title (Figure 3.5). Examples of textual information that could be employed in this exhibit are provided in Table 3.1. Reduce in this case does not mean to use less of something, but instead focuses on reduction technology as utilized in the production of stone points, bone tools, and Figure 3.5. Mock-up of Reduce Reuse Recycle shell ornaments, etc. The display would (illustration by the author). demonstrate with the use of replicas the technique by which materials were prepared and worked on to produce useful tools out of local and traded environmental resources. In the spirit of the current exhibit "Indian Technology" this would show with replicas some of the steps of reduction techniques that can turn a shell into a pendant, a stone into a point, and a bone into a needle. Reuse focuses on the changing purposes and reincarnations tools could go through before being discarded. Used tools show a history of becoming a different type of tool when they had been worn down or broken. This does not set the native culture up as eco-minded, but does demonstrate their resourcefulness when it came to tool production. Through replicas and text this panel would display alterations of tools, wood, grasses, palms, and other elements which got a second use before their eventual discarding.

3.11

Table 3.1. Examples of potential textual formatting of interpretive front panels and smaller labels for Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. The information provided in these examples is for demonstration purposes only and may not be archaeologically accurate. Exhibit Title: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle Section sub-theme: The people who lived at and near Crystal River were hunter-gathers with deep connections to the local environment. Example of panel introductory text (unformatted): Reduce in tool production means using reduction technology. The Native People knew how to chip away stone, cut away bone, and shape shells into the perfect tool for the job. Reusing a tool or material can mean a little extra work to reshape it, but it sure beats starting from scratch. When tools and timber had ceased to be useful in one respect they could get a second life as something new. Mom might not encourage leaving things lying around, but archaeologists sure do Example Labels to indicate stages of production: This raw hunk of chert, found locally or traveling by trade, first needs to be prepared to become a point, a or a blade. Next the toolmaker begins by preparing the core and hitting it just right to knock off what he does not need. After many minutes or several hours of chipping the toolmaker polishes off a new arrow head ready for hunting.

Recycle delves into what became of materials when they had ceased to be useful. It would focus on the how the middens turned to mounds, but it would also partially explain the formation of the archaeological record as objects and artifacts were discarded. A possible component of this section would be a small pile of oysters shells, and other materials helping to give a small glimpse of what the larger mounds in the complex are made of. It would touch on the formation and use as burial and sacred mounds without stealing all the thunder of the path tour signs. Although this exhibit would require replicas, it could be done for very little money. If again, a slightly higher budget were in place it could be suggested another three touch-screen tablets could be installed, one for each panel. Aside from being able for the audience to once again pursue information found interesting and being in control of the museum experience, the main purpose of sticking with this one form of technology as a higher budget approach is to keep the visitors from having to learn to navigate a new technology at each exhibit. Keeping the approach the same would allow for the technology to enhance and not hinder the museum experience. At this station the tablets could also be equipped with an application, especially in the Reduce section which allows visitors to digitally try their hand at shaping tools to see how well they fair. Another higher scale budget to add to this would be the manufacturing of "raw environmental materials" which are compiled of magnetic pieces which would allow the audience to reconstruct the raw form and "chip away" magnetic pieces to produce the artifact. Hands on activities allow for great access to understanding of archaeological exhibits (Merriman 2004:93). This would be an interesting and 3.12

informative tactile experience of prehistoric tool production that would interest children and even adults who thought no one was looking. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle would be a great exhibit to follow the Environmental diorama as it provides a more explicit understanding of how the native people used elements of the environment for everything from eating to hunting to wearing. Aside from appreciating the technological savvy of the indigenous people the exhibit should leave the audience thinking about the environment as something to work with instead of against. Current Chapters: Still Writing Crystal River's Story (Alcove D) The third part of Reduce, Reuse, Recycle gets the audience to start thinking about archaeology and connects nicely with the third alcove which would be nice to see dedicated to the archaeology and more contemporary history of the site. Although the site itself is mainly from the Woodland period, it has undergone changes from archaeologists, construction companies, and trailer parks. These are important factors for helping the public understand the current condition of the site. It would play under the sub-themes: Crystal River archaeological site was destroyed for modern development, and more would have been lost without its acquisition by the state and Crystal River remains an important to contemporary Native Americans. The first wall would be dedicated to explaining the two main archaeological excavations. Provided the text was broken into smaller pieces with a few minor adjustments for a more narrative arch, the current exhibit on these excavations is not a bad foundation. More pictures and information from the excavations could be added to round out this component of the exhibit. The second wall would provide a panel dealing with the unfortunate transformation of the site. Using images, maps, and text the story of mound reduction for landfill, destruction due to development and the path to state reclamation can unfold for the visitor. The third wall would focus on the contemporary Native American use of the site. This section should be done in conjunction and with consideration of the Native American populations who still use the site today. Their interpretation of the site may not be an "archaeological" approach, but it is another section of the Crystal River story and needs to be treated with respect and dignity. This The fact the site is still used for certain events belongs as another chapter in this sites story. This could also be a chance to explain why the burials are no longer open to the public and some of the presentation choices of the site. The site diorama currently residing in the center of the museum could find a reincarnation In the middle of this alcove. A diorama of the site here could demonstrate many things if done properly and with careful planning. It could demonstrate the archaeological site as it stands now versus the extent it probably once covered, which areas have been removed by what, and where the current paths are on site. With a clear legend and a few labels, a new diorama would be a great asset to this section of the museum. Examples of how textual information should be conveyed in Current Chapters are provided in Table 3.2. Not being of the opinion technology always enhances a situation, a suggestion for a higher budget in this area does not take the form of the 21st century, but the early 20th. The first excavation of the site took place in 1900 which was part of a golden age of discovery in American Archaeology. It would therefore be a purely decorative budget suggested in this area. Using muslin, poles, and a few 3.13

Table 3.2. Examples of potential textual formatting of interpretive front panels and smaller labels for Current Chapters. The information provided in these examples is for demonstration purposes only and may not be archaeologically accurate. Exhibit Title: Current Chapters: Still Writing Crystal Rivers Story Section sub-theme: Crystal River archaeological site was destroyed for modern development, and more would have been lost without its acquisition by the state. Crystal River remains an important to contemporary Native Americans. Example of subsection title, introductory text, and image caption: Destruction, Development, and Digging The mounds of Crystal River have unfortunately lost much of their original size truckload by truckload. Construction companies in the 1930's used the mound material for construction filler on while working on road expansion throughout Florida. A dotted outline represents the extent of the temple mound during its use in the Woodland period against its current size. props, and working with the existing architecture, it would be a fun addition to model this section as the inside of a turn of the century field tent. The "tent" would help to section these more contemporary chapters of the site off from the Indigenous chapters without separating it completely. It is a visual clue this a different part of the story and would provide an exciting visual change to the audience. This section of the museum reiterates the sites history does not stop with the indigenous people, but it is part of a living landscape which they are now a part of. It ties the modern public with the past populations as occupants and users of this land and its resources. An archeological site is just a different resource than shellfish or palm fibers. Should the tour continue around the wall, the final exhibit explaining better the purposes and practices of archaeological practices in general and at Crystal River is described by Christopher Hunt in the prior chapter.

Figure 3.6. Mock-up of Current Chapters (illustration by the author).

3.14

Conclusion
The Museum of Crystal River should not be thought of as a failure, but as an opportunity to create an engaging and informative aspect of both the site itself and Florida Archaeology more generally. As it stands now the exhibits do not help visitors to understand the importance of this site. The exhibits are disconnected from each other, from the site, and from the past and present people of Crystal River. The museum does not generate much interest in the public, but not because the subject itself is uninteresting. To potentially set this museum on a path toward better interpretation and appreciation by the public both a lower budget and a higher budget plan for three exhibits have been discussed in this paper. The higher budget plans are additions to the lower budget exhibit since the technology should add to and not replace the exhibit itself.

Figure 3.7. Building plan with proposed exhibits (illustration by the author). 3.15

Playing off of a central theme, the exhibit proposed under the title of Resources of the River explores the deep connections people have with their environment. It explains the site's unique ecology in Southeastern Archaeology while exploring environmental factors of the location which shaped the native culture. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle explores the cultural ability of the Natives People of Crystal River. It helps the public explore the processes through which man shapes his environment to suit his life style. Going from raw material, to tool, to trash, the exhibit not only shows artifacts life cycles, but also creates a nice segue into the archaeology of the site. The third proposed exhibit, Current Chapters, reminds the public not only that the story of Crystal River is still being written, but it helps to explain what has shaped the site, the importance of preservation, and the reasons certain aspects of the site are presented in certain manners. The story of Crystal River has the power to attract public interest. If redesigned and presented with exhibits connecting the people past and present of this area, the narrative which comes to life is a compelling tale. Understanding the current museum exhibition does not do justice to the site's history, it is suggested the museum be seen as a space to utilize, not just fill. It can and should be both an asset and a tool to lead to better understand and overall comprehension of Crystal River's culture, history, and importance as a chapter in the larger Floridian story.

3.16

Chapter 4 Guided Tours at Crystal River Archaeological Park

Melanie Coughlin
The Crystal River archaeological park currently offers three types of tours to those who visit the archaeological site. Two of these tours are guided, and will be the subject of this critique, and the third is self-guided and will be addressed in a separate paper. Of the two guided tours, I will primarily focus on the "Moon Over the Mounds" event that takes place at the park once a month. The other guided tour comes in the form of an eco-heritage boat tour that focuses on the ecological relationship between the people of Crystal River and the areas that they once occupied along this body of water. Since the subject matter of the boat tour is primarily concerned with issues that occur away from the site itself it will not be the focus of this paper. This paper will take the form of a critique with a review of the current methodology utilized to deliver tours to park guests. The critique itself will strive to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the tour (again focusing on "Moon Over the Mounds") as it currently exists and will move into a review of academically understood best practices for this level of interpretation and interaction with the public. I will conclude with a proposal of how to apply these best practices to areas of weakness within the tour, in order to engage more effectively with the public. A central theme that was developed through discussions with key stakeholders such as park officials and archaeologists who work at the site will guide these recommendations.

Description
The "Moon Over the Mounds" guided tour is currently the only option (aside from setting up a personal tour) for the general public seeking this type of interaction at the Crystal River archaeological site. The tour takes place once a month on Friday evenings associated with the full moon. Currently, the tour is only advertised by the Florida Public Archaeology Network (FPAN) Central Region and within the Crystal River Archaeological Park Museum. On their website there is a brief advertisement indicating the time, location, and a brief description of the event. The onsite museum also provides similar information for those who enter or inquire. When searching for the tour online it is possible to find old advertisements that provide more information including admission fees and limited means of contacting officials responsible for the tour. Once one manages to locate the necessary information and sign up to participate, they arrive at Crystal River and gather in the museum. The museum acts as both the starting and (usually) ending point for the tour, allowing visitors to peruse the displays while the tour group assembles as well as after they have walked through the site. Since the museum serves as the main focal point of the park, the tour not only physically begins here but a brief history of the building starts the Crystal River journey. A history of the building and the unique characteristics associated with its 1960's era construction begins the tour, situating the original interpretation of the site in the minds of visitors. The tour guide uses light humor based in archaeological interpretation to lighten the mood and shift people's attention from artifacts to those who lived at Crystal River.

4.1

It is not uncommon for archaeological tourists to expect to focus on material objects. As a result, the "Moon Over the Mounds" tour is focused in a way that tries to emphasize that this was a place where ancient Native Americans lived, worshiped, and were buried, and that the traditional importance of the site has not faded into the past any more than the items that are uncovered by archaeologists and put on display. There is a clear desire to show that this site is about more than objects, but about a people and their way of life. The tour moves from the museum to a series of paved sidewalks that direct visitors through the site. While walking from stop to stop the guide continues the history of the development of the site that was begun with the discussion of the museum. Reviewing how the site came to look as it does today helps to situate in the minds of those listening that archaeological remains are not isolated from the effects of contemporary life. It serves to remind those on the tour that sites are always changing and are continually affected by the choices contemporary people make about how they are used. Moving from a focus on the use of the site in the past to its use in more recent times helps to cement in visitors minds that this was a place that was used and lived in, it was not just an arbitrary place that people happened along. It had an important part in the lives of these past people and there is more to understand in this archaeological landscape than artifacts. The first stop of the tour is at two of the many shell mounds in the park. The guide takes a couple of minutes to talk about the different types of mounds at the site, what middens and shell mounds actually are, and what methods and materials were used in their construction. Depending on whether the tour is in fact "Moon Over the Mounds" or a privately arranged group tour, the actual structure used to deliver information will vary. Docents will lead an arranged tour, the number of those available varying based on the size of the tour group and volunteer availability. This is markedly different than the strategy adopted for the "Moon Over the Mounds" event. In the latter case, each stop is equipped with a docent who delivers a portion of the tour. Sometimes (again depending on availability of volunteers) docents will simply trade off on who talks about which parts of the site, but there is never one person giving the entire tour. As the tour moves through the site, the significance of each mound is discussed, as is the history of the archaeological work conducted. A review of the most prominent archaeologists to work at the site is given, as is a review of the effects their work has had on the overall understanding and appearance of the site today. Before arriving at Temple Mound A visitors will have learned the history of archaeology at the site, how mounds are formed, and that at this particular site many of the mounds have associated burials, some of which are still intact within the mounds. The partially collapsed temple mound affords the opportunity for visitors to climb a set of stairs to the height of the site. In looking through the stairs, they can see exactly what the mound is made of since the vegetation beneath the staircase is sparse. Arriving at the top of Temple Mound A there is a view of the river as well as the remainder of the site, partially obstructed by the trees that dot the entire complex. At this point, the site is put into context in terms of its temporal classification, periods of occupation and construction, use, and current archaeological efforts. Most significantly, the destructive nature of archaeology is emphasized, as is the goal to preserve and explain the archaeological record using remote sensing techniques when possible. It is explained that the focus of work at the site has turned towards preservation of what remains and the conservation of those features that are most at risk. Upon the descent from the mound the destruction that has taken place as a result of contemporary occupation of the site (in the form of a trailer park) is most visible but is not a stop on the average tour. 4.2

