Minnesota Historical Society

Minnesota Historical and Cultural Heritage Program and Minnesota Archaeological Society

Project Manager / Lead Researcher

“Digging Critically: Using Science in Minnesota Archaeology”

A Documentary for Public Television

Request for Proposals – 12/2/16

Overview

The Minnesota Archaeological Society seeks a qualified consultant to manage a documentary project that highlights the application of science and the scientific method to the study of archaeology in Minnesota. The purpose of the project is to present interviews with archaeologists and other experts within a documentary about Minnesota archaeology and the role of science. The documentary, produced as Phase two of this project, will be based on the Phase one work. The video interviews will be posted and shared with the public on the MAS website. The Project Manager stipend for the Project Manager is based on an anticipated 80-120 work hours, not to exceed a budget of $4,000. The total project budget is $23,027 of which $22,827 is funded by a Legacy Grant procured by MAS and $840 is an in-kind match from MAS.

Background

The Minnesota Archaeological Society (MAS) is dedicated to the preservation and study of archaeology in Minnesota, working with and in support of the professional community. Our mission includes the education of the general public regarding what is known about earlier Minnesotans over the previous 10,000 years. We have been awarded a Legacy Grant for the research and writing phase of a 30-minute video documentary whose central theme is Minnesota archaeology and the importance of using rigorous academic standards, scientifically-acquired data, and testable hypotheses to understand the past. The documentary will help the general public and classroom students understand important elements of Minnesota archaeological sites and related research, show how data is acquired and how researchers apply critical thinking skills to the interpretation of Minnesota's history and archaeology. Using data from Minnesota sites, we will demonstrate how the scientific process develops hypotheses and determines whether they are valid or not - as opposed to pseudo-science, which does not follow this model and instead speaks with exaggerated certainty of ‘truth.’ Actual science speaks of replicable data, well-supported hypotheses, and continued testing to determine validity - knowing that new data will require a new hypothesis. We will be offer a much-needed counterpoint to the growing trend of pseudo-archaeology and the sensationalized “fringe” history dominating some cable TV channels and websites.

This project’s central ideas came from educators, historians, and other critical thinkers frustrated by the false claims made by increasing numbers of fringe history purveyors, and from the Board and members of the Minnesota Archaeological Society, with their mission to educate others about the vital role science plays in knowing about the past. There has been a concerning growth in the popularity of “pseudoscience” and “fringe history” television programs and web sites proclaiming most advances in human history have come from aliens, or offering the thinly-veiled racist contentions that Native American technologies, social systems, culture, and written languages could have only come from European contact. One national program, made in Minnesota with public funds, opens each week with the host claiming: “Everything we learned about our history when we were growing up is wrong. I’m here to find the truth.” Many of the claims that follow are unsubstantiated and have not been subjected to the scientific method, nor do they employ current data, creating disrespect for the American Indian communities and others to whom they refer and intentionally misleading the public. Our goal is to create a program that will reach those same television audiences, to introduce Minnesota’s actual archaeological past, and to encourage viewers to engage in critical thinking - and the use of common sense - when exposed to unsubstantiated theories presented as fact.

What people believe about history and past cultures does matter. Programs and publications supporting fringe theories encourage the belief that all opinions are equal - that the role of an expert is just to supply facts; the interpretation and explanation of what the facts mean can be done by anyone, and all opinions are equal. Experts are mistrusted, and neither science nor the authorities of historical and archaeological scholarship are respected. The established paradigms and data can then be easily manipulated. New theories are used to justify cultural superiority of a chosen group at the expense of others. Some make pseudoscientific claims about the past, involving ownership of land or valuable objects, to win an economic advantage. Some are simply making claims to gain respect as an expert in a field for which they have not been trained and gain followers for offering alternatives to commonly-held beliefs. Additionally, among the regrettable outcomes is a generation of young learners missing out on the pleasure of discovering the complex and fascinating reality of what actually happened in the past. As fun as “challenging the experts” might seem, the stories that scientific and historical research can rescue from scholarly excavations and careful analysis of artifacts and environmental clues provide an even more exciting, and more truthful, path to understanding the past. This project offers a chance to see a responsible alternative to the barrage of misinformation and to appreciate the difference training and research make. Simply stated, archaeology does not have to be fanciful, speculative, and sensational in order to be interesting and inspiring.

