My friend Mustafa Onay died today in Izmir, Turkey. I met Mustafa in 2006 during a 10-day whirlwind tour through the country sponsored by the Institute of Interfaith Dialogue. At an evening meal and tour of a local hospital, Mustafa, his wife, and two daughters were a part of the local community who met with our small group of travelers from the Jackson, Mississippi area. At the dinner Mustafa and I hit it off very well – we were the same age, born just a couple of months apart. His daughters Hale and Hatice spoke enough English that we were able to make sense of our conversations. At the end of the evening, we said our good-byes and I assumed that like much of the fast-paced trip, future interactions with the Onays would be restricted to future emails. That evening I commented to my wife Emma how meeting with the Onays had truly been a highlight of the trip thus far.
The next morning we were off for the site of Ephesus. As we headed out of Izmir the bus stopped in a residential neighborhood and the Onay family boarded the bus. I was ecstatic to be able to spend the day with them. Hale brought a Turkish-English dictionary to help with the communication. The trip was most memorable. Besides just visiting Ephesus, two highlights stand out. First, we again shared a meal that allowed for extensive and the conversation. Second, I bought a Qu’ran in the vendor’s market just outside of Ephesus. I had a couple of other copies of the Qu’ran at home, but this one was a more contemporary translation like the difference between the King James and the NRSV editions of the Christian canonical texts. After purchasing the book, Hatice, kissed the cover, very reverently held the Qu’ran to her forehead and then handed me the book.
Since that 24 hours of interaction in 2006, I have not seen the Onays in person. However, we have kept in touch through emails, Facebook, and the occasional package sent back and forth. My Turkish still does not go beyond a few words. Google translate does a poor job with the Turkish language. But the photos of Hale’s wedding, the birth of her child, the Onay’s wedding anniversary, and other life events are easy to understand in pictures and translated phrases – as this morning finding out about Mustafa’s death.
I have reflected often about that 2006 trip to Turkey and what I learned. I wrote some of this up several years ago. Perhaps most important was the sharing of meals and how that experience provided the opportunity for Mustafa and I to form a relationship that continued for nearly a decade. When coming back to the States sharing a meal was something that my wife Emma and I began to see more as an opportunity to bring strangers together. Based on that Turkish experience we invited our Turkish and Mississippi friends in Jackson to our home for dinner. That logic carried through with me my trip to Peru this summer when I invited the local “help” at the archaeological field school to begin sharing the evening meal with the North American field crew.
How does all of this come back to Archaeology, Museums and Outreach? A couple of years ago a professor from my dissertation committee commented to someone that I actually believed that anthropology could be used to better society. That was an interesting comment. I am not quite certain if the comment was meant as “that naïve fool” or of course that is what anthropology is all about. But I have learned from reading things like Mauss’ The Gift, the Spindler Anthropology series, Edward Sapir and Dell Hymes on linguistics, Kent Flannery’s fabulous Oaxaca studies, that we as humans basically do things the same way, have the same needs and wants. I am interested in aggressively breaking down the silos we put ourselves in to keep us apart and from seeing that reality.
Outreach and interdisciplinarity is where the action is at. I thank my friend Mustafa Onay for being a part of that lesson for me.
The C.H. Nash Museum at Chucalissa is hosting our 5th AmeriCorps Team through November 12, 2014. I have posted several times in the past about the role these exemplary youth play in cultural heritage and community engagement in Southwest Memphis. The AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC) program is a ten month volunteer commitment for 18-24 year olds who assist in disaster relief and other areas of community service. The River 2 AmeriCorps NCCC Team we now host is an all women construction team based at the Southern Region campus in Vicksburg, MS. The Team is made up of one team leader and five corps members.
Team Leader Chassie Nix is from Amory, Mississippi. She has completed higher education coursework in political science with a desire to get into Mississippi politics in the future. She joined AmeriCorps to make a difference in the community and better understand the day-to-day life of people from diverse backgrounds.
Chelsea Crinson is from Sterling Heights, Michigan. She joined Americorps after feeling the pull to do more after participating in a 2013 project that helped with ongoing Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. She joined Americorps to continue what she loves. Chelsea is a pastry school graduate, but plans to further her passion for helping people by working for a non-profit after her November AmeriCorps graduation.
Katelyn Tharp is from Knoxville,Tennessee. She joined Americorps to gain new experiences, meet new people and see the south in a way she never had before. Katelyn is looking forward to starting at Aveda Institute Beauty School after the AmeriCorps program along with getting certified as a Zumba instructor.
