How do you fit 301 men, women, and children into 400 square feet of space? Very easily, if you are Rob Evans.

Rob Evans is the nationally and internationally known artist and muralist who was commissioned to paint the Double Ditch Village cyclorama^[1], the focal point of the new Innovation Gallery: Early Peoples at the North Dakota Heritage Center & State Museum.

Mr. Evans and the concept team from the SHSND’s Archaeology & Historic Preservation Division spent months in preparation, researching and providing the documentation that would ensure an historically accurate depiction of a 16^th-century Mandan village.

The village that was chosen for the mural is the Double Ditch Indian Village State Historic Site located 9.9 miles (as the eagle flies) northwest of the Heritage Center.

The hand-painted mural, crafted one small brushstroke at a time, shows one time in the life of the Mandan Indians. The date chosen was September of AD 1550. That very specific date was chosen by the concept team for a variety of reasons. Autumn would have been a bustling time in the thriving community, with the fall harvest and preparations for winter in full swing. The year AD 1550 would be historically accurate for the depiction of both the recognizable round earthlodge home of the Mandans in addition to its lesser known predecessor, the long, rectangular dwelling. The myriad of activities depicted include gardening, arrow-making, lodge and palisade repair, children playing, pottery making, and the preparation of corn, squash, and meat for winter storage.

The cyclorama wall, 50 feet wide and 8 feet tall, provided Mr. Evans with 400 square feet of canvas for his original artwork. He didn’t paint on canvas, though. The cyclorama is a curved wall of sheetrock fastened to upright metal beams with many screws. The face of the sheetrock was covered with a coat of gesso, an artistic plaster medium, to provide a smooth, curved surface on which he could apply his depiction of the Mandan village.

Three hundred (and one) acrylic men, women and children appeared over the three months Rob spent on the project. In addition, numerous bison skulls, earth lodge homes, herds of bison, and all of the fall activities of the village were carefully crafted. The images followed the prototype drawings and paintings that Rob had prepared in advance of the actual project.

The concept team, as well as the Native American consultants to the project, deemed it very important to include the sounds of the village in the finished painting. Historical recordings were appraised and the sounds and conversations appropriate to the time and place were chosen to be included in the project. When no appropriate archived file was available, contemporary Mandan speakers and singers from Fort Berthold were recorded, along with the sounds of children playing, dogs barking, birds singing and other sounds. The audio is heard on eight individual speakers mounted above the cyclorama. Each of the eight sound files is specific to the scenes in the corresponding segment of the painting. The speakers provide a multi-channel soundscape that brings the original painting to life.

Lit from below by 96 feet of LED lights, adjustable for color and intensity, the cyclorama comes alive before the eyes of the Heritage Center visitor.

The SHSND, in partnership with the North Dakota Archaeological Association, will present a series of six lectures titled, “A Vision of the Village: The Making of the Double Ditch Cyclorama” on the second Saturday of each month at 2 p.m. The series began on Saturday, January 9 and will continue on the second Saturday of each month through the month of June. (Note: The one exception is May, when it will be held on the third Saturday.) All lectures will be held in the Russell Reid Auditorium at the North Dakota Heritage Center & State Museum.

The lectures are free and open to the public. If you would like to hear more about Rob Evans’ painting, the research that went into the 400 square feet of art and the many details of a 16^th-century Mandan village, we encourage you to attend.

Oh, and we won’t confine you to 400 square feet of space.

If, perchance, you walk past my desk one day, you might wonder: Does she work here? Not much sign of labor. Just a woman stretched out in a chair, staring at a computer screen.

Dr. Barbara Handy-Marchello works very hard at writing for North Dakota Studies. Rockeman photo.

I must say my work does not raise a sweat on my brow or pound callouses onto my fingers. If I go home with a bruised thumb, it could be because I shut a drawer on my thumb, not because a hammer fell on it.

Nevertheless, I work.* Much of my work depends on thinking, leaving little in the way of a visible trail until some sort of product is finished. Writing curriculum is different from any other educational work I have ever done. There are no tests or papers to grade, no lectures to write, no lessons to develop, no students lined up at the door. Just a blank computer screen. It may be days before any sort of work product appears.