The overall project will be divided into two phases and this RFP is organized around the first phase. The eventual goal is to create and widely share the documentary; this first phase is to meet with advisors, accomplish necessary research, create a proposed outline to be reviewed, develop questions for interviews with relevant experts, and write a final rough script. It will begin with two discussion sessions with the Advisory Committee and a scriptwriter from TPT- Twin Cities PBS to identify interviewees, questions to be asked, and key points to be made. The interview team will then arrange the interviews with selected archaeologists, scientists, and Native leaders in Minnesota; record the interviews; and present the files to MAS in a format to be used for writing the script. Phase 1 also includes vetting interview content, investigating and selecting archaeological sites and researching sources, like state campuses and the History Center, to identify video and still photos to reference in the script.

Three key segments will be featured in this project:
a) The history and archaeology of Minnesota, presented in a brief overview of people in Minnesota over the last 10 millennia. This will provide a context for understanding what is currently known and believed about the past. The Committee will choose a set of sites representing a range of land use or cultural activities, distributed geographically and through time. Included will be important sites the public may not yet have discovered, like the nationally significant Grand Meadow Quarry in Mower County, as well as those already well known, like Grand Mound in Koochiching County, Pipestone National Monument, sites at Mille Lacs-Kathio State Park, and Grand Portage National Monument.

b) The scientific method, based on creating and testing a hypothesis and attempting to disprove it, will be explained. Science doesn’t look for truth, but for valid hypotheses that are the best fit to known, replicable data - and then are replaced by better hypotheses when new data emerge. This process will be clearly and simply explained and contrasted with examples like the Kensington Runestone, early claims about “mound builders,” rumors about the remains of giants found in the State, and other examples of narratives not based on actual science.

c) How cutting-edge technology contributes to our understanding of Minnesota’s past, with such advancements as LIDAR (a remote sensing technology), spectrographic analysis, and new advances in dating methods - all of which add increasing precision to archaeological interpretation. Examples will include the Jeffers Petroglyphs site and the Grand Meadow Quarry site.

With this approach, in the script and in the eventual program, we will encourage the viewer towards cognitive objectives involving analysis, interpretation, critical thinking, and problem solving, using the following significant questions:
• What is the scientific method, and how is it applied in archaeology?
• Looking at examples from Minnesota, what is the hypothesis in each case? How has that hypothesis been tested? Are the results replicable? Have they been shared with the professional community and peer-reviewed? How do we factor and value core beliefs and the native voice?
• What are some examples of hypotheses changed with new evidence?
• Where has the scientific method made a difference in Minnesota archaeology?
• Why is fringe history so popular when history based on real evidence is so exciting?
• How do we determine the estimated age of an artifact or a site?
• How do we talk about what isn’t known and scientifically provable?
• What scientific techniques can be applied to what kinds of materials, using MN examples?
• What are the red flags for spotting false claims, biased interpretations, and bad history?
• What are the buzzwords to watch out for? For example, “some say…”
• How can one tell if the sources and supposed experts are appropriately trained?
• How can ordinary citizens make a contribution to archaeological research in Minnesota?

We will contrast the findings of science against the conjectures and alternative interpretations of pseudoscience, conspiracies, hoaxes and fringe history. We will be alert to any new data that may inform the project in the future, and be prepared to share such advancements with the public through our website, where the interviews and eventual program will be streamed.

Scope of Work

Phase 1 will be developed using research based on the bibliography provided, and by applying information gathered from further research and contributions of the Advisors during meetings and electronic communications. The bibliography is based on recent publication, readability, relevance, and professional recommendation. The script will emerge from our research, the expertise provided by local archaeologists and historians, and the recorded commentary directly from the interviewees. TPT will be recording those interviews so their responses can be shared with the public on the website in Phase 1 and potentially be used for Phase 2. We are also aware that it is typical for documentary interviewees responding to questions to influence the script through their commentary. The script will be guided by and benefit from the experience of the video team and its scriptwriter, with guidance from the Advisory Committee and the critical reviews of two experts. We will use the critiques and comments of the Advisory Committee and the critical reviewers to ensure historical and scientific accuracy throughout the project.

Project Personal:

Governance Board: MAS Board will serve as the Governance Board for this project. Board members include: Dan Wendt, President, LeRoy Gonsior, Vice President, Rod Johnson, Treasurer, Pat Emerson, Secretary, Kent Bakken, Managing Editor, Anna Morrow, Membership, Jim Cummings, Chuck Diesen, Jacob Foss, Ron Miles, Debbie Pommer, Bob Suchanek, and Amy Ollila.