Linda Nag is from Portland, Maine. She joined Americorps to help people in low income communities and to build her resume. Linda became a Certified Nursing Assistant and Medical Assistant during her previous term in Job Corps. After graduating from AmeriCorps Linda will continue her education by studying for a B.S. in Nursing.
Cindy Robertson is from Kings Mountain, North Carolina. She came to AmeriCorps to help in low income communities and be a role model for youth. Like Linda, Cindy is a Certified Nursing Assistant who plans to further her education by going to school for nursing after the AmeriCorps program.
Tatyana Samuel-Jefferson is from New York City, New York. She joined Americorps to devote her time to volunteer work, make a difference in children’s lives, and to travel and experience people and places she had never seen. Tatyana has an Associates Degree in Education. After her term with Americorps she plans to further her studies in education to become a school teacher.
During their six-week round in Southwest Memphis, the Team will complete a diverse set of projects. Already they have spent one-week refurbishing trails and buildings at the T.O. Fuller State Park. In the Walker Homes neighborhood they painted and landscaped the home of a disabled Vietnam-era veteran. At Chucalissa they completed work on a 30 square foot pergola and built a second rain shelter along our nature trail. For the next two weeks the team will work on refurbishing our hands-on archaeology lab.
The AmeriCorps NCCC motto of “We get things done” is true in many capacities. Chucalissa’s AmeriCorps Teams have proven a key component in our Museum’s ability to play a role in the Southwest Memphis community. In addition to hosting the Teams who contribute their work skills in a variety of community construction and renovation projects, the young men and women of AmeriCorps participate in volunteer, youth mentoring, and other service projects. Work with veterans organizations is of particular importance to team members. Not just in Memphis, but throughout the U.S., AmeriCorps NCCC Teams are increasingly taking part in cultural heritage projects.
For more information about AmeriCorps NCCC Teams visit their website.
This past Saturday Poverty Point was formally dedicated as a World Heritage Site of UNESCO. This is a big deal for the archaeology and cultural heritage in the state of Louisiana. Not too long ago I blogged about the dismantling of the Louisiana Division of Archaeology’s State and Regional Archaeology program because of state mandated funding cuts. I concluded that post by noting:
“Though the Regional Archaeology Program may be gone, the 20 years of work by Tom Eubanks, Nancy Hawkins, and all of my archaeological colleagues in the state will surely result in new and innovative directions for the preservation and presentation of the rich cultural heritage of Louisiana.”
The World Heritage designation of Poverty Point provides an unparalleled opportunity to launch such a new direction. The 45-minutes of formal presentations at the dedication on Saturday were suitably nonpartisan and enthusiastic. The proceedings presided over by Louisiana Lieutenant Governor Jay Dardenne featured remarks by U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu and National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis. All spoke passionately about the potential the World Heritage Site designation brings for Louisiana. Special plaques were awarded to Nancy Hawkins of the Louisiana Division of Archaeology and Diana Greenlee, Station Archaeologist at Poverty Point to acknowledge their work in the nomination process.
As someone who watched the process of development unfold at Poverty Point over the past nearly two decades, I was struck by a several aspects of the Saturday dedication:
- The politician who was and remains the most tireless and consistent champion of Poverty Point, beginning in his elementary school days, is State Senator Francis Thompson. The Senator was not on the speaker’s platform but was invited to come forward to say a few words. Thompson is a phenomenal orator who combines the best of the stereotypical fire-and-brimstone Southern preacher and politician. His few words, which of course stretched into as long as any of the featured speakers, did not disappoint. Lieutenant Governor Dardenne spoke of the last eight years in shepherding the nomination through the World Heritage Process. Senator Thompson was able to extend and personally speak to that process going back to his childhood.
- Nancy Hawkins and Diana Greenlee were acknowledged as the individuals who gave the Lieutentant Governor and others the raw material to even launch the process. Nancy and the late State Archaeologist Tom Eubanks were responsible for creating the Station Archaeology program at Poverty Point that ultimately allowed for Diana Greenlee to put together the nomination document.
- The Native American tribal affiliates in Louisiana were recognized by Dardenne. Had their ancestors not built the earthwork, Poverty Point would be long forgotten today or only the name of an obscure 19th Century Plantation.
- There were also a bunch of archaeologists and soil scientists present on Saturday such as Jon Gibson, Bob Neuman, Joe Saunders, Thurman Allen and others who provided the very grist for the mill that created the basis for knowing the prehistory of the place. I have posted before about the importance of folks such as avocational archaeologist Carl Alexander to the Poverty Point site. This group of archaeologists was the only set of individuals not mentioned by Dardenne or other speakers from the platform this past Saturday (save Senator Thompson’s brief sermon). Somewhat fitting to this exclusion is the state funding cuts to Louisiana’s public archaeology program.