As the tour moves on, the discussion turns towards how the native people utilized the environment in the construction of the complex. Already visitors have seen how the mounds were constructed of sand and shell, and had a view of the river from the height of the temple mound structure, but it is difficult to understand the true relationship between the people and the land without some understanding of the local ecology (these issues are more thoroughly addressed by the eco-heritage boat tour). The guide informs visitors how the location of the Crystal River site has much to do with the available resources, and that it is not the only site in the area. In fact, while the site at Crystal River Archaeological Park did have a resident population, people living at neighboring sites would have also used the mound complex. As the path winds through the complex, the focus turns back to the burials at the site and the construction of the mounds, emphasizing their significance to the people who constructed them and experienced them when the site was occupied. The central burial mound complex has a unique history in the context of the site. In the earlier days of the archaeological park, there was in fact an exhibit featuring excavated burials on display. Visitors once had the ability to look into the mound and see what a Native American burial looked like in situ. Ultimately, this exhibit was closed and filled in, out of respect for local Native American concerns and the many issues surrounding the display of human remains that were brought to the public eye as a result of NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act) legislation. Perhaps the most unique feature (in comparison to the rest of the site) is stelae 1 on display beneath a protective shelter. The stories associated with the presence of this feature are highly intriguing and emphasize the uncertain nature of archaeology, especially when there has been significant human interaction with an archaeological site. In the experience that was the basis for this review, it was unclear how this feature of the site would be presented to the general public as there are multiple contesting stories related to its current position and discovery. While this particular aspect of the Crystal River site is surrounded with an air of mystery, it is not the only feature in the site landscape that doesn't necessarily reflect the original structure of the complex. The central burial mound complex was largely excavated and later rebuilt by one of the archaeologists who worked at the site throughout its illustrious history. At the same time, the paths that exist today were lain down. Thus, much of the landscape has been manufactured not only in ancient times when the mounds were built, but in contemporary times as well. One example regarding the treatment of the landscape is the trees that cover the site. Certainly when the site was in use the trees would not have been present, but part of the management of the site as a park implies that the trees are a good feature to keep around. This issue is just one of the many management issues that the limited staff at Crystal River must deal with in interpreting and presenting this site to the public. In the conclusion of the tour, the guide discusses possibilities for how certain areas of the site may have been used. Typically, rangers at the park interpret the plaza area near Mound H as being an area where people would have camped and viewed religious activities taking place on top of Mound H. Unfortunately there isn't much archaeological evidence available to support this. Further suggestions are made about what some of the reasons may be for having two temple mounds and two periods of interment in burial mounds, but this is where the story of Crystal River comes to its cloudiest. It is offered that this would be a good place to start for the development of future research questions. This is where the tour ended, along the path between Temple Mound H and Mound G, concluding with some final comments on the past archaeology of the site and a view of the museum, the starting point, ahead of us. 4.3

Principles: "Best Practices"

This section will focus on recommendations for how to construct a theme-guided tour and deliver it to visitors. First, I will discuss the benefits and ideas surrounding the construction of a tour that is guided by a theme. This strategy certainly follows the notion of "best practice" but like any good idea has successful and unsuccessful applications. Though the content of the tour is certainly vital to its success, the delivery makes all the difference in how much is remembered and how much visitors enjoy the experience. Thus, the second set of "best practices" I will discuss will pertain to the tour guide and what makes for a successful tour. It is generally accepted that a good tour is interpretive, entertaining, provides meaningful and relevant information, and is focused around a theme with five or fewer main ideas. Tours need to be dynamic in order to hold the audience's attention and not just be a walking lecture (Hamm 1992:132). The purpose of a guided walk such as "Moon Over the Mounds" should be to "orient people to a place, and show selected examples of things which illustrate a central theme" (Hamm 1992:133). The most important part of a theme in a guided tour is to focus the discussion. Were a guide to attempt to impart every piece of knowledge they have obtained about the site they would overwhelm the visitor with information. The theme helps get across those ideas that have been identified as important for understanding the site by those responsible for managing it. (Levy et al. 2001:81) The theme should consist of a key idea, in the form of a sentence, and have three to five supporting ideas. (Hamm 1992:314) Once the theme is established, the next step in the process of preparing a guided tour is the formulation of a tour outline to assist guides in developing their tours. This outline is not a script in the sense that it gives the guide information and words to be regurgitated to the visitor. It is meant to serve as the thematic base for tours at the site and can be filled in and adjusted as necessary for the group having a tour on a particular day. Part of the duty of a good tour guide is to understand the site and their group well enough to take a thematic outline and fill it in with the proper information in order to entertain and educate. (Levy et al. 2001:82) Once you have a good theme you need to know how to give a good tour focused around that theme. Tour guides typically come with one of four personality types. These are the machine, who mechanically spouts of a set narration of information about the site without real regard or attention to the visitors, the cop who is primarily concerned with rules and making sure people adhere to the "keep off the grass" signs, the know it all who shares every scrap of information they know about the site without connecting it to an overall idea, and the host who treats their audience as guests being guided through their home (Hamm 1992:134-136) The host is the best example one can hope for in a tour guide. While they are knowledgeable and have created a well-organized tour they are concerned for the needs of their guests and strive to entertain. They take special care to see that their guests are involved in the event, enjoying themselves, and are having all of their needs satisfied. In this case, needs for information about the site that is understandable, relevant, and easily digestible. This is why a theme is so important, while the guide literally leads people through the location, the theme helps to lead people through the information. Though tour guides need to be careful not to drift into the milieu of "the machine", it is important to structure the tour in a way that allows for logical progressions from one point of information to the next. One way in which to do this is to design the tour as having four parts: a staging period, an introduction, a body of information, and a conclusion to bring everything back together 4.4

(Hamm 1992:136). The staging period is an extremely important part of the tour. This is where the guide has the opportunity to meet their guests and help them to become comfortable with the surroundings and the people in their group. It is important that the guide be social, welcoming, and non-exclusionary (intentionally or otherwise) in who they spend time talking to and interacting with during this stage. It is also important for a good tour guide to take stock of who will be part of the tour. How many people are there, who might be present that may have special needs either physically or from an educational standpoint? (Hamm 1992:137) This short period of time before the tour begins is really the only opportunity for planning any last minute adjustments to the tour as it is typically given in order to accommodate a new and unique group of individuals. The next step in the tour is the introduction. It is recommended, but not necessary that the staging area and the introduction space be two different locations. The idea behind this separation is that by moving to a new introduction space it is a signal that the tour is about to begin and it is time to gather and prepare to head out (Hamm 1992:140). I would take this recommendation one step further and suggest that where possible the staging area and the introduction area are in the same general space, but that the introduction takes place with a particular focus on a certain aspect of the staging area. This way people are still comfortable with the surroundings they are in, they are eager to move forward, and they are not distracted by an all-together new environment while the introduction is happening. The introduction is the part of the tour where guests are introduced to the theme that will focus the experience. (Hamm 1992:140) As such, it is important to have the attention of the group so that they may go through the rest of the tour with the necessary context for understanding the information being presented. The body of the tour allows for the tour guide to give the people what they want, information about the location they are taking a tour of. Here the presence and personality of the guide are extremely important. Rather than attempting to tell guests every piece of available information about the site it is best to plan out a selection of stops that will allow for information to be provided that connects to the overall theme of the tour. A guide does not need to be rigid in their plan of attack, rather they should be ready and able to utilize "teachable moments" as they arise and cater to the curiosity of the guests. (Hamm 1992:141) While moving from stop to stop it is important to remember the recommendation that a tour be dynamic, there should always be something happening. Liminal times (between stops) are particularly good for providing transitional information, answering questions, supplying filler anecdotes to keep the guest interested, or drawing broad connections to things that may be more familiar to the guests and can facilitate understanding and the relevance of the information. It is important, once guests have been brought to the next destination on the tour, to re-focus their attention to the set theme for the tour, especially if you have chosen to explore other avenues during the walk to the next stop. A focusing sentence or gesture is particularly useful during these times. (Hamm 1992:142) Bringing guests back to the theme and main ideas that you are exploring will make sure that they do not lose interest or get disconnected from the flow of the tour. Part of keeping guests engaged, and part of giving a dynamic tour, is not just delivering information but teaching through experience. Sometimes this can be difficult on a guided tour, especially when you have a large group. However, when it is possible to include interactive activities in the tour it is beneficial to do so as they are an effective way of keeping guests (of all ages) attentive and engaged. What these activities might be will vary depending on the site, and the message that is being given as part of the themed interpretation. This being said, something as simple as passing around a prop or 4.5

executing a simple demonstration, like lifting a basket of dirt (for those who wish to volunteer with all considerations for the guest in mind), are effective ways of enhancing how information received on a tour is understood. (Hamm 1992:147) Addressing the group with "open-ended" questions, rather than closed questions (having only one right answer) is another way of addressing this goal. In this way both the guests and the guide are allowed to explore ideas and foster a more cooperative learning environment.

Critique
Though the tour guides were very well prepared and enthusiastic about talking about the Crystal River site, there are a few key issues that need to be addressed regarding the guided tour. First, the tour guide needs to keep in mind that while it is necessary that you lead the group along the path, it is important that you walk as part of the group and engage guests in conversation as you move through the site. Early in the tour much of the historical background of the site development served as filler during these times but as the tour went on this level of interaction began to drop off. Guests do need time to look around and take in the site, but they should not feel ignored or bored. Keeping up good conversation between stops helps prevent any authoritative divides between the guide and the guests and fosters a more comfortable and relaxed atmosphere. Right now, the tour is very unstandardized. In some respects this is a good thing. Every time people come back to the site they could take the tour and have a slightly different experience based on who is giving it and whether it is "Moon Over the Mounds" or a pre-arranged guided tour with a small group. While variation is ok and advocated in the flexibility of the tour outline, it is vitally important that the facts not change. Presenting different types of information is one thing, but presenting contrasting information is another. Some of the information provided was based on interpretation that is not supported by archaeological evidence. Though those providing these interpretations of the site are certainly knowledgeable, it is best to exercise prudence when presenting these stories to the public who will take them away as fact (no matter how many cautions you state to the contrary). However, while there are some advantages to the loose organization of the tour it most certainly needs to have a thematic underpinning. Right now the guides are so eager that they tell guests every bit of knowledge they have about the site. While the historical information in regards to the archaeologists who worked at the site is very interesting to other archaeologists, the general public would likely be interested in knowing more about the pre-historic context of the site and how people were living during the site's occupation. There is certainly a place for the history of archaeological endeavors at the site, since they have had such a prominent effect on how it appears today, but I think it would be better served at a stage in the tour where changes to the landscape are under discussion rather than in the stage where people should be getting the base knowledge necessary to understand the rest of the tour. If the influences of past archaeologists are going to come into the discussion I think it is vitally important to show some of the physical reminders of the effects that contemporary people have on archaeological sites. Though we were shown the destruction to the back of the mound (as we were there during the day) someone taking the moon over the mounds tour would miss out on this aspect of the structure. Furthermore, there are significant and visible changes in the landscape that remain from when the site was covered by a trailer park. Though these may not be entirely visible at night, I think they should be included in the tour on a regular basis to emphasize the need for the protection and maintenance of these sites. 4.6

The issues of contemporary changes to the site and uncertain interpretations are also relevant in terms of the site feature stelae 1. The general tour does not include the multiple stories surrounding how this stone came to be in the position it is currently in, or many of the ideas associated with its origins. Here the guides need to tread lightly since there is no real evidence to support the interpretation of the stele, but it is important to acknowledge how contemporary humans can affect the understanding of the archaeological record and cloud the past. Unfortunately, I also noticed that though there are two stelae at the site, stelae 1 is the only one that is pointed out or included in the discussion during the tour. One thing they do very well is connect the site to the people that lived there in the past and those who are concerned for the site and still feel its spiritual significance in the present. Throughout the tour the people that lived at Crystal River are talked about with reverence, as the site is in fact a burial ground. One key example is the closing of the exhibit of in situ human remains within one of the burial mounds. At one time there was an excavation pit that was covered with Plexiglas and left open so that visitors to the site may look and see what a burial within the mound looked like. However, in deference to Native American concerns about the display of the deceased the exhibit was filled in. This emphasizes that the site has not faded from importance and that respect for the people of the past and those who care about them in the present is vital. My final two critiques are brief. Currently there are two different tours at Crystal River. The eco-heritage boat tour and the "Moon Over the Mounds" tour which has been the topic of discussion throughout this paper. In an effort not to isolate the archaeology from the way of life that created it, it would be highly beneficial to blend the information provided in these two tours. It may be a bit of a stretch to offer an extended two-part tour, but much of the ecological information provided on the boat tour does not find its way into the interpretation of the site during the terrestrial guided tour. Guests do learn how mounds were made and the resources that went into their construction, but the tour seems to lack the emphasis on the importance of these resources and the relationship between the people and the environment in which they were living. Finally, I found it extremely hard to access information regarding tours when I was looking to set one up. In fact, the only reason I was eventually successful was that I happened to run into a prominent staff member and personally ask about it. There is very limited information available on the Internet, and some information available for those who live in Crystal River, but it is somewhat of a daunting challenge for anyone else looking to participate. The very first thing that needs to be done before the tour itself undergoes any changes is an expansion in advertising and availability. While a tour can be organized at any time if you have the right number of people (ten or more), those that wish to attend a tour on their own or with a small group only have one option a month, at night.

Proposal
Two inter-related proposals will be presented regarding improvements of the guided tour program at Crystal River Archaeological Park. The first proposal will focus on recommendations for small-scale improvements. Key small-scale improvements will include a revised script outline, recommendations for direct tourist engagement, and suggestions for coordination and advertising. The second proposal, which will focus on recommendations that would be considered large-scale based on cost and logistics, will primarily focus on scheduling, recommendations for expanding the types of tours offered, and the development of a website geared towards public outreach that could provide resources and information related to the crystal river site, including an online version of the guided tour. 4.7

The most vital small-scale improvement that can be employed at Crystal River with any type of tour is the application of a theme. As it stands, the tour stops at every mound and feature at the site and the guide gives a thorough summary of the sites history without any real focus. Tailoring the tour script to a theme will allow park officials to tell the story of the site and its importance in a way that is concise and relatable. Table 1 features a sample outline for a tour script that is guided by the themes laid out in Chapter 1. Once a theme is developed to guide the presentation of the interpretation that has been done regarding the site, then further developments to the programming can be explored. The first step that should be taken in incorporating the theme into the interpretation of the site is a new script outline for the guided tour (see Table 1). In addition to a new script for the "Moon Over the Mounds" tour that is more focused schematic, I would propose that the tour have interactive aspects to the stops included in the tour. As it exists, the dynamic on the tour is very unidirectional; people go and receive information rather than experience the site and its associated past. One of the biggest problems with the tour program as it stands is availability. Right now it is very difficult to locate times and contact information related to the tour. Though manpower is short and many of those who do work at the site are very busy, this program would greatly benefit from more efficient coordination and advertising. While an enhanced website is something I will propose later as a large scale improvement, something as simple as utilizing social networking sites for the purposes of advertising, or ensuring that there is sufficient information provided where the event is advertised would make it less of a challenge for those trying to take the tour. When turning the analysis towards large-scale improvements there is a much larger array of options. First, a professional website specifically for the Crystal River Archaeological Park would be a huge benefit. Not only would this streamline access to tour times and contact information, it would provide an all around Crystal River resource center. A website would provide a venue for an online tour, which could serve those who were unable to come to the site for whatever reason, or for those who took a guided tour and were seeking more information. Focusing the guided tour around a theme will result in less extensive coverage of the overall history of the site, providing a complete online tour with more of the cut and dry information would allow those interested to peruse the site at their leisure. In addition to an online tour hosted by a Crystal River website (with links to relevant websites, resources, and partners) it would be beneficial to expand programming at the site. Right now, there are not a lot of child-oriented options as far as tours are concerned. While the rangers and archaeologists at the site do give tours to school groups there is nothing formally set out with children as the focus. The closest thing available is the "Sifting for Technology" program. This program allows visiting school groups to sift through soil removed from an area of the site in an effort to learn about how artifacts are recovered and assist park archaeologists in making their way through some of this material. A guided tour focused more towards kids, or the development of an activity for kids that could accompany the tour would open the site to a broader audience. To be more specific, a scavenger hunt focused on information in the signage at Crystal River or other aspects of the site would encourage the kids to explore the information being presented more in depth, make it fun and dynamic, and foster self-guided learning. A sample of what such an activity document might look like is shown in Table 2. Note that this could take any form. It would be simple enough to print a set of question cards that could be laminated and written on with dry erase marker so that the materials could be used multiple times. Alternatively, the scavenger hunt could be printed

4.8

Table 1. Guided Tour Script Outline.

