Family-Friendly World Archaeology Displays at the Pitt Rivers Museum

Family-friendly World Archaeology Displays at the Pitt Rivers Museum

Contents Objectives Background Use of results Methodology Research The sample Summary of the results of the consultations Recommendations Appendix 1 – Responses to request for information about archaeology displays on GEM Appendix 2 – Digitised notes from the family consultation day Appendix 3 – Examples of paperwork used in consultations Appendix 4 – Digitised notes from the Young Archaeologist's Club consultation Appendix 5 – Transcript of the focus group References

Objectives The VERVE project at the Pitt Rivers Museum (2012-17) is entering its final phase. As part of the planning process for new permanent archaeology displays, this report documents the results of a front-end evaluation study with family audiences, to ascertain family prior knowledge of and interest in world archaeology.

Background VERVE is a £1.6 million project that will support vital conservation, refreshment of selected areas of display and much improved case lighting, alongside a wide-ranging programme of free public activities illuminating the ways in which human creativity has driven developments in design and technologies. VERVE themes are: human ingenuity; design, craftsmanship and performance. VERVE represents the third phase of the Museum’s redevelopment, following the opening of its new extension in 2007 and the redevelopment of its entrance in 2009. In 2011-12, the Museum welcomed over 376,000 visitors.

In the run of desk-top cases on the Upper Gallery there is an opportunity to display some of the Museum’s archaeological collections (in particular the world-class stone technology collections), currently in storage since the move from a Museum outstation. Re-display here also provides an opportunity to bring into the public domain the fruits of two major recent research projects, one supported by the Leverhulme Trust ‘Rethinking’ General Pitt-Rivers, the other by the Fell fund, 'Scoping the archaeology collections.’

About 44% of the museum's collections are defined as archaeological, around 136,000 objects

whereas only 10% of the objects on display (just over 3000 out of 27,800 objects) are defined as archaeological (Hicks & Stevenson 2013, 5-12). This display will redress the balance a little.

Use of results The pre-existing plan for the redisplay of the desk-top cases on the Upper Gallery was to group objects by material, which would emphasise the physical, material nature of archaeological evidence. It would also highlight the processes of making, and human ingenuity in using particular materials.

The results of the family consultation will feed in to the design of the new world archaeology cases on the Upper Gallery and may influence object choice and placement, and the content, style and placement of supporting text and images. It may also be possible to make recommendations about the use of supplementary interpretation such as trails and provision of audio content.

Methodology

Stage 1 – desk-based research Research was undertaken into innovative and effective archaeology displays at other museums in the UK, particularly for family audiences. The desk-based research also incorporated mapping the content of the new cases to the National Curriculum at Key Stages 1, 2 and 3.

Stage 2 – consultation This took place on three separate occasions.

Young Archaeologist's Club, 6th February 2016 Young people were asked what they know about archaeology already and what they would like to know more about. Activities included: • Object handling – what can you work out about the object, what would you like to ask about the object. • Terminology testing – Call my bluff game to identify the true definition of archaeological words (see Appendix 3) • Timeline activity – to test their knowledge and understanding of chronology and specific period labels

Replica objects used at this event spanned the materials considered for the redisplay and included: Animal bones (from OUM) Stone tools Pottery vessels Glass beads Leather cooking bag Fire bow Metal tools Wooden object

Family drop-in, 18th February 2016 Families were asked to take part in some activities for half an hour at a time to ascertain how much they know about archaeology, what they think of current museum displays and what criteria they would find most logical to group objects in a display. Activities included: • What is it? Playing a game where they are given three possible identifications of what the object could be and they work out what it is. • Make a museum – using different objects, families would decide how they would group objects to put them into a museum display using a mock-up of a desk-top case. • Reaction to two desk-top cases on the Lower Gallery (Great Zimbabwe, scraping and cutting tools). What are they interested in, what doesn't work, what else would they like to see? A focus on labelling, images, density of objects, layout, height. • Terminology testing – Call my bluff game to identify the true definition of archaeological words • Timeline activity – to test their knowledge and understanding of chronology and specific period labels

Replica objects used at this event were: Bone flute Bone needles Pottery vessels Glass beads Leather cooking bag Fire bow Metal tools/weapons Bow drill Wooden bullroarer Leather shoes Stone tools/weapons Cloth Bear claw necklace Ember pouch Metal brooches Amber beads Flint and pyrites

Images were printed to place under the cases in the Lower Gallery for the afternoon sessions of the consultation to see whether this alters the dynamic of how the families interact with the contents and ideas.