Project Manager: The Project Manager will direct, coordinate, and oversee the research, interview process, and writing accomplished within Phase 1, with input from the Advisory Committee and the Video Team. The Project Manager will also be responsible for maintaining necessary documentation and the creation and submission of final reports.

Advisory Team: The tasks of the Advisory Committee will include suggesting research sources, guiding selection of interviewees (including some among them), reviewing a rough program outline, providing interview questions, and reviewing the script at both a rough and nearly final stage. Its members were selected based on their qualifications and established expertise:

• Pat Emerson: Director of Archaeology, Minnesota Historical Society.

• Ed Fleming, Ph.D.: Curator of Archaeology, Science Museum of MN.

• Guy Gibbon, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus, University of Minnesota.

• Michael Michlovic, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus, Minnesota State University - Moorhead.

• Dan Wendt: MAS President.

Editor / Proofreader: Deborah Schoenholz, will review and improve all written materials at each stage of development. Deborah has been an MAS Board member for 20 years, many of them as editor of The Minnesota Archaeologist, and has worked as a publications specialist for decades.

Critical Reviewers: The Critical Reviewers will critique the final script and the research process. They are historian, author, and educator Rhoda Gilman and Susan C. Mulholland, Ph.D., President of the Duluth Archaeology Center.

Interview Services and Scriptwriting: MAS procured the videography team of TPT-Twin Cities PBS as an outside vendor for this phase of the project, following required grant procedures. The research interviews with archaeologists and other experts will be professionally recorded over two days with a 4-person crew. The interviews will be catalogued by a line producer, and the files will be given to MAS for eventual posting on the web. The script will then be developed by Daniel Bergin, an award-winning producer and scriptwriter with a specialty in historic documentaries. He will use the words from those interviews combined with identified images that will illustrate their comments, as is the typical process for a documentary of this kind. Mr. Bergin will attend Advisory Committee meetings, and review and discuss the script with the Project Manager and Advisors throughout the project. The expenses related to all interview services and scriptwriting is based on numerous similar productions, including multiple Emmy-winning history programs created by this public television team.

Timeline: The approximate timeline for Phase 1 has a number of overlapping steps to be managed by the Project Manager.
1. Project start date and end date established and proposed schedule of activities finalized.
2. Electronic meeting of Advisory Committee, to begin outlining the needs and ideas for the script, the selection of interviewees and the goals for the eventual documentary.
3. Compilation and organization of research, led by the Project Manager, including the selection of existing MN archaeological sites to be used as examples of applied science; identifying controversial topics to be discussed, such as the Kensington Runestone, the origins of burial mounds, or the claims for the remains of giants in the state; and finding details to demonstrate impact of best practices and new scientific dating methods in archaeology (2 months).
4. Meeting of the Advisory Committee (2 hours) to
a. review the research and suggest ideas for the outline of the program;
b. draft questions for the interviews.
5. Refining the outline of the script using research results, the annotated bibliography, and collected commentary (2 weeks).
6. Researching and gathering existing footage from historical societies, archaeologists,
and the video team to develop an index of such footage for inclusion in the script (3 weeks).
7. Scheduling interviewees (4 hours) including
a. contacting interviewees to get confirmation of commitment to the project;
b. establishing specific dates and times.
8. Helping to coordinate the interviewing of experts by the video team (2 days, not consecutive).
9. Processing: the interviews will be catalogued by a TPT line producer, and the files will be given to MAS. The Producer/Scriptwriter will review and discuss the content, creating a rough draft of the script with input from the Project Manager and others.
10. Beginning to write the script (2 months) by
a. reviewing the interviews;
b. developing a script using the words from those interviews combined with identified images that will illustrate their comments, as is typical for such a documentary;
c. adding suggested placements for known video and still images;
d. making suggestions for graphics that will enhance understanding;
e. sending a rough draft to Advisors for consideration.
11. Meeting with Advisory Committee (2 hours) to receive feedback on rough draft and proceed.
12. Finishing writing and editing script, to a nearly final draft (2 weeks) to send to Critical Reviewers for comments and make suggested changes.
13. Sending draft version to the Advisory Committee for last review and comments.
14. Completing the final version of script.
15. Posting and promoting interviews and bibliography on MAS website, and via MAS newsletter.