When the celebrations die down and lawmakers get back to the business of out budget cutting each other, as seems quite fashionable in the U.S. of late, Louisiana will be faced with the hard realities of the opportunities in having the 21st World Heritage Site in North America at Poverty Point – and the opportunities will require a commitment of time, energy, and resources. The state has had some lessons in this fact over the years at Poverty Point. For example, during my tenure as Station Archaeologist back in 1997, I debated with architects about whether the planned curation facility for Poverty Point needed to be climate controlled. The architects argued that all we had up there to put in the facility were a bunch of “rocks and those clay cooking balls.” In a similar way, the World Heritage Site status necessitated the Office of State Parks dealing with the issue of treefalls on the Poverty Point ridges and mounds. The exposed root mass of a single treefall typically exposed thousands of prehistoric artifacts and cultural features. Back in 1997, the state considered mitigating these events as a waste of resources. Ultimately, establishing best practices in both of these issues clearly were preconditions for the World Heritage Site designation.
If the proclamations from the podium this past Saturday of the tens of thousands of international travelers who will be flocking to view this new World Heritage site are true, then the museum and interpretive facility will need dramatic upgrades. For the most part, museum exhibits remain unchanged from their initial installations in the 1970s and certainly do not include the extensive research program that has taken place over the last 40 years on which the World Heritage Site nomination was largely based. In addition to Poverty Point, the past twenty years research by archaeologists such as Joe Saunders at the Middle Archaic Watson Brake site, arguably the earliest example of monumental architecture in North America, complements the Poverty Point site. Watson Brake is just some 50 miles as the crow flies from Poverty Point.
The tourism and cultural heritage bump provided by the World Heritage Site designation at Poverty Point could be used as a true launching pad for the region. The opportunities for the private and public development of the region are outstanding. The state of Louisiana can continue on the trajectory that led to the World Heritage designation and truly organize the resources to bring the interpretive potential of Poverty Point to the World Heritage Site status for which it is now recognized, along with an abundance of other earthwork complexes in northeast Louisiana spanning over 4000 years of prehistory. This can be the new direction that public archaeology takes in Louisiana and can serve too as a model for the nation as well.
In my Museum Practices graduate seminar this semester, students were given the following assignment:
“Students in Museum Practices three years ago completed an Advocacy Inventory for twelve museums in the Memphis area. The Advocacy Inventory is found on pp. 16-23 of the article by Gail Ravnitzky Silberglied in Speak Up For Museums: The AAM Guide to Advocacy. For those twelve museums, Museum Practices students in last two years followed up to determine if and how each museum used the completed advocacy inventory or recommendations. Out of the twelve museums originally contacted, only two museums followed through in implementing the recommendations from the advocacy inventory. Last year, for her graduate project in the Masters of Liberal Studies program, Patricia Harris assessed this three-year program. (note: copy of Harris’ paper on file at the University of Memphis McWerter library.) Respond to both the Silberglied article and Harris’ assessment of the three-year program with Memphis area museums.”
I thoroughly enjoyed reading the responses of all the student essays. Amr Shahat’s was particularly insightful on the importance and relevance of advocacy for today’s museums. Below is an abbreviated version of his essay.
by Amr Shahat
Advocacy is generic term defined in Webster Dictionary as “The act or process of advocating or supporting a cause or proposal”. The term has been incorporated into the museum field and raises discussions among museum experts as how to become advocates in obtaining elected officials support to museums. The concern began in 2011 when museums among other institutions were announced to be less eligible for federal funding. As a response, The American Alliance of Museums (AAM) began to support American museums through advocacy effort addressing elected officials, mainly state senators and congressmen to agree not to cut or limit federal funding for museums.
The AAM created guidelines for advocacy, Speak Up for Museums to assist museums establish advocacy practices. In this book, Silberglied discusses the value of developing advocacy inventory and establishing an advocacy effort within the museums, staff, and board members and suggests strategies to reach elected officials. The Silberglied model does not address the need of advocacy inventory beyond getting financial or legislative support.
The evaluation made by Patricia Harris, a graduate student at the University of Memphis, discussed the advocacy effort of local museums in the Memphis area and implies that the AAM advocacy inventory uses broad terms that might not be useful for all institutions. Silberglied’s chapter “Additional Resources and Burning Questions” might overwhelm the reader with political terms, definitions and approaches to the elected officials. The approach may not be useful as focusing on building relation with the community, explaining the museum mission to the community to obtain the community support for the mission— in so doing the community members will be the best advocates.
