My experience with early American history and public history is through my research. I have been studying interpretation at historic sites that focus on the 18th century for the last ten years. The manuscript based on this research Redefining Interpretation at 18th Century Heritage Sites, is under contract with Routledge. In my research I consider the work of interpreters at heritage sites in Charleston, Richmond/Williamsburg, Boston, and Philadelphia and critically examine the ways in which these presentations engage the public and shape public memory of the period. I look specifically at representations of power, race, urban landscapes, river and Atlantic contexts, and presentation of everyday life. The sites cover a wide range of heritage tourism experiences. They range from the large, well-funded, and well publicized to the small house museum struggling to get by. I discuss Monticello, Mount Vernon, and Colonial Williamsburg alongside Shirley Plantation, Drayton Hall, and Independence National Historic Park. Some of the locations I began this study with are no longer in existence and some have changed quite a bit in the last ten years. All are struggling with the same basic issues that we are dealing with in this working group and that all public historians deal with – authenticity, relevancy, and relatability. I would argue that for those interpreting the 17th and 18th centuries, this struggle is particularly acute, as this past seems like the most foreign and unrelatable to the modern heritage visitor.
I believe the best way to mediate the challenges of early American interpretation is through a greater focus on everyday life in the period. This may seem like a basic task, but I believe that this is where the true power of interpretation lies. It would be easy to say that every site does this but I would argue that this is not so. Most sites are focusing on high points. They want you to understand why this person was important to a certain past or how hard life was. But that still feels two dimensional to many people. We need to find ways to place individuals within the context of the period in a way that relates to their modern life. This is typically done through emphasizing difference – such as displaying how hard it was to make toast at a hearth. Rather, I would argue that emphasizing similarity has more power. Should it really be about how hard it was to make toast? Or should we really be talking about the shared experience of food preparation? The basics of everyday life have not changed. Birth and death, work and home, food and shelter, family, community, disaster, these are commonalities that encourage us to find common cause with historical actors and provide the entry point to a deeper experience of the period.
I also believe that inclusivity and globalization is a cornerstone of overcoming some of these challenges of early American history. There are many sites that offer tours and experiences that separate the narrative into component parts. There is the “history tour” (read: white progress narrative), and then there are “other” tours – like the women’s tour or the African-American tour. Segregating the past emphasizes that our past cannot be understood unless it is compartmentalized, which is completely foreign to modern experience. People didn’t live that way in the past and they don’t live that way now. Relatability demands that we speak to common experience in a manner that is in fact, more common. The truth of the past is that diverse historical actors worked in challenging ways to create the past that we have and the nation we inhabit. They did not all leave the same types of records, and they speak to us in different ways, but we can’t understand the struggle of the 18th century in silos of knowledge or experience and we can’t expect our guests to either. Neither can we separate America from Europe, the Americas, or the Atlantic. Modern Americans live in a globalized society. So did individuals in the past, even if it looked a little different. The objects, furniture, architecture, trade relationships, and labor of the North American experience are evidence of tastes, economies, and opportunities of a wider world. America was a more diverse and globally aware place in the colonial period than we admit in interpretive practice and that makes it seem foreign to our publics.
I think one way to create new interpretations or use new digital tools is to create more sensory and participatory experiences at historic sites. Sensory experiences could help the past to come alive. It may seem like a gimmick initially, but what if we could smell what the street smelled like in an urban landscape? What if a parlor sounded the way it did in the past? Have you ever noticed how visitors gravitate to kitchens when there is someone there cooking? It is the sensory and common experience of food preparation that lures them in. How can we create more irresistible experiences? Could we incorporate role playing experiences at some sites? This is more than just following one person through the tour and finding out what happened to them. What about an app where you embody that person through the visit? It is one thing to visit a parlor, it is another to be a lady of the house, presented with a secret in a parlor, and then confronted with the choice of telling the person it concerns. What if you embodied an enslaved person presented with an opportunity for escape? Or an overseer presented with a dilemma? Seeing decisions as they play out over the course of a day could be quite powerful for those seeking a richer and more relatable experience of the past.
Relating these sites to modern issues beyond the moment of visit is maybe the biggest challenge we face interpreting the past. That connection makes our sites and history seem more relevant, but at the same time it threatens to destroy the desire of some heritage tourists for escapism. It is a fine line. How do we cater to one without alienating the other? These larger issues of race, immigration, gender, and environment, the building blocks of these concerns are here in this period. Is that where interpretation can be compartmentalized? Is it something that we deal with in some publics and not others? For example, is a larger discussion of immigration something for an evening or afternoon discussion that caters more to the local rather than out of town visitor? Is it more for school groups? And does engaging with these modern issues make the site more political? And how do we navigate that issue? Some might welcome a political attitude but others may condemn a site for it. How does this impact sites that receive federal and state funding? We have seen from Antebellum and Civil War interpretation that political can be inflamed easily among guests and cause very emotional reactions. How do we navigate this minefield? I guess my real answer to this final question is – I don’t really know. I have more questions than answers. I am eager to discuss it with the group.
Return to this Working Group’s homepage.