The call my bluff game and timeline activity were not used in the afternoon consultations after a decision was take that the results that were coming out were very similar across families.

Families were thanked for taking part with a £5 voucher to spend at the Pitt Rivers Museum shop.

Family focus group, 15th March 2016 Families who take part in the consultation day on 18th February were invited to send one parent along to the focus group on 15th March from 5-7pm. In the end, only one person was able to come from that group, and other parents were recruited through advertising on Facebook and through the museum's Friends group.

The evening started with a short presentation about the background to the project and the ethos behind the Pitt Rivers displays in general, and this project specifically, including an example pottery case mocked up. After seeing the desk-top cases in question on the Upper Gallery, more in depth discussions was conducted to ascertain the parents' perceptions of archaeology, whether they would take their children to see the displays and if so, what they would like on display to help

them interpret the objects. Specific questions were discussed, namely: • Is world archaeology of interest to you and/or your children? • Is knowledge of world archaeology useful for your child at school? • What do you think of existing Pitt Rivers displays and labels? • What would make for an interesting archaeology family friendly activity programme?

An audio recording was made of the focus group and a transcription can be found in Appendix 5.

Stage 3 – reporting This final report incorporates the project design, the results from the desk-based research and consultation and recommendations for the redisplay of the desk-top cases in the Upper Gallery.

Research Examples of museums with family friendly archaeology displays were requested from the GEM mailing list. The initial responses are listed in Appendix 1. The consultant decided on a range of museums to research and/or contact for further information and these are presented as case studies here. Edited sections of published reviews are presented where relevant (highlighted in grey), as well as transcriptions of conversations with relevant staff at several of the museums.

Kids in Museums Manifesto The Kids in Museums Manifesto has evolved from comments made to the charity and from consultation with families about what they would like to get from museums. The final document, published in 2010, lists twenty ideas for museums to think about when designing family friendly displays or reviewing their general accessibility for families. The Pitt Rivers Museum was a joint winner of the Kids in Museums Family Friendly Museum Award, which is judged on the points in the Manifesto, in 2005, and continues to work hard to be welcoming to families.

Relevant Manifesto points include: • Begin at birth • Play the generation game • Reach beyond the four walls • Say “Please touch!” • Give a hand to grown-ups • Be aware of different families' needs • Keep an eye on visitor's comfort • Make the visit live on

Ways of engaging babies and families with specific needs, perhaps where a child has a learning disability or an adult has visual impairment, is to provide objects to handle and attractive displays that incorporate colour and images with little text. What can visitors touch? Where could objects be put for visitors to touch?

Visitor's comfort is not only in providing clean toilets, but also access to the displays themselves.

The height of the desk-top cases is a problem for many children, so small stools could be provided, that fold away when not in use so as not to create an obstruction.

Many family visits will be headed by grandparents, or will involve several generations of the same family. They go to museums to spend time together and chat, so the museum could provide opportunities to chat through the choice of objects and the style and content of the interpretation. Adults may need a hand to engage children with displays, and this could be provided through sensitive labelling and interpretation.

The Verve Project has undertaken a lot of outreach in order to reach beyond the four walls of the museum, and will continue to do so, embedding this kind of practice into the normal workings of the museum's public programme. By consulting with families the museum is also committed to making the visit live on for families, who feel they have a say in how the museum is put together.

Desk based research case studies

Museum of London (regionally funded) The Museum of London has a number of galleries focused on what we know about the capital from archaeological work, including the prehistoric gallery and the Medieval Gallery, London before London, is most relevant. London before London tells the story of the prehistoric Thames Valley and the people who lived there from 450,000 BC to the coming of the Romans in AD 50.

“The lighting in this gallery is bright, and the objects come to life. A long, tall display case winds round the perimeter wall of the main gallery area, emulating the breadth and length of the Thames. Lit by pale blue lights, flints, skulls, daggers and swords hang as if floating in water and are uncluttered by labelling. The central gallery area houses banks of low display cases featuring collections of different types of artefacts. The labelling is minimal and context offers few clues. The decision to display these different classes of objects together is to do with their placement together in the archaeological record/excavation. While minimal labelling is satisfactory within the overall display, it has been noted that it leaves the visitor curious to find out more, and that it is a missed opportunity in not including in-depth information on the computer terminals at the gallery’s exit” (Smith 2003, 102).