STAGING AREA - MUSEUM Greet guests as they arrive Take stock of who is in the crowd; assess any special accommodations that may need to be made (walk more slowly, adjust tour for children, etc.) Hand out knowledge scavenger hunts to kids *Remember: Talk to the group, not just select individuals Lead the group but don't separate yourself, especially during transitions between stops BE THE HOST, guide and entertain you guests, don't just dump a lot of information or rules on them INTRODUCTION - BACK OF MUSEUM NEAR RIGHT HAND DOOR (WHEN STANDING AT MUSEUM ENTRANCE AND FACING BACK WALL) Welcome and introduce yourself and any other staff to the whole group Inform group how long tour will take, how long the walk is, where facilities are, and address any logistical concerns the group may have Repeat knowledge scavenger hunt directions Give tour teasers, present theme Example: On this tour we are going to explore the Crystal River Archaeological Site. Crystal River has been utilized over millennia by a variety of Native American and non-Native American people. We will look at the early beginnings of the site all the way through its most modern occupation. We will talk about Crystal River's many uses and connections to the local environment, the broader world, and how people through time and space have viewed and used the land. STOP 1 - BETWEEN MIDDEN MOUNDS J AND K Talk about what a mound burial complex is, bring up important terms such as shell midden and use the landscape as a visual prop Emphasize that without the environmental infrastructure present this complex wouldn't have happened, people relied on the environment for everything from food to building materials Example, Open Ended Question: Why shell and fish bones? Just because it was what was available? STOP 2 - TEMPLE MOUND A Situate the site in time Emphasize that like Rome, Crystal river wasn't built in a day and went through multiple periods of construction and occupation STOP 3 - JUST OFF PATH BETWEEN BACK OF TEMPLE MOUND A AND THE RIVER Site destruction, show back of mound, show ground level change where trailer park once was Emphasize the proximity to the river and how important this was to people living in the area for access not only to resources but a means of transportation People didn't merely live off the land and the river, they lived with it and with the aquatic life forms that also depended on the ecosystem to survive

4.9

Table 1, Continued.
STOP 4 - STELAE 1 Modern influences and the contested past The interpretation of the past isn't always cut and dry Example, Open Ended Question: What strategy would you use to learn more about this feature? STOP 5 - BURIAL COMPLEX, MOUNDS C-F Ceremonial site, just because those who built the site are gone, it doesn't mean that it is any less sacred and should be treated as such Important to people today, members of the Native American community still view the Crystal River site as an important part of their cultural heritage NAGPRA and the importance of having respect for sites like Crystal River Example: At one time there was a display in the main mound complex that it was necessary to close in the wake of NAGPRA and growing concerns about the display of human remains. It was once possible to peer down into an excavated portion of the burial mound and see the interred remains within. STOP 6 - TEMPLE MOUND H Crystal River as a gathering place Small population living on the site, people would have come to this site from all over the Southeast for ceremonial purposes and trade relations END - BACK OF MUSEUM NEAR LEFT HAND DOOR Summarize tour addressing main ideas of theme in summary Example: As we have discovered during our walk through the site, Crystal River was and is important to many people for many reasons. Native Americans have lived and performed ceremonies at the site for thousands of years. The river served as a key resource for subsistence and the infrastructure of the villages along the river, the populations of which all participated in the construction and use of the mound complex at some point. We have also seen the danger many of these sites are in at the hands of contemporary populations. While Crystal River has come under the auspices of the state and is protected, many other sites in Florida, the United States, and the world are not so fortunate as to be cared for in this way. We thoroughly appreciate your taking the time to learn about the past of this site and how it has changed over time and hope you enjoyed the tour. Please feel free to peruse the museum at your leisure. I/We would be happy to answer any questions you may have, thanks for coming!

on a sheet, and come attached to a clipboard that each child would receive at the beginning of the tour. This way they could keep their sheet for reference later or for use in the classroom. Creating a resource that teachers can tie into their curriculum requirements not only helps facilitate learning for local youths, it helps teachers get kids more engaged in archaeology and include archaeological topics in the classroom. It would also be helpful to expand the adult programming options. The "Moon Over the Mounds" tour can be difficult for interested parties to attend, especially when they live at a distance. Offering more tour times, or again an online tour, would help address the interests of a greater percentage of the population. The problem here is that it would take a significant increase in personnel,

4.10

Table 4.2. Sample Knowledge Scavenger Hunt for Guided or Self-guided Tours.
Can You Find the Answers? What kind of archaeological site is Crystal River? __________________________________________________________________________________ Who were the people who lived and came here? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ How were the mounds built? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ How old is the site? __________________________________________________________________________________ What are three ways the people of Crystal River utilized the environment? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Find three examples of how people have changed the landscape at Crystal River through time. __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ What else was going on in the world when Crystal River was occupied? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Why and to whom is Crystal River important today? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

4.11

something that just isn't an option presently. However, fundraising and promoting the site and activities more throughout the community may aid with this issue. In terms of infrastructure there are minimal suggestions for improvement. The paths as they lie are a unique feature in and of themselves. Their construction has become part of the story of the site and offer sufficient access and views to the different areas of the site. Though this is addressed more thoroughly in other proposals there are some issues with signage and the current means of giving self-guided tours. Moving the signs closer to the paths, providing clear points for suggested stops, and offering multiple means of accessing site information such as podcasts or a detailed brochure are all options that would benefit guided tours as well as self-guided tours. While the small-scale suggestions are more feasible for the park at this time, the large-scale suggestions could be woven into a long-term plan for the site, dependent on funding and personnel resources.

Summary
As can be seen in the script in Appendix A, many of the "best practices" outlined earlier in this paper have been applied to the guidelines for presentation. The script outline is focused on a theme, addresses each of the main points, and allows for direction in the delivery of information but is not so rigid that it can't be tailored to particular groups. It is the job of the guide, not the script outline to fill in the story. While the interpretation of the site should not be fluid, the delivery should be, and for this reason a set script that is delivered mechanically to each group without regard to those in attendance is not an effective means of approaching a guided tour. Guides should be knowledgeable and provided with facts, not left to interpret the site based on what might have been. It is ok to say there are some holes in the record; it is certainly better to do so than to fill in the holes with intellectual backfill. The resources provided in the proposals act as a base for expansion in order to produce a more dynamic and structured tour. Most significantly, the script outline serves as a reminder to guides to keep to the themes, but not so rigorously as to ignore opportunities that may arise for spontaneous learning, or to the extent that they become authoritative machines. Overall the goals of this paper and the proposals have been to increase access to the site, to the people who once lived here, and to the past in general.

4.12

Chapter 5: Crystal River Archaeological State Park: A Self-Guided Tour

Lori ONeal
As noted in the introductory chapter, the scope of the project includes recommendations for the museum/visitor center, the guided tour, outdoor signage, and a children's interpretation. This paper focuses on the self- guided tour section of the project. Although designed for implementation as part of the overall revision to the current program, it can also be implemented independently. Given the current economy, the short-term recommendation does not incorporate major changes to the site, and is sustainable on a budget. Additionally, I propose a long-term plan the park can implement as an investment in its continued success. This requires changes and upgrades to the grounds, and the addition of an interactive media component. Both proposals incorporate the use of best practices in interpretive tour design giving the Crystal River self-guided tour program a much-needed facelift. Effective self-guided tours benefit from following interpretive guidelines, providing a meaningful experience for the visitor. This means the tour must be a pleasurable experience for visitors, relevant to a varied audience, and organized around a central theme (Ham 1992:8). The tour should be pleasurable through participation and lively and colorful interpretive material, making the park a place visitors want to come back and visit again. Using examples, analogies, and comparisons (Serrell 1996:14) that are relevant for today allows the visitor to feel a connection with the people and the place they visited, connecting the past with the present in a way that creates and sustains histories for them. This inspires their curiosity, giving them a unique experience that encourages a desire to learn more. Creating this feeling in a self-guided tour means paying attention to what visitors want and need (Potter 1997:37). That means knowing who the visitors are, why they come to Crystal River Archaeological Park, and what they want to accomplish with their visit. They are the interested public, non-specialists, who benefit from a tour with a level of interpretation general enough to understand, but with enough detail as to present some factual details about the site (South 1997:56). Developing a central theme and organizing the tour around it through five main ideas gives direction and focus to the tour, engaging the visiting public and providing a positive experience (Ham 1992:39). Our big idea or theme considers the importance of the Crystal River complex as a Woodland period ceremonial center, created by Native Americans who developed intimate connections with their local environment, and intercultural connections to the larger world. Focusing on this theme in the development of my tour brochure, the design incorporates these five ideas. The key is to present this information in a brochure that is easy to read for the visitors walking through the site. The layout presents the above theme and ideas in narrative captions that make sense individually and flow, regardless of the direction the visitor chooses, or in which order they read the information (Serrell 1996:27). I made several reconnaissance visits to Crystal River Archaeological State Park, evaluating how well their current program works. Then, using the above guidelines, I propose recommendations for creating an effective tour.

5.1

Evaluation
Between 1990 and today, few changes have been made to the interpretive program or the museum exhibits at Crystal River. This was readily apparent as I toured the museum and strolled through the park, acquainting myself with the layout. It is a lovely park with large old live oaks draped with Spanish moss gently wafting in the breeze coming off Crystal River on the park's southern border. The green grassy mounds and plaza dotted with wild flowers make this a very lovely and picturesque place to wander through, photograph and take lunch in the picnic area overlooking the river and tidal marsh. However, I was interested in learning about the people who constructed the mound complex at Crystal River and found the self-guided tour disappointing in content and engagement. The brochure I picked up in the museum was of the type one finds in the visitors bureau giving very brief information about the park, its hours, how to get there, and the other fun stuff to do in the area. It was not intended as an interpretation of the park at all. Therefore, it is difficult and unfair to evaluate the brochure as something it is not. Instead, I propose a brochure specifically for the self-guided tour beginning from scratch. In addition, although the park is open 365 days of the year, the museum is open from 9a.m. to 5 p.m., but closed on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Visitors have no access to brochures while the museum is closed, because there is no place to pick up a brochure outside. According to the National Park Service, approximately 21,200 people visit Crystal River Archaeological Park each year (http://www.cr.nps.gov/goldcres/sites/crysrv.htm). The date and exact methods used to extract this information were not immediately available. However, park personnel do tally the visitor payment envelopes and document that information. Each payment envelope represents an average of three guests. Some visitors do not pay, and groups vary in size. Arguably, the total may not be a true representation of the total number of visitors. On my visits, the number of guests numbered about 12 each time and the rangers added that daily visits range from 12 to 30 per day. Although there is no specific data available for this report regarding who visits the park, the consensus of the volunteers is that many are from out of town or outside the United States. There are also regular local visitors who use the park's trail for exercising and socializing. School groups visit the park, taking the guided tours. Both vacationers and locals may likely visit the park during the week when the museum is closed, or in the evening, or early morning to escape the heat of the day. They need a place to pick up a brochure. The trails at the park are non-directional, lending themselves to the whim of the visitors, who may want to wander in any direction to make the most of their visit. This makes the tour feel very non-structured and relaxed, and is a nice way to see the park. My own self-guided tour took several times around the one-half mile trail, and back and forth from a few times. The asphalt trails have experienced some heaving due to roots pushing upwards under them. This is a concern for safety and comfort of the visitors. I tripped several times because I was paying attention to the sites and not watching the ground. Audio interpretation boxes are one of the only ways visitors receive information while walking the park. These battery-operated boxes, placed at four locations in the park, offer visitors with a three-minute audio presentation activated by a button. One sits near midden Mounds J and K, one at the Mound A, one at burial Mounds C and F, and the last at Mound H. At the time of my visit, the audio box at Mound H was inoperative. Each audio box sits atop a pole bolted to a concrete slab, with a slightly tilted flat top where a plaque once held photos and maps, now degraded over time, holding only old tape and one faded map. The audio element in a tour can 5.2

be effective for those who benefit from what they hear. They also offer an avenue for additional interpretation. However, the rusty, dilapidated look of the audio boxes at Crystal River is detracting and uninviting (Figure 5-1). For the visitors comfort, benches placed at intervals along the pathways offer a place to sit and relax or just enjoy the park for a while. Placed in shady areas when possible, they are typical of park benches, having wooden slats which are a good choice considering the summer heat. In addition, a picnic area with picnic tables near the seawall at Crystal River draws visitors interested in a lunch on the lawn while watching boats or enjoying the manatees and dolphins often active in the water, and those who like to fish off of the sea wall. Both the benches and picnic tables are in good repair. Figure 5.1. Audio box at Crystal River. Just north of the picnic area a partly constructed dugout canoe sits awaiting completion, beside it the remnants of a campfire where hot coals aided in carving out the canoe (Figure 5-2). The area is unkempt and appears abandoned. A sign describing the process of creating the canoe stands to the left. This has the potential to offer a more interactive and participatory experience for the visitor. As it sits now, the canoe is static, offering little interest without active personal engagement and understanding. Figure 5.2. The canoe area. A 2" x 3" x 48" wire fence attached to steel (T) posts surrounds the east and south sides of Mound A. This mound is one of the central attractions of the park, widely visited and photographed. Installed to protect both the mound and visitors who may try to climb it, the fence sags, and detracts from the landscape of the mound.

Figure 5.3. Fencing at Mound A.

Proposal
Short-term Based on my evaluation of Crystal River Archaeological Park, I am addressing the areas the will benefit the visitor taking a self-guided tour by giving them the tools to interpret the site, develop an understanding, and foster their interest in preserving it. Implementing this short- term cost effective plan is important for the parks continued success in our uncertain economic climate.