Starting with an idea about a project or a publication, I think about it, maybe read what someone else has written, and think some more. My fundamental question is always: “How do we make this idea (or subject or event) make sense and become meaningful to North Dakota’s young students?” 

On the other hand, I might start out to tackle a project with no idea at all. Take, for instance, articles in the North Dakota Studies newsletter. There is no formula or master plan to determine the next topic. I look for areas that we have not covered thoroughly in other publications. Or, I think about what might be a topic of current interest. In the next two years, the nation will be marking the 100^th anniversary of World War I. I expect to publish at least two articles about the role North Dakotans played in that war in North Dakota Studies newsletter. It will take a great deal of thinking to figure out how to write a historically accurate, student-friendly, and remarkably brief article on that big topic.

Another project on the horizon is the re-writing of Early Peoples of North Dakota by C. L. Dill. The thinking questions ahead of me involve how to make archaeology interesting and relevant to students and the general public. And how do I, trained in history, interpret archaeological evidence in a way that does no harm to either profession? That project will take a great deal of staring off into space, stretching back into my chair, and, the hardest work of all, making it look like work.

*Of course, I don’t work entirely alone. I get a lot of help from the Coordinator of North Dakota Studies, Neil Howe, and our techie-geekie, enormously talented new media specialist, Jess Rockeman. In addition, there are dozens of very knowledgeable people in every division who support the work of North Dakota Studies.

Not everyone warmly embraces the study of history. Some people say they are not interested in history at all. Others see history as something that is nice, in theory, but not necessarily significant to their daily lives. Some of us are interested in books and movies about historical topics, or our own family history, but reject the boring, fact-memorization we remember from school. We often don’t take time to think about the stories behind the objects we carry with us. We forget how technology has changed the scale of our world. This is something I like to call “historical blindness.” We have become desensitized to the unique history inherently connected to each person, item, and idea that populates our daily lives. So how do the staff at the State Historical Society of North Dakota (SHSND) work together to change this perception, help people regain their vision, and help everyone see that history is, in fact, essential?

The field of science is miles ahead of historians on this issue. The careers of Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye (the Science Guy) reflect the success that scientists have had in promoting an appreciation and respect for scientific understanding to a broad audience. Rather than simply providing “edutainment” for the masses, these professional scientists have legitimate academic backgrounds and are also stellar communicators. Science Communicators provide science-related outreach to non-experts and present topics in a fun and easy-to-understand format. They are storytellers, actors, marketers, and journalists. They are the link connecting the average layperson to the academic ivory tower. Science Communicators are equally at home demonstrating an experiment to kids or testifying in front of Congress. They rock, and the public loves them.

Historians need to embrace the concepts that Science Communicators have been demonstrating. The time has come to follow the advice of public historian Jason Steinhauer and embrace the title of History Communicator.[1] We already have public historians who generally work outside of the traditional college classroom. They are museum curators, archivists, educators, and all the people who work at the SHSND. Most of us already communicate with the general public on a regular basis. Steinhauer, who works for the Library of Congress, also supports the History Relevance Campaign. This loose network of history professionals have identified seven essential values of history as outlined in a values statement.[2] The values include establishing an identity through history; learning to apply critical thinking skills; creating strong communities; spurring economic development; engaging citizens; inspiring leaders; and establishing a legacy for the future.

Public historians are poised to become the History Communicators of the future. We are story tellers. We are museum whisperers. We are rock stars. The staff working at the SHSND—the History Communicators—in hand with the History Relevance Campaign, will help the general public finally understand that history is, in fact, essential.

When we last left you in December of 2014 (blog.statemuseum.nd.gov/blog/why-we-save-them) we were approaching the 2015 Legislative Session, hoping for a generous appropriation to further the restoration of the historic Stutsman County Courthouse –the oldest courthouse in North Dakota. Rescued in 1985 by the State Historic Society, this project is over 30 years in the making. Fast forward one year, and we are very pleased to offer an update and an insider’s look into the restoration process.

In August of 2015, work began on the installation of new restrooms, an electrical system update and the restoration of two offices on the main floor: the Clerk of Court and Auditor’s Offices.

Ryan Goodman, project manager for RDA (Fargo), is stripping a historic door of several layers of paint.