A main point from Silberglied is that the advocacy inventory is built by joint effort. The joint effort can be internally among museum staff, volunteers and board members, or externally between the museum and the community. However, there is no mention of the communities as a co-creative partner for the inventory. Instead, communities are mentioned merely as a venue of testimony to get the advocacy inventory heard by elected officials. Community members’ effort is mentioned by Silberglied only in terms of being testimonials to support advocacy inventory and its credibility but not as direct advocates.
In the light of the current museum effort towards creating participatory museums that are co-created by museum staff and the community, why do we not call for a participatory advocacy that includes these communities? Harris has mentioned success of three small museums in the Memphis area in terms of advocacy effort. A main success for their advocacy is engagement with local communities. If a museum does not attain local visibility/impact, it will not be visible to elected officials who would not recognize the cultural and the economic importance of museum(s) to their communities.
Since community effort is of importance, how can a museum increase its visibility to the community? Both Silberglied and Harris suggest different programs and events that museums may implement to increase their participation in advocacy work. Silberglied in a week-by-week plan suggests 75 tips to be followed by a museum to create an advocacy inventory. In one of the tips, Silberglied advised museums to “become a community meeting place”. Although, the concept sounds plausible, the examples provided might not be the best. The community activities she suggested such as “blood drive, food drive etc.” only increase the visibility of the museum to the community in terms of museum locale. However, for an advocacy effort, museums need to create events that are mainly focused on increasing the visibility of the museum’s mission. A museum should be careful that attracting people to its place is different from attracting people to its mission. The support of the community to the museum does not necessarily involve physical visiting to the museum locale. Harris analysis implies that part of the successful advocacy effort of the three museums she discussed is using online visibility to the museum mission through Facebook, a museum webpage, and other social media.
Visibility to the museum mission invites us to broaden our identification of the museum community. The museum community is not just its neighbors or those who can physically make a visit but those who believe in and support its mission. Silberglied’s explanations imply that nationality or citizenship does not hold you back from submitting your advocacy to elected officials. Some museums include volunteers and staff of different nationalities, such as the Metropolitan museum whose director of the Egyptian department is a British Egyptologist. One of the most successful advocacy inventories that got direct response from the Ministry of Antiquities in Egypt was advocating for the Egyptian museum was made by tourists who believed in the museum mission rather than the museum locale. So the real relationship between a museum and its community is to share the museum mission.
Chapter six of Silberglied’s book on “Expert Insider advice from elected and public officials” provides examples of official reactions to successful advocacy. One of the most effective pieces of advice was by the Los Angeles Deputy Mayor Aileen Adams. She draws museum attention to promoting joint advocacy. I suggest that the two or three small museum in Memphis which responded to advocacy inventory need to propagate this effort to other museums in Memphis and create joint advocacy cases. Joint cases will multiply the museums’ reasons to create an advocacy inventory. It will also be more effective if museums made joint participatory advocacy inventory involving their communities as mentioned above. The participatory advocacy will create strong multivocality that empowers the museum advocacy and draws the elected officials’ attention towards the museums in Tennessee.
Building relations with the community is a slow process but we should remember that legislation process to address elected official and get their feedback is a slow process as well. This slow legislative process might have been one of the main reasons that ten of the twelve museums in Tennessee contacted by Harris did not implement an advocacy inventory. Elected officials response sometimes is not direct and a museum cannot build up a plan on such vague responses to advocacy. This may be another reason that prevented ten museums from implementing an advocacy inventory. Therefore, I suggest creating a participatory advocacy inventory as a joint effort between the museum and the community. The participatory advocacy will create mulitivocality for the advocacy case presented and hence become more powerful and well heard. Overall, the community is the one who choose the elected officials which means their voice is the power that brought them to office and the power that will make the museum advocacy effort be heard.
Amr Shahat is a student in the Museum Studies Graduate Certificate Program and a PhD Egyptology student & teaching assistant in the History Department at the University of Memphis. He can be reached at akshahat(at)gmail.com
This past week I attended the American Association of State and Local History (AASLH) annual meeting in St. Paul, Minnesota. I have come to expect the unexpected when I attend professional meetings. Perhaps the greatest unexpected highlight of the AASLH conference was a session organized by my former student and now colleague, Katie Stringer titled “Welcoming All Visitors: Accessible Programs at History Museums and Sites.” Through her dissertation research, Katie has developed considerable expertise in this area. She recently published Programming For People With Special Needs: A Guide For Museums and Historic Sites. The volume focuses on seven key components needed to create effective museum experiences for individuals with special needs. Based on her work in Tennessee, the book also draws on case studies as disparate as New York’s Museum of Modern Art and the Brooklyn’s Transit Museum. The 110 page volume is a concise primer filled with go-to resources for any cultural heritage professional seeking a holistic introduction to the field of inclusivity. Katie’s presentation in St. Paul focused on her research contained in her recent publication.