5.3

Brochure Box. Because visitors often visit the park while the Museum is closed, I suggest placing a brochure box near the museum for the convenience of those who visit after hours. This may be as simple as a mailbox or brochure box on a post with lettering indicating the tour brochures are inside (Figure 5-4). A box made in a style complementary to the parks design is a better option. Conveniently placed and in clear view between the "steel ranger" collection box and the visitors' center, this box insures visitors have the brochure for their tour. I suggest placing it on the right hand side of the walkway just before the raised curb. Tour Brochure. A new model for a tour brochure or booklet, created using a central theme, needs to be designed from scratch. The content of the brochure incorporating the five elements of the proposed theme, Figure 5-4. Possible keeping the material flowing and cohesive, keeps the visitor focused and brochure boxes. interested (Ham 1992:9). A short phrase should introduce the visitor to the tour, giving them a reason to take the tour. For example, the current phrase "A Pre-Columbian Ceremonial Indian- Mound Complex" is dull and impersonal, using the mound as the subject. Instead, we want the visitor to form a relationship and connection to the people of Crystal River by making them the subject, throughout the brochure, not the mounds. Instead, we should use a more personal tone; for example, "Welcome to Crystal River. My ancestors built this unique ceremonial complex 2300 years ago. Join me as I tell you their story." Following the introduction to Crystal River, the narrator, in the form of a brochure, tells the visitors a narrative story about his/her home. "My name is lost because my people no longer exist. But, we were once a thriving community. My family hunted and gathered our food from the nearby woods and the waters all around our home. I made beautiful shell ornaments that I traded for copper that came from the Great Lakes Region. We shared ideas with our friends as far away as Ohio. Today, archaeologists are revealing many of our secrets through scientific investigation at Crystal River. As you walk with me, I will help show you how we lived and why we chose Crystal River as our home." This brief paragraph is the lead in for the various stops along the way. Coordinating the stops with the mounds identified with signs will help orient the visitor. I would start with Mounds J and K because this is the most likely direction the route takes in the park. Therefore, in keeping with the recommendations for labels, the title at each stop should contain one to seven words, the group or captions presented at each stop should contain 20-150 words (Serrell 1996:35). I suggest keeping them to about 50 words each. Barcode. A no-cost, high tech means for visitors to interact with the site in a more in-depth way is by using two-dimensional barcodes in brochures and on displays or signs. Two-dimensional barcodes are graphical images containing information linking the user to a website or embedded text. They only need a smart phone with internet access and barcode reader to use this function. Barcode generators are free to download from several internet sites. The barcode should link the visitor to additional relevant and current information about the Crystal River site. Unfortunately, the Florida State Park website and the Crystal River website are out of date and not a good choice at this time. Currently, there does not appear to be an appropriate link that contains up to date, valid data on the site that the typical visitor might enjoy. Because of this, widespread use of barcodes may have to be considered in the long-term plan until adequate web pages are developed. However, I suggest using them to link to a social website like Facebook or Twitter, allowing visitors to share their experience with friends. 5.4

Canoe. The partially completed dugout canoe was part of a project conducted by Gary Ellis using prehistoric tools to build a canoe from a pine log. It now sits abandoned, but can serve as an interpretive with a little work. I propose a cleanup of the area and the addition of mulch for a clean neat look, inviting visitors to explore the area around the canoe. Additionally, the bulletin board with photos describing the canoe making process is outdated and can be put to better use. I suggest instead that the Figure 5.5. Example of graphic showing content should reflect the important of the canoe for comparison of ancient and modern boat the Native Americans at Crystal River as a technology and use. multipurpose vessel. This is the perfect opportunity to compare past technology with the present in a way the visitor can relate to, by showing the canoes use as a fishing vessel, a transporter of trade goods and of people. This is another opportunity to use a two-dimensional barcode, linking it for example to a YouTube video or other source showing the making of a canoe. For an example, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-vpJM-CLdk. New fence at Temple Mound A. Replace the unsightly fence at Temple Mound A with a more appropriate one. The wire fence was not highly visible until I got close, and that is probably the idea. However, a more appropriate fence in a muted color would look good without giving the impression that it was just thrown up to keep people out. It really would not keep anyone out if he/she wanted in. Therefore, a wooden fence that directs visitors away from that side of the mound would work as well and be appropriate for the park. Recorded voice boxes. For economic reasons, replacing the recorded voice boxes may not be an option. However, they need a fresh coat of paint. If the brown paint is not a requirement, I suggest a change to a brighter color scheme. This would be more inviting for the visitor than rusty brown. Perhaps Native American symbols typical of Crystal River like alligator effigies, and other designs would give them a facelift, taking the visitors eye away from their age and condition. The addition of a map or interpretive material may not be the best use of the platform on top of the box. A framed laminated title or short question, answered by the voice recording is one option. For example (Figure 5.7): Why choose this spot to build a ceremonial center? What is special about Crystal River? Figure 5-6. Suggested fencing style for Mound A. The park should consider new recordings incorporating a few techniques. Based on my own experience at each recording, I suggest new shorter recordings running about one minute or less. I did not wait for the end of the recording before moving on and neither will many other visitors. I am loosely following Serrell's suggestions for introductory label length and speed at which people read labels and adapting this to my consideration for this one-minute recording. Introductory label length should be between 20 and 300 words and the average reading speed of museum visitors is 250 words per minute

Figure 5.7. Example of panel for top of audio box.

5.5

(Serrell 1996:35). Like labels, the audio recordings should be able to keep the visitor interested until the end. For example: As you explore the Crystal River Archaeological site, you are walking in the footsteps of the Native Americans who built this intriguing ceremonial complex. These people were hunter-gathers. They did not farm the land or raise animals. Instead, they expertly hunted, fished and collected their food. Archaeologists used to believe that hunter-gatherers did not build complex ceremonial centers like this one at Crystal River. They thought hunter-gatherers moved from place to place, going where the food was plentiful. But, evidence from Crystal River and other mound complexes in Florida tells a different story. This is the story of the people who lived in Crystal River during the Woodland Period between 1000B.C. and A.D. 1000. They planned and built this magnificent complex, living here for over 800 years. Oyster shells and other materials used in the construction came from Crystal River and the Gulf of Mexico. Some people designed beautiful shell ornaments to trade with people throughout the Eastern United States. They also traded ideas with their northern neighbors. Copper and other fine materials came from as far away as the Great Lakes Region. This place was important to the people who lived here then and it is important to us today. Responsible interpretations present multiple voices giving multiple definitions about ideas and the understanding of the cultural landscape (Potter 1997:50). I propose using both the written and audio interpretations in cooperation with one another could achieve this, if care is taken to make sure they complement or flow with one another, rather than sound as if they mistakenly conflict with one another. For example, the brochure, if given in the first person account by a Native American, may offer a different point of view than the audio recording representing the archaeologist. Sifting For Technology. Used as an interactive teaching tool, Sifting or Technology is designed to teach archaeological techniques by excavating the spoil pile remains resulting from the dredging operation and repair the retaining wall on Crystal River. Explaining the excavation processes, park rangers, archaeologists or volunteers supervise the visitors as they excavate one-meter test units. Because this is a questionable interactive tool, I suggest abandoning the idea. My reasoning is that archaeological excavations are based on a research design and have a specific valid purpose encompassing much more than a test pit. Giving the public a taste of only one small part of archaeological practice is cheating them out of a full understanding of what ethical responsible archaeology is all about. As Potter points out for another interpretive program "We don't s do "show" digging (1997,40)." I suggest the revising the signage at the "Sifting" site reflecting why the spoil pile is there, why integrity of the archaeological evidence is compromised, and why the program was abandoned. We learn from our mistakes as well as our successes. An applicable program may warrant future consideration, however, its development is not in the scope of this project. Trails. The trails through the site present a bit of a problem for renovation. Some areas are trip hazards and require repair. Tree roots produce heaving of the asphalt, which will continue to get worse. Grass grows through the cracks in many areas. There are liability and ADA concerns that this report is not equipped to deal with. However, simple signs warning visitors of the uneven surfaces, and repairs to areas most affected, between burial mounds C-F and Temple Mound H, and near Stelae 1 should be considered. Additionally, a large-scale plan is presented in the long-term proposal.

5.6

Grounds. The Crystal River Park staff and volunteers keep the park mowed and maintained. However, further enhancing the look of the park by coordinating with volunteers to help with weeding, tree trimming, cleanup, would be helpful. Park visitors are more likely to visit and stay if the area is clean and nicely kept. I suggest the Friends of the State Park take an active role in developing volunteer programs. Friends of the State Parks. I suggest the park should approach the Friends of Crystal River State Park and discuss ways they can play a more active role in implementing the recommendation outlined here and in the accompanying reports. This group is active in other areas like giving boat tours and could be a resource for implementing our ideas. While I was visiting the Collier Seminole State Park in Naples, Florida, I spoke with one of the park's "friends" (Name unknown). He and others gave kayak tours in the park. Beginning with rented kayaks, volunteers took the proceeds and purchased their own kayaks. Now, using their fleet of kayaks, they raise money for signs, brochures, and other improvements the budget does not cover. Volunteers often have skills in woodworking, art, painting, building, gardening, etc. and will offer their services if someone coordinates the project, inviting their expertise and involvement. With current budgetary concerns, educating and working with active volunteers for the future success of the park is a constructive option. Long-term Proposal A long-term proposal for Crystal River Archaeological Park should first consider maintaining the park in a park-like setting, or as an Archaeological Site. If maintained as an archaeological site, then how much is authenticity worth? Is it worth cutting down many of the trees? My thought is no. The park should be presented as an archaeological site, with a park- like environment it maintains today. With that in mind, there are still a couple of projects major projects to consider for the preservation of integrity and increasing the comfort and experience of the visitor. First, consider reinforcing Mound A to curtail further erosion. Much of the mound on the south side is cut away or has fallen. Steps need to be taken to reinforce that side before it gives way. That is not going to be easy without jeopardizing the mounds integrity on that side. One option is to simply place a barrier sheet over the damaged area, bring in fill, remaking that side of the mound. Reconstructing the mound to reduce further erosion, to rehabilitate and preserve, or to make it look more authentic, may raise ethical concerns (MacIntosh 2004:65 ) or at least some hackles. Because, Moore excavated many of the mounds, destroying them, the site was reconstructed to some degree anyway. Additionally, the trailer park located on the east side of Mound A caused damage to that area. I suggest researching mound restoration techniques, if available, through archaeologists, the park service, and erosion control services to design a plan to reconstruct the mound to the extent that it is protected from further harm. The eastern side of the mound should remain, where the cuts made by heave equipment show extensive damage, incorporating the modern construction into the tour design. Pathways. In the short-term proposal, I considered some slight restoration to the paths. A longterm plan considers replacing some of them and moving others. The path cuts through East slope of burial mounds C-F. A suggestion made by Rich Estabrook considers moving the path. My suggestion is removing the path and restoring the grade at this location. A new raised boardwalk path added in an arching route further toward the east nearer the tree line is a viable option. Additionally, some of the other asphalt paths with low boardwalk paths give a more park-like feel. Consideration for this projects potential damage to the site needs to be addressed and plans made for the least invasive construction.

5.7

Websites and downloads. We already talked about twodimensional barcodes in the short-term plan. Making them truly effective means creating a website and links designed specifically for the interpretive program. Create an interactive website and links to different parts of the website for each barcode. For example, the Cahokia Mounds website contains an audio video presentation. (http://cahokiamounds.org/learn/video) Although 4 minutes is too long for a single stop on a self-guided tour, it could be designed to pause between stops, allowing people to have a complete audio tour of the site through one link. A link to the website can also bring the museum out into the park with the visitor so they can experience the museum by viewing the virtual displays in the park. For example, Weeden Island museum offers a virtual tour of artifacts on their site (http://www.weedonislandcenter.org/virtualtour/main.html). Figure 5.8. Alternative style of pathway. Hand held devices present a problem after hours. A similar option using hand held pads or other devices for those who do not have smart phones might warrant consideration if the security issue can be solved.

Brochure. A long-term plan for creating a booklet that visitors can buy at the museum for their tour and take home for later reference This should be a well thought-out and up to date narrative promoting the importance of the site and the need to continue preserving it. In Figure 5.9, I provide a prototype of what such a brochure might entail.

Conclusion
In concluding this report, I want to point out that these proposals are a beginning point for an enhanced self-guided tour. The tour should have the ability to grow and re-invent itself as the needs of the site and/or the public change. Adjustments to the brochure and additional inclusions for a more complete guide should be considered. The long-term proposal encourages more aggressive changed to the park. Some consider construction projects that take planning and archaeological testing to insure the site is protected. Others are just a matter of spending money, which is no small matter. That is why volunteer organizations are important to the success of the park. Volunteers offer experience in a cost effective manner. They just need motivation.

5.8

Mexico,fullyloadedwithabundant fishandshellfish. Thisrich environmentgaveourthriving communityeverythingweneededto live.

locationtotheTempleMound, archaeologistsbelievethismayhave beenahometopriestsorother importantpeople. Whatdoyouthink?

TempleMoundA

Mypeopleenvisionedmakingour homeaplaceforgreatceremonial gatherings. Sharingideaswithour friendsasfarawayasOhio,webuilt twolargetemplemoundsandthe largecomplexcenteredonthe picturesqueplaza.

Myancestorsbuiltthisunique ceremonialcomplexathousandyears beforetheEuropeansarrived. Joinme asItellyoutheirstory.

Thiswasonceathrivingcommunity. Myfamilyhuntedandgatheredour foodfromtheabundantnatural resourcesfromthenearbywoodsand thewaters.Fromthetopofthe TempleMound,wewatchedasfleets ofcanoesreturnedfromGulfof

Peoplecamefromfarawaytotrade forthecraftswemade. Imadehighly prizedandbeautifulornamentsfrom manyvarietiesof seashells.Wetraded thethingswemadefor copperthatcame fromtheGreat LakesRegion. MoundsJandK Formanyyears,ourancestors depositedshell,potteryandother trashinthislocation. Becauseofits

WhenIlivedhere,thisgreattemple moundwasovertwiceasbigaroundas itistoday.Fromthetop,Icouldsee formilestotheGulfofMexico. Ispent hourswatchingthedolphinsand manateesplayintheriverbelow. Today,treescoverthissite.But,when Ilivedhere,theareawasclearandI couldseetheentirecommunity. Busy peoplecrowdedtheplaza.Happy childrenplayedgames,chasingone anotherandlaughing. Itwasalwaysa busyandbustlingplace.

Alongwideramp,archaeologistscalla causewayleadallthewayuptheside ofthetemplemound. Nowthatramp isgoneandsoispartoftheeastside ofthemound. Asyouwalk,youwill seewhereheavyequipmentgouged intotheleftsideofthismound.Itwas hauledawaytomakeroads.

Stelae

BurialMoundsCF Formanycenturies,weburiedour deadinthesemounds. Theirlocation withinthecomplexisimportant. Here, wekeepourburied ancestorsclosewithin ourcommunity, rememberingthem. Earlyinthe20th Century, archaeologistsexcavatedtheseburials. Today,archaeologistsusethe informationfromtheseearly excavations,butnolongerdiginburial mounds.Infact,newtechnology allowsthemtolookundertheground withoutexcavating.

trees. Wekeptthisareaclean,never throwingoutourtrashorleaving thingslyingaround. Duringfestivals andceremonies,thiscentralareawas fullofpeople. Theysocializedand tradedwaresfromallover. Today, archaeologistsdonotfindevidenceof thoseactivitiesandwonderhowwe usedthisarea,andwhyitwas important.Illnevertell.

Insomepartsoftheworld,people createdcarvedstones,orstele,for funeralsorforhonoringimportant people. Thisstelestoodproudlynear hereformanyyears. But,whenwe left,sodidtheknowledgeaboutthe stone. Whoisthefaceinthestone? Manyquestionsremainuninsured, lockedawayinthestone.

ThePlaza

Asyoulookoutovertheplaza,tryto imagineitasIsawit. Iwillhelpyou out. Between300B.C.andA.D800, theplazawasagreenfieldwithout

TempleMoundH Thistemplemoundremainsmuchthe wayitwas1800yearsago. Hereyou canseearampleadinguptothetop, muchliketheonethatonceleadto MoundA.Youmaybewonderingwhy weneededtwotemplemounds.We livedheretogetherwithanothergroup ofpeoplewhocamefromanother place.Archaeologistscallourtwo groupskinshipgroups. Ourgroup individualityisimportanttous. Even thoughwelivedheretogetherand sharedmanythings,wemaintained ouridentityasagroup.