The London before London gallery also has replica touchable objects displayed next to original objects in cases, a reconstructed interior of a round-house with objects displayed within and audiovisual content about the chronology of occupation in the prehistoric period.

“A major feature of the medieval gallery is again a ‘river wall’, this time made more obvious by an attractive river design engraved onto the glass – although this can sometimes mask the exhibits. The entrance passageway to the Gallery displays a useful time line, with a historical overview of the period represented, and an audiovisual presentation seeks to explain the way the displays are set out. An archway directs visitors onto the correct route. One is immediately confronted by lists of key words – areas of London, types of fish, names of plague victims – which work well both as a unifying theme and as a learning aid for younger visitors. The displays have been made more interesting by varying the contents and by the inclusion of visually attractive items (gold!) in every cabinet. Small imaginative touches, for example displaying a collection of fish bones alongside a fish trap, or adding an attractive definition/question panel for children in some (alas not all) of the

cases, do much to enhance the viewing experience.

“Adults and children alike will enjoy the breadth of the displays of medieval life, varying from clothing, shoes and pottery to children’s toys and trinkets. The reproductions of clothing from the period, including a ‘hoody’, will greatly appeal to children. The original leather jerkin and shoes are displayed alongside reproductions, bringing the artefacts to life.

“The interactive exhibits are a vital element, as they are almost the only way ‘the people’ of the period feature in the gallery. Elsewhere, the approach remains traditional, with artefacts grouped by type, material or chronology and placed individually in glass cases. Although this creates a clear and aesthetically pleasing display it does not produce a visual idea of how they were used. If an awl were displayed piercing a hole in a belt it would be obvious how the tool was used and visitors would not need to rely on the accompanying text. More visual images and virtual representations of people and objects in ‘real’ situations would help here. It is also a shame there is not more within the gallery for people to handle as this would really help people to empathise with the past (Agate et al 2006, 109-110).”

Cori Philips of the Museum of London explained that the Roman Galleries at the Museum of London used to have anachronistic objects in each of its room settings. They were chosen to be along the lines of what was in there (e.g. an Ikea vase mixed in with Roman decorative pots in the ‘middle class’ room etc.). The summative evaluation revealed some success with this intervention creating a cognitive shock in adults and young people and making an immediate link between their lives and the lives of Roman Londoners.

“I guess it attracts attention because it’s stuff we see all the time, where normally in a museum we’re detached from it.”

Some visitors felt it detracted from the display, was “inappropriate”, “unnecessary” and made the display “cluttered”. Family groups particularly liked it, though, and it started conversations between family members.

“My daughter was pointing them all out … the iPad and the DS compared to the little blocks that the child was playing with that was quite a feature.”

Most teachers felt the inclusion of modern objects was valuable, improved their learning and provided a recognisable link for the children as a way in to the displays. Teachers of younger children or those with special educational needs reported that it created confusion or that children just thought that the Romans had the same objects as us.

“Children were attracted to displays by modern items and then read to learn more.”

(Morris Hargreaves McIntyre 2012, 32-7).

Petrie Museum (university museum) “The Petrie Museum, which is part of University College London (UCL), holds a remarkable Egyptology collection. The Petrie has about 80,000 Egyptian objects, many from the museum's founder, Amelia Edwards, whose bequest supported the museum and UCL’s department of

Egyptian archaeology and philology, which were both created in 1892; and William Flinders Petrie, who sold his large collection of Egyptian antiquities to UCL.

“The museum also introduces other people to visitors: the Egyptians who worked with Petrie and made his excavations possible. Inside the main galleries the museum has retained its style of visible storage displays. The objects don’t have individual labels, although there is basic information such as their museum number. As part of a revamp in 2010 the museum introduced 78 interpretation panels that explain what the groups of objects are, where they are from and why they are important.

“The dense visible storage style remains, but the museum has moved some display cases to create a more open feel. The Petrie is also turning to digital technology to makes its collections more accessible. All 80,000 objects are available online in 2D and the museum is working on creating 3D digital images. Visitors can use 3D image kiosks at the museum to virtually pick up objects and rotate them to see them from different angles.” (Stephens 2011, 48-9).