The existing (non-historic) restrooms were demolished—revealing several layers of 100-year-old wallpaper in the process. The tin was restored, fluorescent lights removed, and the room split down the middle in preparation for new facilities.

Custom wood partitions are built on-site for the new restrooms.

The Historic Clerk of Court’s Office before and after restoration. Custom doors were built to match the existing historic doors, the tin was repaired and painted, and all the woodwork was stripped down and completely refinished.

The historic Superintendent of Schools/Auditor’s Office before and after restoration.

Just one of many reasons we adore this building—as the restoration continues, we are finding that it is completely covered in roses!

Historic Sites Manager Guinn Hinman paints the ceiling medallions a historically accurate gold.

As of publishing time, the restrooms are nearing completion and work is beginning on the main floor hallway and historic Sheriff’s Office. We are adjusting to the novelty of having electricity and running water! Stay tuned for further updates in the coming months and more information on our Open House scheduled for May 14, 2016. For more photos and information, please follow our Facebook page!

The Museum Division was recently contacted about a potential donation involving seven Native American headdresses. The donor’s husband had been the funeral director for a funeral home in Garrison, ND, for forty years. The headdresses were given to him as thank you gifts from the families of the deceased.

Because these headdresses are excellent examples of contemporary Native American regalia (of which the State Historical Society has very few), our Museum Collections Committee decided to accept all of them. However, since Native American headdresses from the Northern Plains often include eagle feathers, we needed to consider the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. In a nutshell, this Federal law states that it is illegal to be in possession of any part of a bald or golden eagle unless you have a permit, or unless the eagle was collected before the legislation was enacted. If you are in possession of a bald eagle or parts of a bald eagle, you need to have proof of ownership prior to1940. If you are in possession of a golden eagle or parts of a golden eagle, you need to have proof of ownership prior to 1962.

In this case, the donor of the seven headdresses did not know for sure whether they contained eagle feathers, nor did she know from whom the headdresses came. Without a clear provenance (history of ownership) we knew the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Migratory Bird Permit Office would not grant us an exhibition permit for any of the headdresses containing eagle parts, including feathers. Special Agent Kevin Downs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was contacted to identify the feathers in the headdresses by reviewing photographs from the donor. Based on the photos, he believed only one of the headdresses contained real eagle feathers, while the others were probably painted or dyed to have the appearance of immature golden eagle tail feathers (white feathers with black tips). In light of his findings, we requested that Special Agent Downs be present when the donor delivered the headdresses to the North Dakota Heritage Center & State Museum for an official positive identification of eagle parts.

Downs was able to determine that six of the seven headdresses were likely made of dyed turkey feathers, and one was made from immature bald eagle feathers. The Museum Division happily accepted the six non-eagle headdresses into the collections. The donor decided to surrender the headdress containing eagle feathers to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It will be sent to the Eagle Repository in Denver, CO, http://www.fws.gov/eaglerepository/. The feathers will be redistributed pursuant to their policies.

Complying with federal regulations such as the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act is just one of the things the Museum Collections Committee takes into consideration before accepting artifacts into the Museum Division’s collection.

If you are like me, you think that software, as a general topic of discussion, is boring. Few people interested in history and anthropology are drawn to blog posts about software (notice that I didn’t include it in my title, for fear of you abandoning me before I could get a word in edgewise). But what if that software allowed you (literally, you) access to our collections from exactly where you are sitting right now? What if it connected close-up photos of artifacts directly with that object’s records? What if it made collections research more possible, allowed us to put together exhibits much more easily, and allowed us to search across multiple collections at once?

Each of our divisions currently manages its collections in separate types of programs and databases. For example, a researcher interested in Fort Clark would currently have to come to the Archaeology and Historic Preservation Division to search separate databases/shelves for artifacts and excavation notes. Then she would go to the Archives Division to search for historical records and photos associated with the site. Then she might want to check with the Museum Division to see if there are historical objects that relate to the site but were not found archaeologically.

We are happy to report that this wild goose chase is all about to change!

Example of an artifact record after our customizations were implemented. All the fields you see correspond directly to either a field that was already in our existing databases or a field we always wished we had.