Chapter 6: Improving the Presentation of Crystal River: Redesigning the Signs

Katrina M. Heller
Crystal River Archaeological State Park is one of the most notable archaeological centers in Florida. With a multitude of grand earthworks and a long history it has the potential to be an informative and interesting place to visit. However, the large earth mounds and associated museum currently lack the ability to engage the public. This is not for lack of inherent intrigue in the site's past. The people of Crystal River date to the Woodland period, between 1000 B.C. to A.D. 1000, and were hunter-gatherers who used the land and its abundant resources in many ways. It was once a monumental ceremonial center which drew visitors, ideas, and trade items, from across the Southeast. Native Americans today still find significance in the history of the impressive mounds. For these reasons it has become apparent Crystal River Archaeological State Park needs renovations. I propose beginning outside, next to the earthworks, with the signs which address them. The signs have the ability to disseminate the celebrated history of Crystal River and its importance for both the people then and the public today. First and foremost, we must remember to keep archaeology relevant. In the case of Crystal River it is exceedingly important to recognize the fact that the site is able to convey a deep history of the region and a connection to contemporary Native Americans. Public archaeology has recently been criticized for not being relevant to modern life (Potter 1994). Here at Crystal River we want to prove the opposite of that and make the site and its history usable to both the Native Americans of the region, and the general public of Florida. Freeman Tilden (1977) lists key concepts that need to be included in site interpretation, the majority of which can be employed at Crystal River. In regards to the signage of the site these theories are especially applicable. For one, interpretation cannot simply be the dissemination of information; while it is a part, the information must be presented in a way which will relate to the visitor's experience. The signs of Crystal River should both teach visitors something new and also provoke questions about the site and the people that once resided there (Serrell 1996, Tilden 1977). A model sign should "tell stories, contrast points of view, present challenging issues, or strive to change people's attitude" (Serrell 1996:9). In other words, a sign should not simply display information but allow for deeper thinking and comprehension of the site and its past people. The National Park Service created a training program for interpretation of cultural resources using Tilden's suggestions (Little 2004). Again it is stressed that the tangible aspects of the area, such as the mounds at Crystal River, should be linked to the intangible concepts of people or events of the past. There must always be a connection to the people, however, it is important to note that this connection should be made to both the Woodland inhabitants - from around 1000 B.C. to A.D. 1000 - and the past of the region as a whole (Tilden 1977). At Crystal River the mounds that dominate the scenery should be tied back to the people that once lived there and utilized those earthworks. Who lived near the mounds? What where the used for? How did those people go about their day to day lives? Why were the mounds important to the Woodland people, and why do they continue to hold significance to Native Americans today? These are all questions that can help to relate the earthworks viewed at the site to the larger ideas of the people. The signs, specifically, should help to convey this by presenting information about the mounds and surrounding landscape in relation to activities, rituals, 6.1

and the daily life of the Native Americans in the Woodland period (Little 2004). These should also be able to tie the people of the past to other aspects of the landscape as well as to the modern people at the site. Facts about the people of the Crystal River region, for example how they were hunter-gatherers who used the local environment in a plethora of ways, need to presented in a way that not only teaches visitors about previous life ways, but induces questions and critical thinking to create better and more intriguing interpretation. Further, this must be done in a way that is meaningful to a large group of people. The signs of Crystal River need to strive to present the information and interpretations in a way that will allow for education and appeal. There are a number of different groups which the public can be subdivided into, the signs need to address as many of these as possible to the best of their ability. The groups are as follows: professional archaeologists, people interested in learning about the past, individuals with no real concern for the history of the site, and children (Swain 2007). These groups are typically the subsets that visit museums or archaeological sites like Crystal River. The individuals who care about the past might include undergraduate students or members of archaeological societies while the unconcerned are leisurely weekend museum visitors or people that do not often tour places like this. The signs posted at the site need to be pertinent and attention-grabbing for as many of these groups as possible. They need to include information that is stimulating for the near professional that wants to learn more about the site and its history, and it needs to be engaging for the groups that do not typically enjoy museums. Children also need to get something out of the displays, though the information presented to them should not be a simplified version of the adult content (Serrell 1996, Tilden 1997). If the signs are meant for children as well, there should be pieces of information that will be relevant to them in a different way. In this regards the signs should be both educational at a younger level and entertaining. This can be done through colorful images and less intense selections of text. There is also a final subgroup that frequents Crystal River: return visitors. This division is often forgotten in museum planning, but with Crystal River being a small local venue there are often individuals that use the park for leisure purposes and have been to the area numerous times. We want to make the site as interesting for this group as we can by providing signage with different levels of information and interaction. The best signs allow for these return visitors and new patrons to take something away from each visit. Categorizations of visitors like the one listed above is not the only way guests are divided. Beverly Serrell, in her 1996 book, Exhibit Labels: An Interpretive Approach, gives insights into many aspects of what makes exemplary museum signage. She also further breaks down the audience into three more subgroups: "streakers, browsers, and studiers" (Serrell 1996:41). The "streakers" are those who like to walk through exhibits quickly, the "browsers" take a little more time and might read pieces of the text on display, while the "studiers" fully scrutinize the information presented. However, attempting to find a commonality is difficult. Facts and interpretations should not be dumbed down or lessened for one group, while on the other hand, there cannot be walls of text detailing every aspect of the site. At Crystal River, the signs should provide for each of these groups, with pictures or text that will allow for comprehension at a glance, or more in-depth knowledge with a selection that gives more detailed descriptions. Two more sets of people that need to be considered in the process of planning out this site are the "community stakeholders" and the "cultural stakeholders" (Swain 2007: 206). The first set is the taxpaying population that helps to finance Crystal River. Money adds another level of confusion when trying to create new or improved site interpretations. Their views on how the site should be presented must be taken into account if funding is to continue. Even if the new developments are grant funded, there needs to be a plan of action set that will appeal to a potential clientele. Difficulties arise if the monetary backers are at odds with the "cultural stakeholders," or Native American groups with personal investment in this site. There are groups of Native Americans 6.2

that draw connections to the land and earthworks present a Crystal River, and it is their views that also need to be remembered. While an archaeological site may seem like only ancient history to some of the public, it is important to remember its connection to living people. Therefore, signs need to display information that is acceptable to the living communities as well. It must be noted, however, that not all groups will be satisfied. There may be no one way to create signs that will accommodate for all types of guests and interested parties. We should strive to create signs that allow for understanding and enjoyment by as many audiences as possible, while alienating the fewest number of individuals. After determining what information is to be disseminated, the next issue arises in the actual writing process. Writing for numerous, diverse peoples is difficult, but we must aim to make it comprehensive, interesting, and informative. Mitch Allen (2002) published an article on Ten Rules for the Archaeological Writer, in which he listed the ten suggestions that will help to make archaeological work more engaging for nonprofessionals. While this list was mainly designed for typical research papers or scholarly articles, many of the ideas presented can and should be applied to the signs of Crystal River as well. First, Allen suggests we "Find a hook," in order to capture the reader's attention and make them want to continue. Next, "Tell a story," audiences tend to react better when a narrative is included, as opposed to lines of facts and data. "Include yourself," means that the authors should not write as if they know everything for certain, but are human as well, which leads to the next point of "Writing in plain English." It is imperative that as a site meant for people of all professions and education levels we avoid archaeological jargon and keep the text in "Simple, active language." As discussed previously, Crystal River has a variety of patrons, and the writing style needs to be intelligible for the majority. This leads to point five, "Talk to a single reader," and provide the background or context an individual would need to fully appreciate the information being disseminated. To ensure the audience is making connections between themselves, the mounds, and the people of the past, "Create memorable identifiers," which will allow for an association between the three. "Use only the data you need," is a excellent point when it comes to signage, as these spaces are small, they should not be over filled with lots of extraneous details. Find what is relevant to that site, or topic of the particular sign, and leave out superfluous points. These signs specifically should consult point eight, "Present data visually." Graphics, illustrations, and maps make the signs more entertaining and visually appealing to almost everyone. Children and the individuals who do not want to stand and read the entire sign can still gain some information from the images and how they relate to the landscape, while others can use the pictures to supplement the texts. It is crucial, at a site like Crystal River, to show or explain what archaeology is and how it is done, therefore one sign should "Emphasize theory and method." As a state archaeological park, guests should be made aware of how archaeologists learned about the past they are now trying to teach. Lastly, "Always think of your audience," is an essential concept when designing the signage for Crystal River. While it may be impossible to write for all audiences, the readers must be kept in mind when determining content and style (Allen 2002:248-250). These ten suggestions can, and should, be incorporated into the creation of new signs for the site to enable better understanding and more appealing texts. Writing for a site such as Crystal River, which has a long history and many components, should be analyzed from a couple of angles. Not only should we endeavor to adhere to Allen's ten principles, but we need to take Larry J. Zimmerman's (2003) suggestions from Presenting the Past, into account. He is the one to bring up the need for clear, concise, and condensed text. This is especially applicable in terms of signage because there is a very limited amount of space available to communicate the information. We need to tell the audience exactly what they need to know, while making it interesting of course, in the shortest number of words. Refrain from using complex sentences, limit words with many syllables, and use active language, are a few of his primary recommendations. Including anecdotes 6.3

and a narrative tone helps to make the text more readable as well. Further, it is noted, again, that jargon should be avoided. Due to the wide ranging audience that frequents Crystal River, complicated vocabulary and words specific to the archaeological profession will only create confusion for readers. While the text should not be overly scholarly, it should also not be too simplified or below the appropriate reading level (Zimmerman 2003). There is a fine balance to be achieved in this type of writing. The authors of the signs need to keep each of these suggestions in mind when describing and interpreting the site. Lastly, the writing must be reviewed, reread, and edited often, depending on the feedback given by the professional community and the patrons the signs are intended for. Physical representation of the information is equally important as content. A fascinating story about the past peoples of the mounds will be moot if it is written in minuscule font on a small, plain placard. Design is a pivotal aspect of creating memorable signs that visitors want to read. Stylistic elements to be focused on for the Crystal River signage are the titles and captions. According to Beverly Serrell (1996), titles need to rouse interest and curiosity in the guest, as it is the piece that draws them in and will be the deciding factor if they stay to read more of the text. Titles should be short, one to seven words, and be consistent with the others in the area. The language and terminology used must be cohesive, if should not appear as if a different author supplied the title for every sign. The Crystal River sign titles should each relate to one another, and tie back to the theme the site is presenting. In this case, we have decided upon a central theme of: Crystal River Archaeological State Park preserves the remains of one of the most important ceremonial centers of the Woodland period of prehistory, created by Native Americans with intimate connections to the local environment but also with surprisingly far-reaching connections to the larger world. While each of the various displays should depict new elements, they need to keep with the overarching concerns of the site. Topical aspects of that theme can be explored on each post, for example one sign may look at the important ceremonial aspects that took place on the mounds, while another illustrates how the earthworks were constructed in the first place. These ideas are complementary points which help to demonstrate the theme as a whole while still introducing new material. This is also imperative to note when writing captions. Again, everyone has slightly differing writing tendencies, but the captions should not reflect that. Variation in style, from narratives to bulleted points, may be useful in some cases, but there cannot be one caption that is complex and filled with jargon while the one next to it is a simple story using vastly differing wording. Disparities like that will cause confusion and disrupt the interpretation of the site. The captions must be, at first, about the specific object shown, but then allow for connection to the broader objective. Serrell (1996) also gives more advice for creating good captions such as: chose the proper vocabulary, use bulleted points when appropriate, and divide up ideas to vary length amongst the labels. Keep each label or caption specific to the item, make them short enough to keep audiences interested, and only long enough to convey the necessary information. The selections should allow viewers to look back and forth from the display to the text without the individual losing his or her place and needing to reread a three paragraph statement. Also, the text itself needs to be large enough and easily visible on the chosen background. There are certain fonts and colors that are typically harsher on the eyes, those must be avoided. A few other tips when composing captions include: humor, which not everyone shares, should be used sparingly, exclamation points must be neglected, and if the author poses a question, it should be answered immediately. Overall, the fundamental stylistic advice to take away here is that each sign should be cohesive in individual design, and in the grand scheme of all the signs in the park. Creating new signs for Crystal River means including archaeological interpretations of the landscape, its history, and the people that once inhabited the region. While it will not be an easy task to produce these displays, certain strategies can be employed to ensure the quality of the updated Crystal 6.4

River Archaeological State Park. First, we have an advantage of being a relatively small state park with a direct connection to the history that we are trying to interpret (Swain 2007). We are able to place the images and text immediately in front of the mounds that signs relate to. Visitors can associate the pieces they read with the physical environment around them which typically leads to a more engaged crowd, as "Interpretation needs to make connections to the personal experiences of the visitors" (Copeland 2004:140). This park allows guests to see a part of history in the earthworks and landscape, which we can supplement with signage. The signs that accompany the mounds can provide information on the tools that would have been used there, discussions on how the land resources would have been utilized by past peoples, and even depictions of our interpretations on what the ceremonialism was like. Through the signs we can be the storytellers of past life ways. I do not propose that we create fictions out of thin air in order to make the site seem more intriguing, however, as Kenneth Lewis states it: "Certainly storytelling allows us to present non-specialists with a comprehendible picture of the past" (Lewis 2000:7). Often, the general public does not wish to read listed of facts, and as mentioned previously, the goal of these signs is to incite interest and curiosity. This may be done by "creating possible scenarios for past behavior" (Lewis 2000:7). With the multiple visitor groups that attend Crystal River, the signs need to have some intrigue, and that can be accomplished through a narrative look at the past. It is my suggestion that before typing up and presenting a story about the Woodland people and their daily excitements, we consult with various Crystal River and Woodland period experts, archaeologists, and Native groups. Examination of the material and historical records, and discourse between these parties will generate a narrative that is as close to accurate as possible. Although the story we tell can never be completely factual, it does provide the audience with a compelling look at the past. It is here, though, that the inherent problems with archaeological interpretation lie. The first, most glaring issue is that we can never actually know the past. No matter how many material remains have been unearthed, or historical documents we have to give peeks into past daily lives, we were not there, and cannot say for certain these things happened. As archaeologists it's our duty to explain to those reading our interpretations that they are just that, interpretations. We are doing our best to form realistic and truthful hypotheses on how the peoples of the past could have lived and should show the work we do as support for these theories (Lewis 2000). Another dilemma that comes out of interpretations is that by supporting one, we are rejecting others. Equally likely theories on past activities may be overlooked or ignored in favor of another. By submitting only one possible account of the past, and because of the weight an academic source has, we run the risk of creating a permanent image in the public's mind (Brush 2004). Archaeologists tend to be looked to as scholars, who because of the nature of our work, can provide factual answers to questions about the past. What the general public forgets is that archaeological interpretations are subject to change as new evidence is uncovered. Therefore one story of past Native American life might be different from one told a generation later as additional discoveries are made. This is not only an issue in regards to the written stories but also resounds with depictions and illustrations. As Swain points out, "there is no passive or neutral artistic style in rendering images" (Swain 2007:221). It is not true that any drawing is better than none at all, if the depiction we present is wholly inaccurate, in poor taste, and sets a certain image permanently in the minds of our audience. We must, therefore, do the same analysis of information and discussion among experts that will allow for the most genuine interpretation available (Copeland 2004). Instead of presenting our interpretations as fact, we should be encouraging the visitors to ask questions and decide if they think the evidence provided sufficiently supports our hypotheses. Signage at Crystal River does not currently adhere to any of the suggestions for exemplary signs listed above. There are very few signs present around the park in the first place, and they add little to 6.5