Two other papers in the session focused on specific needs that were very relevant to our programming needs at the C.H. Nash Museum at Chucalissa. Mattie Ettenheim, Museum Access Program Manager for City Access New York addressed program creation for individuals with autism. Besides providing a solid introduction to the general needs for creating effective experiences for children on the autism spectrum, Mattie provided excellent online resources to get more detailed information on the subject. Particularly helpful are resources available through the Museum Access Consortium, including a series of podcasts (right hand side of link). Mattie also noted that Kids Included Together is an excellent resource on creating programs for children with special needs.
Callie Hawkins, Associate Director for Programs at President Lincoln’s Cottage, Washington D.C. shared her work on creating innovative programs for individuals with impaired hearing, including ASL-based podcast tours of the facility. She noted that resources for funding requests for such programs were given a high priority through organizations such as the Institute of Museum and Library Services.
I found all the presentations particularly relevant to our situation at the C.H. Nash Museum at Chucalissa. As a small museum, because of our low staff to visitor ratio, we are able to provide programming for children with special needs that larger museums simply are unprepared for. For example, our Art For Voice camp last summer was particularly attractive for several children on the autism spectrum. Our intent is to expand our special needs programming. We are fortunate that two of our Graduate Assistant staff also have considerable experience in programming for children with special needs.
Program creation for individuals with special needs can be an ideal niche for the small museum or cultural heritage institution to explore. Here are some thoughts:
- For many types of special needs, the small museum is often more suitable than the larger institutions. Persons with autism, reduced immune systems, special physical or cognitive needs are often better served in the less crowded and more tranquil small museum environment.
- Funding for creating such programs may be prioritized through organizations such as IMLS or local support networks.
- There are often formal and informal networks of parents, care-givers, and other service providers who can assist in the creation and implementation of special needs programs.
At Chucalissa, we find that our small setting that includes both indoor and outdoor exhibits, hands-on tactile opportunities, coupled with resources that we can draw from the University of Memphis, make us an excellent venue for persons with special needs. This approach is not a matter of recreating or restructuring our mission to fit an economic market. Rather, this approach allows us to consider our mission, our strengths and weaknesses, and how we might best serve the public who fund the operation of our museum. In this way, we more fully live into our mission mandate to provide the public with “exceptional educational, participatory and research opportunities”
How do you serve your special needs visitors?
Here is a blog post I wrote for the Tennessee Council for Professional Archaeology blog’s 30 Days of Tennessee Archaeology that reports on the C.H. Nash Museum’s commitment to public access to curated collections.
Originally posted on Tennessee Council for Professional Archaeology:
Big Ideas at the C.H. Nash Museum at Chucalissa
Dr. Robert Connolly
Director, C.H. Nash Museum at Chucalissa
At the C.H. Nash Museum at Chucalissa in Memphis Tennessee, we are committed to opening the collections we curate to increased public accessibility. The Fred Jobe collection is a case in point. Here is how that story goes:
Chucalissa has a long-standing relationship with the Memphis Archaeological and Geological Society (MAGS). In fact, MAGS was founded in the early 1950s based on their interest in research at Chucalissa. The first published field report of Chucalissa was written by Kenneth Beaudoin in 1952 and details MAGS excavations at the site. Today, MAGS members continue to volunteer at Chucalissa on a host of projects.
During one of their volunteer sessions, MAGS members inventoried artifacts from the Fred…
View original 767 more words
Great post by Bernard Means on the WPA role in archaeology. I am pleased to work today at the C.H. Nash Museum at Chucalissa with NCCC AmeriCorps Teams, the legacy today from those earlier projects!
Originally posted on New Deal Archaeology:
by Bernard K. Means
Today is Labor Day in the United States and I wanted to briefly thank the men and women who worked so hard during the Great Depression to uncover our nation’s past. So many of us rely on the records they generated and the artifacts that they recovered for our own research–in fact, I finished an article yesterday on two American Indian sites excavated by a Work Projects Administration (WPA) crew in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. For the Powell 1 and 2 sites, I was able to perform sophisticated statistical analyses because of the care that the WPA field director, Edgar E. Augustine, took with the sites. He did this under difficult circumstances–constantly shifting crews of varying experience, and brutally cold days as well.
A tip of my metaphorical had to the men and women of the WPA, as well as the CCC…
View original 15 more words