The SHSND has recently purchased Re:discovery, software designed specifically for museum collections management. Why is this important? Managing any collection requires us to have updated and easy-to-access information about each object. An artifact record might include where it came from (i.e., Double Ditch Indian Village), where on the site it was found (i.e., “floor level, House 4”) who donated it, its function, its condition, its characteristics, pictures, etc. Under the direction of our astonishingly patient and meticulous IT administrator (whom must secretly feel that working with historians who cling fiercely to ten almost-identical versions of the same database because they are afraid to throw anything away is maddening), we are implementing this software in phases. Our AHP Division was the first up, and here is how it went down:

1. First we had to create our artifact record screens. Re:discovery has a standard one already, but some of the fields did not work for our data. So we requested customizations. We wanted the names of certain fields changed, we wanted certain fields to only allow certain entries, we wanted dates formatted a certain way, and so on. This was made more complicated by the fact that we curate for federal agencies, which have their own database entry requirements. To keep everything organized, we created a “mapping document” that accommodated all SHSND required fields, all federally required fields, and were formatted to receive our existing data in ways that would not create a huge mess or data loss. This process took several months of making requests and corresponding with Re:discovery to figure out what was possible.
    
2. Screens customized and approved! Time to move on to data conversion. This just means that we had to move the artifact data we have put in a bunch of disparate Access databases over the years into a single directory in Re:discovery. Let’s be honest – this was a nightmare. As with most institutions, people entered different types of data in different ways over time. So in one database, for instance, the location information (i.e., Excavation Unit 10) might be in a field called “location,” and in another database for a different collection, it might be in a Description field. So you can’t just say “all Description data in our Access fields can be migrated into the Description field in Rediscovery” (because you want location data in your fancy new Location field). So you have to reconcile all those discrepancies before you can migrate data. And we are talking tens of thousands of records. We also had to make decisions about what information got moved and what could be dropped. For example, some collections staff would write their thoughts in the Description field, like “I have never seen one of these before” (Is this really informative and worth saving?). In some cases the entry to describe the object tells you more about the context of its use rather than its function. For example, instead of calling a military button a “button” in the Object field, it said “Military” – not ideal when you want to search your database for buttons! This phase forced us to make some standardizations and changes in our cataloging procedures. I definitely had moments where I felt like we were in an endless loop of adjusting and converting our data, and maybe I just had to accept that this was what the rest of my life was going to be…
   
   A list view in Re:discovery. Instead of viewing individual artifact records, you can scroll through lists of artifact records, all of which can be filtered by whichever fields will give you the info you need (i.e., I can search for all artifacts from the Larson Village site, or all the bone beads from Larson Village, or all the scapula hoes from Larson, Boley, and Sperry Villages. The search options are endless, which brings tears (of unabashed joy) to my eyes.
    
3. At last, data converted! But we couldn’t just assume it all migrated perfectly. We had to check the data conversion to make sure data migrated safely and was not lost. This amounted to tens of thousands of records, and checking each one individually was not possible. Instead, we calculated a statistically representative sample for each database, which means we ended up checking about 200 to 300 randomly selected records for each one (amounting to about 1000 entries). We compared every field (thirty or so) from the old database with those in the new and noted any inconsistencies, formatting weirdness, mix-ups, etc. Any problems we found in the conversion we communicated back to the IT administrator and Re:discovery project manager, who adjusted the program or data as needed.
   
   
   Some artifacts we have recently entered into our new system – stone scrapers, a historic bottle, and a pottery sherd from the Woodland period decorated with a cord-wrapped stick.
    
4. Home stretch! Last steps were to set permissions for which staff can access or modify the data, document problems with our own data that this process helped us to discover, and get formal training on how to use the program.

As of last month, we began actively cataloging multiple archaeological collections, attaching digital photos of artifacts, geeking out on the program’s functions, and forcibly stopping ourselves from doing cartwheels in the lab from excitement that we can now do this work in one place so efficiently. Next up is the Archives Division, followed by the Museum Division. After that, we will work on getting the Web Module up and running so the public can search our collections online, complete with images. Our goal is to bring the collections to you. You can see for yourself all the objects we are preserving, without having to leave the comfort of wherever you are sitting right now. Stay tuned!