the interpretation of the site. The few, main signs are one to two sentence long plaques placed at points along the walking path. One reads simply: "The Plaza: In front is the plaza formed by the second temple mound ahead and the second burial mound to the west. The people stood there to watch ceremonies held on the temple." From a technical standpoint the way that the plaque is constructed will, without a doubt, withstand any harsh weather -- it's metal -- but aside from that there are no positive attributes. The letters are a gunmetal gray color atop a black background, and in certain lights, like a camera flash or cloudy day, the words become difficult to read. Further, there is no real tie to the landscape the guests are viewing. There should be a map to help illustrate what the "second burial mound" is or where the "people stood" in relation to where the guest is standing now. No information is given on the ceremony itself or how the people watching it conducted themselves. What were the ceremonies? Were they joyous or somber occasions? Were there any other structures present in the "plaza," or was is a completely open field? And how, as archaeologists did we draw these conclusions? What archaeological evidence has been found in that plaza? These are only a selection of topics that the sign could include. Another of the current signs is posted next to a stele, or a stone slab typically incised with a design or inscription, and reads: "Stele 1: Erected about A.D. 440. Offerings of chert chips and of food were found in front of the incised face on the other side." Again this raises the same types of questions the last sign brought to light. First, an explanation of what a stele is and what chert chips were would be useful to non-archaeologists. This post is merely stating a fact of what was found, but provides no interpretation of the site, and does not link it back to the people that found it important. A depiction of chert chips or illustrations of what food was offered would add to the display. The third sign of this type was: "First Temple Mound: This high mound, built around A.D. 600, supported a temple. A ramp and a causeway (now destroyed) led north-east to Stele 1." I take issue with this sign because there is so much more that could have been done here. What do archaeological hypotheses believe the temple would have looked like? A rendering of this would aid in this sign's intrigue. What was the temple used for? What is the mound made of? How was it made and by whom? Furthermore, none of these signs have a captivating title or narrative style, the content is not entertaining, and minimally informative, and they don't provide anything more than the bare facts (Allen 2002, Serrell 1996). There are many additions that could enhance the site around it but these current signs do not. Therefore, it is my opinion Crystal River Archaeological State Park undergoes a drastic renovation in terms of their signage. To begin, a sign should be placed at the base of each of the mounds giving aspects of history or archaeology related to that type of earthwork. A basic design scheme could include the title, a picture, illustration, or model of the objects or topical matter of the sign, the caption that describes it, and a small summary of how that played a role in the life of the people of the mounds. There should be signs placed along the walking path at the base of each significant monument, specifically the First Temple Mound, Mound J, and Stele 1. There should also be supplementary signs near the river or at other points in the path which could provide details on additional parts of the landscape. For example, signs near the river could discuss canoe use in the Woodland period, or discuss the aquatic resources that would have been harvested from the waterway. One of the burial mounds can have a sign which illustrates some of the objects that were typically found in a burial context. To preface that, there should first be consultation with the local Native American tribes to ensure they sanctify the display or depiction of those objects. These funerary items should each have a heading of what they are, followed by a short caption of information about them, such as: what material the item is made out of, what the design on it could represent, or where it came from if it was a possible trade item. Each object is unique so every caption should hold different information. The length and format of the caption should vary to hold interest, and should be dependent on the individual

6.6

item and the form which will allow for the most conducive interpretation. It is important not to limit the writing to a cookie-cutter type approach and list the same facts next to each picture. While some of the signs should include information about the items once associated with the mounds, others can give descriptions on how the mounds were built in the Woodland period, or how they were excavated in the more recent past. Photographs of recent work at the site along with explanations of why archaeologists dig in certain ways can add another level of comprehension to the site. Excavation photos and explanations of archaeological methods will help to define what work has been done at Crystal River, what has been found, and how that has provided the evidence for our interpretation of the site. Ancient construction techniques have always fascinated the public, think the pyramids of Egypt, so a sign illuminating how the mounds were built, what materials went into each layer, who contributed, and how long it would have taken to reach that height would answer some of the questions I anticipate the audience having. This also creates a connection between the tangible mounds in front of the visitor, and the intangible ideas about ancient building skills and community participation (Tilden 1977). A possible example of one sign for Crystal River could be about their subsistence. In my opinion, because of the reliance on aquatic resources, this particular sign should be placed near the river. Using the suggestion of Allen (2002) to "find a hook" and keep titles to a minimum number of words, I suggest titling this one: "Would You Like To Try The Oysters?" The sign should then follow Zimmerman's (2003) recommendation to be concise, and Allen's (2002) direction to use simple, active language. Therefore, taking these into consideration I propose a sign with one caption as such: What did people 2,000 years ago eat? Woodland people were still hunters and gatherers who ate deer, turkey, and nuts. Maize, or corn did not grow in Florida yet, but the Crystal River people kept small gardens with other plants, like sunflower. They also depended heavily on the river and consumed fish and shellfish. The tiny fish bones were thrown away, not to be seen again. The oyster shells were thrown away too, but they are well preserved in the Florida soil. Archaeologists found lots of these large shell deposits and call them "middens." The shells were also used to add height to the larger mounds like the ones in this park. The preceding information comes from Vincas Steponaitis' (1986) summary of Woodland peoples. This is only one small caption for this sign. There would need to be pictures and diagrams included, specifically relating to the topic of Crystal River subsistence. I would suggest also making this a sign with some physical depth to it, so that the bottom of the sign could be filled with old oyster shells as a tangible, 3D connection to the sign's text. While it is important that each of the signs outside are stylistically and contextually coordinated, they should be equally harmonious to the museum. As two parts to a whole, the interior Crystal River museum and outdoor path signs should be complementary to one another. They must all tie in to the larger theme of the site, as stated previously: Crystal River Archaeological State Park preserves the remains of one of the most important ceremonial centers of the Woodland period of prehistory, created by Native Americans with intimate connections to the local environment but also with surprisingly far-reaching connections to the larger world. Similar titles and writing styles should be employed, and interpretation must follow the same directives. While there are obvious differences, for example the length of information provided on signs versus the amount which can be communicated in the museum, the two should still look as though they belong together. We do not want guests spending time in the museum only to walk outside and feel as though they are in a completely different state park with dissimilar understandings of the time period. I also suggest that we bring some of the museum outside 6.7

to these signs. Visitors will see pieces of ceramics or projectile points in the display cases, but there is no direct link to the landscape where they were made or used. I propose some of our signs have depth to them, not just flat boards of information, and we bring some of those artifacts out to the mounds. Even replicas, for security purposes, will suffice. We can place a ceramic sherd behind the glass that covers the sign, and describe how the fully formed vessel would have been used at the base of the mound in front of where they are standing. This then links the land, tools, and past people to what the modern visitors are reading on the signs, and what they just learned about in the museum. Signs at Crystal River do not have to link solely to the information that is provided in the museum. There are many external sources that give more in-depth accounts on the Woodland period or mound building. Due to the limited size of both the museum and the signs themselves, there is not enough space for all of the facts or interpretations available. This can be solved using modern technology, and specifically for the signs, it can be done through QR tags. Here, a patron can use their smart phone to snap a picture of the tag which can then be directly linked to a YouTube video. Examples of possible videos to enhance the sight would be a demonstration of flintknapping at the sign about points, or a short film depicting how canoe building was done featured on the sign next to the river. This new technology is small, a square approximately one inch per side, and can thus be fit onto almost any sign. The links allow for people who want to really learn more about the site access that information directly, and from a reliable source. They also make the signs interactive and more playful, which will appeal to a wide range of audiences. The exploration of a new technology, such as QR tags, could be a stepping stone to further sign developments, given the appropriate budget. With disregard to a feasible plan there are many emerging technologies that could now take the place of our standard printed signs. The technology that comes to mind here is the use of touch screen tablets. Larger, touch screen display boards could be positioned in the same places the traditional signs would be, but would allow for greater content and interaction from guests. Here a visitor would be able to pick a specific object they wanted to learn about, say a Weeden Island ceramic vessel, and manipulate it on the screen. Advancements in laser scanning has now allowed for an image, like that of a cooking pot, to be seeing in 3D. A guest, young or old, could see the vessel from all angles with only a swipe of their finger. They would also have the option of bringing to the screen various levels of information about that object. A children's interpretation could be fully added due to the issue of limited space being negated. QR tags would be unnecessary on these because the screen could provide a link to that same video. If the large displays were too difficult to produce, the iPad, or another tablet device, is also a reasonable alternative. It could work in the same way as the large boards described above in regards to their content. The physical signs in the park would become just a checkpoint or designation to let the guest know what piece of information they should select and when. Meaning, at the First Temple Mound, the base sign is color coded and has a large symbol which matches one of the options on the tablet. By selecting the correct icon the information regarding that mound will be accessed. This can bring up all of the information the sign would have held, supplemental readings for those who want to learn more, additional pictures, and videos or other external links. All of the information could be translated into multiple languages or have a link to the text being read aloud for any guest who had trouble reading the screen. Plus, they are hand held and mobile so a visitor can choose to sit down or walk away while still holding the interpretations. Inventive technologies such as these would help to eliminate some of the issues with signs that were previously addressed, and would make the interpretation overall more exciting. A few final suggestions can be made regarding the, practical, signs for Crystal River. Each display should incorporate color and images to make appealing for various audiences. However, we 6.8

must again keep in mind the levels of guests that will be frequenting the park, and create signs that are not all flash and no substance. Moreover, while each title and caption should be entertaining or attention grabbing, they should stay away from being too clich or kitschy. This is not a children's museum and our language should reflect that. Additionally, the postings should attempt to tell the story of the past. However, the information should be arranged in a way which does not require the visitor to follow in a specific order from one sign to the next. A guest should be able to comprehend that story just as succinctly if he or she were to take the path to the left or right first, or even skip a sign or two in between. The signs must also be able to provide adequate information for an individual walking around the park on his or her own, or supplement a guided tour given by a park official. In creating new signs for the Crystal River State Park I suggest a collaborative effort on the park of Crystal River employees, archaeologists, Woodland period scholars, Native Americans with connection to the site, and a sampling of the public that is likely to visit the site. The content of the signs and the story presented must be our best interpretation, and should follow the writing guidelines enumerated previously. The former suggestions are only a small sampling of the ideas that could be developed at this site. This would be an intensive project with much planning and preparation to complete well. After the initial signs are drawn up, I propose initiating a number of trial runs to receive visitor feedback from various social factions: school children, teachers, parents, and the elderly. It is important that the majority of these groups understand the information we provide, and find it insightful, thought provoking, and entertaining. Finally, and it cannot be stated enough, we must connect the past with the present, and never forget about the people.

6.9

This page intentionally left blank.

6.10

Chapter 7 Crystal River Archaeological State Park Proposal for Children's Exhibits
Laura Collins
As one of the most visible mound complexes in the region, Crystal River Archaeological State Park offers many opportunities for education and outreach. The museum located at the park has space available for interactive exhibits, and the mound complex itself contains space for more outdoor "hands on" activities. Outreach for teachers is also important, as preparation for scheduled field trips can assist the students by enriching the experience. In this proposal, I will detail ideas for larger scale interactive exhibits as well as smaller scale school and classroom outreach activities for the museum and park. I will also describe the benefits for using archaeology as a method for teaching students across many subjects and disciplines.

Why Archaeology?
Children benefit from real connections and hands on encounters with concrete examples of what life was like in a past that to many seems remote and alien. The ability for children to learn from the real examples of prehistoric life provided by archaeology can generate more interest and enthusiasm than simple narrative instruction. According to renowned educational theorist Jean Piaget, children learn best when actively engaging in the acquisition of knowledge (Berk 1997; Johnson 2000). When students are able to touch and feel the material remains of ancient cultures, and to physically explore the evidence of the past, they are better able to construct and retain information about prehistoric life. Lev Vygotsky, also an educational theorist, further developed Piaget's theories. He proposed that active, guided participation and assisted discovery enhanced learning and cognitive development. Information processing theorists elaborated even more on these theories to determine that children process and understand knowledge based on their individual experiences (Johnson 2000). In these ways, archaeology and archaeological methods are better suited to curriculum development that simple narrative lectures. Another benefit for using archaeology as a teaching tool is its multifaceted approach. Archaeology as a discipline is not limited to only history and social science. It can also include biology and other natural sciences, mathematics, language and reading, and critical thinking. Because of this cross-curricular nature of archaeology, it can be a valuable thematic unit for any age level. When teachers are able to tie multiple subjects together under one overarching theme, the students are more engaged learners and are better able to use the knowledge they acquire.

Interactive Exhibits
The Crystal River Archaeological Museum, while small, can still house a few interactive exhibits that would appeal to children. Currently, there is a small room with a looping movie feature that would be appropriate for conversion to a children's exhibit. The theme of this exhibit would be to show the connections that the Crystal River People of the Woodland Era to their local environment as well as the larger world around them.

7.1

Small changes that would not cost very much include mural landscapes painted on the walls depicting what could have been a typical village scene on the long wall, with the temple mound and ceremony depicted on one of the short walls. Along the second short wall a fishing scene would be appropriate depicting men and women using fishing equipment known from the time, and on the fourth wall, a scene of the construction process for the mounds showing workers adding the large baskets of shell used in mound construction. The murals would contain many elements of daily life of the Crystal River inhabitants, including ceremonial activities, trade, and other everyday type occurrences. This simple change would enhance any future exhibit in the small room. The mural could be painted by volunteers from the area, or if funding were available for a more complex mural a professional artist could be consulted. Interactive activities would need to be simple enough for many different age groups, and small enough not to crowd the small space. A "tool" type cart with multiple drawers is a space saving exhibit method. Various artifacts could be arranged in each drawer with clear plexiglass overlays for protection for the artifacts. Transparent colorful interpretive markers could be painted on the plexiglass as an instructional tool. The cart itself, as well as the drawers would be painted bright colors to attract interest. Specialized exhibit companies also design and build such carts, but at a much higher price. These special carts can be designed so as to fit in the small space allowed, and are excellent teaching tools if the funding is available. Other "hands on" activities also need to small, given the limited space available. One suggestion is using a children's activity table, much like those made for a train set, to house three dimensional puzzles. The tables are relatively inexpensive and can be found at retail or thrift stores for less than one hundred dollars. One such puzzle could be a three dimensional mound with each piece representing layers of shell material, organic matter, and dirt and sand used in mound construction. Another puzzle could also be three dimensional, using replica potsherds to recreate a cooking vessel of the type found at the Crystal River site. A third puzzle activity could be a necklace strung from shell local to the area and beads acquired in trade with distant cultures. Story boards mounted on the table would tell the story behind each artifact puzzle. Built-in drawers found in the side of most tables of this type could be used for storage. These puzzles could be handmade at little cost with clay or paper mch, or specifically designed and created by an exhibit company if the funding were available.

Outreach Boxes
Outreach boxes are self contained teaching units that could be loaned out to teachers for classroom instruction. They are a good tool for field trip preparation, or could be used when field trips to an archaeological site or park are not feasible. Some museums have even created outreach boxes to permanently "loan" to schools. The London Museum has used actual artifacts from its collection, which had outgrown the storage space available, as well as replicas of Roman London artifacts, teaching manuals, and activity suggestion books in a very successful program, with plans to place archaeology outreach boxes in over 2,000 London area schools (Ham1992). Outreach boxes from the Crystal River Archaeological Park and Museum would be a low cost way to reach many students. The boxes would be themed, and could be checked out from the museum on a first come-first served basis. The boxes would need to be sturdy, but portable. One option is the 7.2

large plastic bin with lid available at most discount department stores. Bright colored bins would be appealing, and the thematic boxes could be color coded to make identification easier for museum staff. The London Museum has some important guidelines to follow when including real artifacts, such as the research value, accession status, and teaching worth (see Ham 1992). The Florida Public Archaeology Network publication Beyond Artifacts would be included is all outreach boxes, as this is a source for activities for many age groups and thematic approaches. Every box should also include a logbook. This would contain evaluations of the program by both the teacher and students, an important aspect of any outreach program. One thematic idea would be "student archaeologists." In this box, archaeological tools of the trade would be showcased, including a trowel, compass, measuring tape, gloves, flagging tape, and the other many tools used in archaeology. Also, real or replica artifacts such as shell tools, points, sherds, and others could be included. Activities for this box would include grid and map exercises such as the cookie grid and excavation featured in Beyond Artifacts or a larger scale geographical exercise in which students place artifacts on a map showing the distant connections the Crystal River people had with other cultures. Grid and map proficiencies are both an important skill for archaeologists, but also one important for students as part of both the math and social science curriculum. A second themed box would introduce the students to the Crystal River site and its people. Included would again be artifacts both real and replica, and the story of their use in everyday life. Shell and bead necklace activities, ceramic pot making, and construction of native fishing equipment are suggested activities which would introduce the students to what life was like for the inhabitants at Crystal River in prehistoric times. As use and interest in the outreach box program grows, more boxes could be created, with different themes or as duplicates of popular themed boxes to fill increasing requests. Continual evaluation of the program can help determine how well the program works and what future needs the outreach box program will have.

Past, Present, and Future

Crystal River Archaeological State Park and Museum offers many ways to connect the people of the past with those of today. This proposal has detailed specific ways the distant past can be made more relevant and accessible to children of many ages. These children can be reached whether participating in classroom activities, on a school field trip, or simply one of the many visitors the park has each year. Because children as better suited to understand and retain information that they gain in an experiential way, interactive activities such as those offered here are an excellent way to teach them about past people and their lifeways. While expensive professional exhibits would be a nice addition to the museum, they are not always necessary, and simple, inexpensive options could make as much of a difference in helping open interpretation at the park and museum to more people of any age.

7.3

This page intentionally left blank.

7.4

Chapter 8: Adult Outreach: How to Reach a 21st Century Adult Audience at Crystal River
Joseph A. Evans
The late summer sun is rising on a sleepy central Florida river. As the fog rolls away, it breaks from behind the trees and fills the basin with radiant light. Before long, dark silhouettes begin to fill the open plain, but from what? As if cast from ominous titans, the shadows reveal their ownersmounds of various types and sizes. These sleepy giants harken back to a time and a people long ago that once used them for burial and ceremonial needs. The people and the place are Crystal River, and they represent an important archaeological crossroads that connects an extensive trade network from present-day Ohio to sites across most of the Southeast. Crystal River and The Crystal River Archaeological State Park preserves the remains of one of the most important ceremonial centers of the Woodland period of prehistory, created by Native Americans with an inexorable connection to the local environment-an idea still present today. Due to this connection of contemporary peoples to the site, the Crystal River Archaeological State Park's public outreach sector requires rehabilitation. Considered one of the most critical areas of public archaeology, effective public outreach can entertain, educate, and facilitate many different audiences who have come to see, or maybe have yet to see, the importance of Crystal River, her people, and their amazing connection to Florida archaeology.

Conducting Adult-Oriented Public Outreach Research

I approached this project from two differing perspectives. One was that of an outreach coordinator at Crystal River who could have been tasked by management with developing more adult-oriented public outreach, the focus of this work. The second perspective taken was that of an adult who consumes the product that said coordinators create-an adult learner and arguably one of the most important resources for the continued conservation and preservation of not only Crystal River, but archaeology within the US in general. For public outreach to be effective, it must be done correctly. In order to create something that can hopefully change the hearts and minds of the public, it requires a very strong foundation. Outreach, within public archaeology, is the concept of service-based social engagement for archaeology. Because it is specifically tailored to audiences, outreach seeks to move past traditionally-held views of museum-based archeology as the only way to engage in a dialog between the past and the present. Public outreach is interpretation-among other things discussed later-and essentially extends a site to a larger audience. This "site extension" spreads its thematic framework, again, to a larger audience, which hopefully fulfills some of its mission's goals and objectives. This work is centers on a little known or utilized area of outreach called as "Adult Outreach," which involves programs designed for, around, and centered-on the needs and engagement of adults. As a very unique audience amongst a very diverse "public", it is important to understand how best to communicate with, and develop effective, attractive, entertaining, and meaningful experiences for them (Sachatello-Sawyer et al. 2002). However, adult-oriented outreach is a very complicated system, with many opportunities for something to breakdown or fail. Yet, even facing such adversity, public outreach is still worth doing, because-when done correctly-adult oriented outreach is an incredibly powerful agent of change. Can you 8.1

imagine the benefits and gains from the attraction of someone like Bill Gates or the President to not only archaeology, but to Crystal River? While these represent some of the best-case scenarios for positive benefits of adult-oriented public outreach, there are still local connections that can be extremely influential in helping extend the longevity of the Crystal River Archaeological State Park.

Foundations of Public Outreach

The foundations of public outreach within archaeology begin with the foundations of public interpretation within the field. I took a holistic approach, evaluating the roots of thematic interpretation, and the places that this theoretical understanding has taken us within public archaeology. In order for a site to know whether or not is has an effective public outreach program, it needs to first know if it has a strong foundation and identify the basics. These baselines are best expressed through the questions: "Who are we? What are our missions, goals, and objectives?" as well as "What are our themes and related topics?" I like to call this the set-up because once a site, such as Crystal River, has answered these questions they have a better understanding about what directions they want to go. All sites and everyone employed at a site should know who they are, what they do and want to do, and where they are going. That is to say they should knowas the NAI Standards and Practices for Interpretive Organizations (2009) statestheir mission statement or purpose, associated goals or long-term methods for achieving mission, objectives or specific and measurable strategies for achieving said goals, and finally core values or operational parameters based on the belief of the site. A simple rule of thumb is to think of objectives as short-term solutions to fulfilling our long-term goals. Sam Ham (1992) writes that communication without thematic organization seems difficult to follow and means less to our audiences because they cannot see where the communication is going. Flowing from the identification of who you are, and what you want to do-as a site-is clearly knowing what you want to say and who to say it to. The first step in anything that can or will involve the public is what constitutes "effective communication." Based on my research, effective communication is thematic communication; it is clear, concise, and to the point, unlike this paper. I believe Ham's (1992) advice on the qualities of a good talk exemplifies what constitutes "effective communication." Talks are context-driven, interpretive messages well organized around a central theme presenting information that is "entertaining, meaningful, and relevant to the target audience." Listening to the desires of our target audience is a component of effective communication in much the same way that effective communication is a component of public outreach. When we stop to listen to our publics, we can start to understand what they want and, within the context of adult-oriented outreach-it is key objectives and goals that almost every adult learner shares. Good public outreach starts with good interpretation strategies, and as we have covered, essentially amounts to theme-driven, effective communication. Knowing what bad public interpretation looks like is a good way to discover what bad public outreach could look like.

What is Public Outreach and Why Do We Have It?

The questions above are critical to Crystal River because, as an archaeological park, the state requires public outreach. Ham (1992) he identifies the many different forms that public outreach can take, from single, action-driven events, to longer campaigns, which-as mentioned earlier-correspond to 8.2

our site's objectives and goals, respectfully. That is to say events and campaigns fulfill our objectives and goals, which in turn help us to serve our mission. The question of "to whom are we reaching out to?" is critical as well to understanding why we perform public outreach. Essentially, this is our audience, and for this evaluation that was adults. Public outreach differs between audiences due to the different needs of each separate audience, or "public." Adult-learners have vastly different needs than that of an 8th grader, in most cases. Unfortunately, there are also vastly different ways to indicate whether or not public outreach has been effective within each of these groups, as well.

Public Outreach as an Idea and Public Outreach as Praxis

We have public outreach, because, as it has been reiterated throughout this semester, we have all addressed a need for public archaeology to "make it relevant to the people of today. (McGimsey 1972). However, in my estimation I believe that archaeology has at least two, separate but interconnected "public outreaches" and each of them facilitate different aspects that are necessary for the whole. "Public Outreach as an idea" is, as I have identified it, the personal aspect of public outreach that each archaeologist must do in order to further the mission of their site or what have you. This is the aspect of "public outreach" that exists outside of archaeology, such as public outreach done by companies and corporations. Essentially, before archaeologists hi-jacked the term, it seems that public outreach was akin to consultation. Different "publics" met to address and express their concerns, and to otherwise be made aware of whatever situation was afoot. I like to think of it for as "public information and outreach, personally. The take-away from this for archaeologists is effective communication with the media, or whatever means available to get a site's message or mission across to whomever is out there. This is essential because it brands that archaeologist as the "face" of a place. It is from this "get the message out there" approach that I connect public outreach to the internet and an archaeological site's website. Someone at that site wanted it because they wanted to get the mission out there, but-as anyone who goes onto the Crystal River Archaeological State Park's website can see-it failed in praxis, as I will explain later. This shotgun approach is akin to a person on the corner with a bullhorn, except slightly more professionalyou are just trying as hard as you can to get something out into the world, which is dangerous in most cases and counter-productive. "Public Outreach as Praxis," however, differsI feelfrom the personal aspect mentioned above. This praxis refers to the "doing" aspect-the events, campaigns, and programs that are either facilitated on-site, or off-site (with partners, potentially) to convey your message to the appropriate audience. This is the commonly-held notion of public outreach within archaeology. Finally, I discovered that there may even be fundamentally different approaches to Public Outreachand for lack of better descriptorsthey are the top-down approach, and the bottom-up approach. Both of these approaches take into account only the audiences by which they serve and the method for acquiring them. The "bottom-up" approach corresponds to the "Public Outreach as an idea" concept and essentially says you start from the bottom-up, by "going out and looking or publics that you can bring archaeology to." This takes an archaeologist who, as Ham (1992) states, is deeply involved in the 8.3

community. These are archaeologists who help farmers with soils, or identify harvest festivals and attend them all. You and your face become the community representative of the site. This differs from what I consider the traditional "top-down" approach where publics who are already known-like school groups-are brought to a site and given "public outreach." Depending on the siteCrow Canyon and Margaret A. Heath's (1997) article "Successfully Integrating the Public into Research: Crow Canyon Archaeological Center is a great example of how public archaeology with an emphasis on outreach and hands-on activities is done correctly. The article discusses that a public hungry for new information and new experiences see value in such places as Crow Canyon. This hunger, in Crow Canyon's case, had a positive economic impact on the site and for this aspect of public archaeology. Heath discovered keys to creating a successful program, which is what I would like to replicate at Crystal River. Crow Canyon had public interaction with archaeologists at every stage of the program which proceeded to further entrench the public's mind into the project and heavily invest them. Next they had high quality research that actually integrated the public's views and opinions. This, Heath stated, "drew the public in and allowed for a truly scientific environment to flourish-the experimental nature of the site and of science is an amazing experience." The components to success that Heath discussed are simple and effective and would integrate well into Crystal River's overall structure. No matter the avenue taken, the focus of outreach is always on the community, however. Crystal River is fortunate in that it is well-known to both the local community and the state at large. Effective public engagement is the key to keeping archaeology relevant; therefore authors who discuss ways to communicate are the focus of this review. Engagement, to Barbra Little, entails that a change in perception or outlook, is a key, motivating factor in performing the outreach (2007). Not much has been written on adult outreach in public archaeology, however. Historically, the impetus has been on education or "edutainment" for children and school groups, as social insurance for tomorrow. This is a dated notion hailing back, as Merriman implies, to that view of a willing public coming to an archaeological museum, instead of the opposite (2004). Sources on what constitutes effective interpretation within the area of adult outreach are scant, but a few offer amazing insights. Bonnie Sachatello-Sawyer et al.'s work (2002) is one of only a handful of sources providing clear goals and objectives when creating programs for public outreach. While Sachatello-Sawyer et al.'s work focused primarily on adult museum programs; there are many concepts that translate directly into adult outreach for archaeology. Discovering the motivations of the audience is the first step in molding any outreach program, and adults are no different. The motivations of adults, as identified by Rosemary Caffarella, are the motivations of almost all learners. "Adults are motivated to learn skills that they can apply to their jobs and their lives (Sachatello-Sawyer et al. 2002). Because adult learners have a larger experience set they are able to integrate new information quicker than any other outreach audience, and they also tend to go into more learning-based situations with objectives and goals that are predetermined, which makes it slightly easier to ascertain their reasons for attending the outreach event or program in the first place. This, in turn, also makes it easier to give them what they want. Sachatello-Sawyer et al. also identifies general groups of adult learners into four classes: knowledge-seekers, socializers, skill-builders, and archaeology/museum/history-lovers. In his 1992 work Environmental Interpretation, Sam Ham discusses, specifically in chapters three, five, and seven, the methods by which someone could effectively communicate with a variety of publics. Talks are the focus of chapter three and in my evaluation of effective public engagement techniques, talks are some of the quickest methods for captivating audiences and creating interest. Because talks are tailored to the public or multiple publics, they come in a variety of shapes and sizes. Ham list seven 8.4

categories or types of talks, ranging from "explanations, demonstrations, orientations, to almost anything else under the sun (1992). If effective public engagement for adults is a primary concern for the Crystal River Archaeological State Park, then foundations rooted in the ability to communicate the public are at the forefront. Hester Davis' article from through the National Park Service discussed the use of volunteers in archaeology as an effective way of getting people involved in archaeology. Davis discussed the changing of the American mindset in regards to archaeology and that was only obtainable through direct interaction with them. The way in which it translates to adult outreach was through the certification program, which awarded the members of the Arkansas Archaeological Society a level based on their performance and knowledge of archaeology. This is a great "gating" mechanism in terms of performance evaluation because it allows the society to keep track of non-academic archaeologists in the state. By gaining direct training from professional archaeologists, amateurs-people who would volunteer to do jobs such as sorting and labeling-are gaining a tangible and intangible reward. They have been instilled with a sense of investment and that investment is of high, professional quality.

What Can I Do For Crystal River's Tomorrow?

By evaluating the background of interpretation at Crystal River, I was able to evaluate the public outreach at the site which, in turn, allowed me to ascertain whether or not it had a component that focused specifically on adults. I was unfortunate in discovering the whereabouts of Crystal River's thematic overview, however, so it is next to impossible to analyze it from this perspective. The next best analog would be FPAN's. I looked for ways in which it could either be made more effectively or how it could more efficiently connect visitors with the resource. The mission of the Florida Public Archaeology Network focuses on public appreciation and value of our shared archaeological heritage to garner and facilitate stewardship via regional centers, partnerships, and community engagement. The goals that FPAN utilizes to fulfill their mission statement are public outreach, assistance to local governments, and assistance to the Florida Division of Historical Resources (FPAN.org). After our class with Jeff Moats, I know that FPAN's adult-oriented outreach as a whole is lacking. While three of the six projects on FPAN's website of Crystal River revealed that two of the three were targeted more-so at adults, I believe more outreach in different areas could be achieved. As an adult learner myself, I will admit my bias and say that I like boats, so I was attracted to the "Traditional Boat Building" program. Although I have yet to personally attend the program, I watched YouTube videos of it posted on the Crystal River Boat Builder's website and read blogs of attendees. I identified overlapping interpretive messages and sub-messages, and used them as my rubric of evaluation. Lastly, I developed an interpretive, adult-oriented outreach program entitled, "Grow the Past: A Small-scale Gardening Program at Crystal River."

Grow the Past: A Small-scale Gardening Program at Crystal River

Does eating a poisoned fish sound good to you? How about a diseased rabbit? Neither of those choices sound good today, nor did they sound good 2500 years ago, either. People today can easily relate to the people of Crystal River because we share an intimate connection to the local environment, too. Have you ever heard of a "farmer's market?" The focus on locally-grown, organic foods is a 8.5

powerful movement with the US today that is having amazing impacts on health. Get out the way, Paleo-Diet, because here comes Crystal River and her gardens! My public outreach project focuses on bringing the concepts of locally-grown, sustainable, organic farming some historic context through the actions of the people at Crystal River. Concentrated around two public events, my mission is to create a sustainable connection between the local farming community and the archaeology at Crystal River. The emphasis is on small-scale solutions with long-term benefits, so naturally I opted for the cheapest and most effective methods. Square-foot gardening is a small, light-weight, cost-effective solution that is non-intrusive, non-destructive, and communally-focused. A small garden would be planted at Crystal River and the interpreter could explain the benefits that the people of Crystal River would have gained from each plant, and link those benefits with contemporary analogs. The results of the gardening event or campaign would then sell at the local Crystal River farmer's market, which is another great public venue ripe with potential opportunities and an eager audience. The outreach was tailored to adults in that it focused on a place where adult learners would potentially be located. I hypothesized that adults who engaged in farmers markets were there to not only purchase food, but also to socialize and understand where there food was coming from. Another suitable venue for this project or one similar to it would have been a harvest festival. As a Louisianan I have been to many a harvest festival, and every time I noticed an environment hungry for archaeology.

Evaluation
I utilized, again, the National Association for Interpretation (NAI)'s standards to evaluate the adult outreach that Crystal River performed for its various publics. Crystal River's CSO (Citizen's Support Organization) represents a concerted effort by the site to involve the community. They list upcoming projects and state that they have educational classes, monthly movies, and boat trips. By branching out and engaging these communities they are collecting more and more publics. To effectively engage sites must present themselves effectively. The internet is the number one way in which people preview potential sites that they want to visit. A potential avenue of adult outreach could be the use of computer scientists and programmers to assist in redesigning the website. I feel that, until Crystal River Archaeological State Park, either invest in or solicit professional website development; any level of sustainable public involvement will be difficult. Solutions for Improvement and Recommendations. After evaluating the Crystal River Boat Builders (CRBB), I concluded that this is an aspect of adult-oriented archaeology that has gone somewhat correct. Not only is there a tangible, hands-on element full of education for adults, but the Crystal River staff saw in the Traditional Small Craft Association an interested "public" that they could reach out to. In much the same way that I recognized an interested public in adults who utilize farmers markets, so too could this eye for organizations or places with like-minded people be potential hotbeds of public engagement. Short-term and long-term benefits of projects similar to mine and that of the CRBB are plentiful at Crystal River, but it will take a different approach and outlook to engage these audiences. The need to identify new types of audiences, both adult and non-adult, is critical to the long-term success of the site, but no long-term success is gained without first winning small, short-scale victories. A cheap, 8.6

sustainable project like my "Grow the Past" project is a leap in the right direction. While it de-emphasizes the artifacts, a problem that Merriman addresses in his work, I believe that connecting contemporary people with those of the past is able to be done in a myriad of ways. Teaching both children and adults the benefits of sustainable systems instills a sense of deep pride and connection with the local environment. Now imagine if the peoples that were here over 1900 years ago felt the same way about the same area. While it took formal, contextual analysis of artifacts to arrive at some of these conclusions, projects that are "artifactless" are no less important or powerful as traveling exhibits. Both impact their audiences in innumerable ways, but more importantly they both connect. These short-term victories lead to the cultivation of stewardship within people, which is my ultimate goal as an archaeologist.

8.7

This page intentionally left blank.

8.8

References Cited
Allen, Mitch 2002 Reaching the Hidden Audience: Ten Rules for the Archaeological Writer. In Public Benefits of Archaeology, edited by Barbara J. Little, pp. 244-251. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Bullen, Ripley P. 1951 The Enigmatic Crystal River Site. American Antiquity 17:142-143. 1953 1965 The Famous Crystal River Site. The Florida Anthropologist 6:9-37. Recent Additional Information. An addendum to a brochure from the Crystal River Indian Mound Museum. Reproduced in Famous Florida Sites: Crystal River and Mount Royal, edited by Jerald T. Milanich, pp. 225-226. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Stelae at the Crystal River Site, Florida. American Antiquity 31(6):861-865.

1966

Brush, Karen A 2004 Modeling Amarna: Computer Reconstruction of an Egyptian Palace. In The Reconstructed Past: Reconstructions in the Public Interpretations of Archaeology and History, edited by John H. Jameson, Jr., pp. 249-259. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California. City of Crystal River 2011 Gem of the Nature Coast. Electronic document, http://www.crystalriverfl.org/, accessed December 4, 2011. Copeland, Tim 2004 Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Constructing Insights On-Site. In Public Archaeology, edited by Nick Merriman, pp. 132-144. Routledge, London. Davidson Films, and International Congress of Preschool, Educational Specialists 1971 Jean Piaget videorecording : memory and intelligence. Davidson Films, San Francisco, California. Davis, Hester A. 1972 The Crisis in American Archaeology. Science 175(4019):267-272. 1990 Training and Using Volunteers in Archeology: A Case Study from Arkansas. Technical Brief No. 9. DOI Departmental Consulting Archeologist/NPS Archeology Program, National Park Service, Washington, DC.

Diamond, Judy, Jessica L. Luke, and David Uttal 2009 Practical Evaluation Guide: Tools for Museums and Other Informal Educational Settings, Second Edition. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., New York.

9.1

Ellis, Gary D. 1999 Crystal River State Archaeological Site, Seawall Restoration Project, Summary Report. Gulf Archaeology Research Institute, Crystal River, Florida. Submitted to Crystal River Preserve State Park, Crystal River, Florida. 2004 Storm Damage Assessment on Mound G, Crystal River State Archaeological Park, Crystal River, Florida. Gulf Archaeological Research Institute, Crystal River, Florida. Submitted to Crystal River Preserve State Park, Crystal River, Florida.

Ellis, G.D., J. Dean, and R. Martin 2003 Displaced Midden Recovery Project, Crystal River Mounds State Park. Gulf Archaeological Research Institute, Crystal River, Florida. Submitted to Crystal River Preserve State Park, Crystal River, Florida. Falk, John H. 1982 The Use of Time as a Measure of Visitor Behavior and Exhibit Effectiveness. Roundtable Reports 7(4):10-13. Florida Park Service 2011a Crystal River Archaeological State Park. Electronic document, http://www.floridastateparks.org/crystalriverarchaeological/default.cfm, accessed December 4, 2011. 2011b Northeast District Map. Electronic document, http://www.floridastateparks.org/findapark/district-northeast.cfm, accessed December 4, 2011. Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2000 Crystal River State Archaeological Site: Unit Management Plan. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks, Tallahassee, Florida. Florida Public Archaeology Network. 2011 Central Regional Programs. Electronic document, http://flpublicarchaeology.org/crc/programs.php, accessed November, 2011. Ford, James A. 1966 Early Formative Cultures in Georgia and Florida. American Antiquity 31:781-799. 1969 A Comparison of Formative Cultures in the Americas. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, Volume 11. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Gredler, Margaret E. 2008 Vygotsky's Legacy: A Foundation for Research and Practice. Guilford, New York. Greenman, E.F. 1938 Hopewellian Traits in Florida. American Antiquity 3:327-332.

9.2

Ham, Sam H. 1992 Environmental Interpretation: A Practical Guide for People with Big Ideas and Small Budgets. Fulcrum Publishing, Golden, Colorado. Heath, Margaret A. 1997 Successfully Integrating the Public Into Research: Crow Canyon Archaeological Center. In Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Digging for Truths, edited by John H. Jameson, Jr., pp. 65-72. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, California Johnson, Emily J. 2000 Cognitive and Moral Development of Children: Implications for Archaeology Education. In The Archaeology Education Handbook: Sharing the Past with Kids, edited by Karolyn Smardz and Shelley J. Smith, pp. 72-90. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek. Kwas, Mary L. 2000 On Site and Open to the Public: Education at Archaeological Parks. In The Archaeology Education Handbook: Sharing the Past with Kids, edited by Karolyn Smardz and Shelley J. Smith, pp. 340-351. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek. Levy, Barbara Abramoff, Sandra Mackenzie Lloyd, and Susan Porter Schreiber 2001 Great Tours! Thematic Tours and Guide Training for Historic Sites. Alta Mira Press, Lanham, Maryland. Lewis, Kenneth E. 2000 Imagination and Archaeological Interpretations: A Methodological Tale. Historical Archaeology 34(2):7-9. Little, Barbara J. 2004 Is the Medium the Message? The Art of Interpreting Archaeology in U.S. National Parks. In Marketing Heritage: Archaeology and the Consumption of the Past, edited by Yorke Rowan and Uzi Baram, pp. 269-286. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, California. Lindauer, Margaret 2006 The Critical Museum Visitor. In New Museum Theory and Practice: An Introduction, edited by Janet Marstine, pp. 203-225. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Malden, Massachusetts. MacIntosh, Barry 2004 National Park Reconstruction, Policy and Practice. In The Reconstructed Past: Reconstructions in the Public Interpretation of Archaeology and History, edited by John H. Jameson, Jr., pp. 65-74. Alta Mira, Walnut Creek, California. McGimsey, Charles R. III 1972 Public Archaeology. Seminar Press, New York. McMichael, Edward V. 1960 The Anatomy of a Tradition: A Study of Southeastern Stamped Pottery. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington. University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor. 9.3

1964

Veracruz, the Crystal River Complex, and the Hopewellian Climax. In Hopewellian Studies, edited by Joseph R. Caldwell and Robert L. Hall, pp. 123-132. Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers, Volume 12, Springfield, Illinois.

Merriman, Nick 2004 Involving the Public in Museum Archaeology. In Public Archaeology, edited by Nick Merriman, pp. 85-108. Routledge, London. Milanich, T. Jerald 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 1999 Introduction. In Famous Florida Sites: Crystal River and Mount Royal, edited by Jerald T. Milanich, pp. 1-28. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Moore, Clarence Bloomfield 1903 Certain Aboriginal Mounds of the Central Florida West-Coast. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 12:361-438. 1907 1918 Crystal River Revisited. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Second Series 13(3):406-25. The Northwestern Florida Coast Revisited. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Second Series 16(4):514-81.

National Association for Interpretation 2008 Standards and Practices for Interpretive Planning. Electronic document, www.interpnet.lcom, accessed November, 2011. 2009 Standards and Practives for Interpretive Methods. Electronic document, www.interpnet.lcom, accessed November, 2011.

National Park Service 2011 Crystal River State Archeological Site. Electronic document, http://www.cr.nps.gov/goldcres/sites/crysrv.htm, accessed November 20, 2011. O'Toole, Dennis A. 1984 Evaluating Interpretation: The Governor's Palace, Williamsburg. Roundtable Reports 9(1): 15-16. Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Victor D. Thompson 2009 Mapping Crystal River: Past, Present, and Future. The Florida Anthropologist 62(1-2):3-22. Pluckhahn, Thomas J., Victor D. Thompson, Nicolas Laracuente, Sarah Mitchell, Amanda Roberts, and Adrianne Sams 2009 Archaeological Investigations at the Famous Crystal River Site(8CI1) (2008 Field Season), Citrus County, Florida. Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa. Submitted to Bureau of Natural & Cultural Resources, Division of Recreation and Parks, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee. 9.4

Pluckhahn, Thomas J., Victor D. Thompson, and Brent R. Weisman 2010a A New View of History and Process at Crystal River. Southeastern Archaeology 29(1):164-181. 2010b Collaborative Research: Cooperation and Competition Crystal River. Proposal to the National Science Foundation, Senior Archaeology Award. Potter, Parker B., Jr. 1994 Public Archaeology in Annapolis: A Critical Approach to History in Maryland's Ancient City. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 1997 The Archaeological Site as an Interpretive Environment. In Presenting Archaeology to the Public, edited by John H. Jameson, Jr., pp. 35-44. Alta Mira, Walnut Creek, California.

Potter, Parker B., Jr and Nancy J. Chabot 1997 Locating Truths on Archaeological Sites. In Presenting Archaeology to the Public, edited by John H. Jameson, Jr., pp. 35-44. Alta Mira, Walnut Creek, California. Ruhl, Donna 1981 An Investigation into the Relationships Between Midwestern Hopewell and Southeastern Prehistory. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. Sachatello-Sawyer, Bonnie, Robert A. Fellenz, Hanly Burton, Laura Gittings-Carlson, Janet Lewis-Mahony, Walter Woolbaugh 2002 Adult Museum Programs: Designing Meaningful Experiences. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, California. Seeman, Mark F. 1979 The Hopewell Interaction Sphere: The Evidence for Inter-Regional Trade and Structural Complexity. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Indiana, Bloomington. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Serrell, Beverly 1996 Exhibit Labels: An Interpretive Approach. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, California. Smidt, Sandra 2009 Introducing Vygotsky: A Guide for Practitioners and Students in Early Years Education. Routledge, New York. Smith, Bruce 1986 Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: From Dalton to De Soto. Advances in World Archaeology:1-92. Smith, Hale G. 1951 Crystal River Revisited, Revisited, Revisited. American Antiquity 17:143-144.

9.5

South, Stanley 1997 Generalized Versus Literal Interpretation. In Presenting Archaeology to the Public, edited by John H. Jameson, Jr., pp. 35-44. Alta Mira, Walnut Creek, California. Steponaitis, Vincas 1986 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southeastern United States, 1970-1985. Annual Review of Anthropology 15:363-404. Sternberg, Robert J., and Li-fang Zhang 2000 Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Stone, Peter G. 2004 The Re-display of the Alexander Keiller Museum, Avebury, and the National Curriculum in England. In The Presented Past: Heritage, Museums, and Education, edited by Peter G. Stone and Brian L. Molyneaux, pp. 190-205. Routledge, London. Swain, Hedley 2007 An Introduction to Museum Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Thomas, David Hurst 2002 Roadside Ruins: Does America Still Need Archaeology Museums? In Public Benefits of Archaeology, edited by Barbara J. Little, pp. 130-145. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Thompson, Victor D., and Thomas J. Pluckhahn 2010 History, Complex Hunter-gatherers, and the Mounds and Monuments of Crystal River, Florida: A Geophysical Perspective. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 5:3351. Tilden, Freeman 1977 Interpreting Our Heritage. 3rd ed. Originally published 1957. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Weisman, Brent R. 1995 Crystal River: A Ceremonial Mound Center on the Florida Gulf Coast. Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research. Willey, Gordon R. 1949 Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Southeastern Classics in Archaeology, Anthropology, and History. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Young, Peter A. 2002 The Archaeologist as Storyteller. In Public Benefits of Archaeology, edited by Barbara J. Little, pp. 239-243. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Zimmerman, Larry J. 2003 Presenting the Past: Archaeologist Toolkit 7. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.

9.6