Alice Stevenson, Curator at the Petrie Museum, had some very interesting comments to make on the Petrie's displays and on the potential of the world archaeology collection at the Pitt Rivers Museum, as she previously worked on the scoping project of the world archaeology collection. Because the Petrie is hidden away on UCL's campus it doesn't get a huge number of family visitors.

The displays are public storage and labelled with 1990s labelling rather than their original labels, which have a charm of their own at the Pitt Rivers Museum. The museum is likely to always retain the cluttered and dense groups of objects which in many ways provide a 'wow' moment for visitors, in a similar way to the PRM. She feels it encourages exploration and a sense of adventure, and is almost like an art installation. The concepts that she wants to get across in her interpretation is the heterogeneity of Ancient Egypt, to take the focus away from mummies and pyramids, and to help visitors see the people in Egypt, both then and now, rather than the clichés. Another driver is to shift the focus from the famous, white, male archaeologists of the past to others who were working on the archaeology of Ancient Egypt, such as Gertrude Caton-Thompson and the Egyptians themselves.

Suggestions on the world archaeology displays at the PRM from Alice Stevenson, then, include keeping the dense and cluttered look, and making the most of that aesthetic. In displaying stone tools, which is likely to be part of this project, she suggests choosing a range of colours, not only flint, but also jadeite, obsidian, chert, and mentions the stone tool technologies of Scandinavia, Pitcairn and Rapanui. She also suggests the eccentric tools of the Americas and pressure flaked knives from Scandinavia and Egypt should feature, as well as some of the earliest tools from Olduvai Gorge as well as more modern tools. The choice of objects would therefore allow interpretation to touch on geological formation of the stones, geographical range of stone tool technology, different methods of making tools and the chronological range as well. She also recommends putting some metalwork on display that has been extensively manipulated through museum sampling in the 1960s and previously thought un-displayable. In fact, where samples have been taken, the original colour of the objects can be seen instead of the usual dulled bronze, plus it gives a chance to tell the story of how objects are studied in museums.

Stories are also key to engagement with the objects, as Alice pointed out, and these can be told through images and text. This can help bring people back into the displays, and it is helpful if these 7

people reflect the visiting families e.g. include women, children, older people and people from a variety of backgrounds. Images of Mary Leakey and Dorothy Garrod excavating in Africa, sometimes with children as workers, was one suggestion. Perhaps some of this could come through the choice of objects too, such as spindle-whorls from Mesoamerica which may have been used by young people.

Manchester Museum (university museum with anthropology collections) “Manchester Museum's Egyptology and archaeology collections were redisplayed in 2012. The first gallery looks at our relationship with the past, the archaeological techniques used to comprehend it and how our understanding is coloured by the world today.

“The objects range from the significant, such as the 2nd-century Manchester Wordsquare, to the everyday, the broken dinner plates, chipped tea cups and other detritus of early 20th-century life revealed by the Sandhills Cottages Project, which researched a row of cottages demolished in the 1950s and conducted interviews with some of the former occupants.

“Hanging from the ceiling are graphics and screens focusing on Manchester’s contribution to archaeology. This gallery also showcases new scientific techniques used for archaeological research, such as the analysis of ancient landscapes and 3D reconstruction of facial features that enable us to look on the faces of ancient man, a technique pioneered in Manchester.

“The second gallery focuses on ancient Egypt, using some of the 16,000 objects from Egypt and Sudan held by the museum. In contrast to the first gallery, this area is a small enclosed space, with hundreds of objects crammed onto glass shelves – effectively a modern take on a cabinet of curiosities. This approach is successful, up to a point, though the positioning and visibility of the labels could be improved. The objects are arranged chronologically, the majority being finds from tombs, though there is also material from the site of Kahun. This city, which was originally excavated by Flinders Petrie, was created for priests and pyramid builders. The artefacts reflect the minutiae of daily life, such as sandals bowls, combs and toys.

“Upstairs, the final gallery, Exploring Objects, aims to answer the question of why museums have so much stuff and why most of it is in store. The space is tricky, a mezzanine gallery with views down to the ancient Egypt gallery below. It is lined with cases along two walls and a large screen at one end, which features 3D projections of objects. Along one wall are massed rows of Egyptian artefacts – shabti, jewellery and other objects – in visible storage. Some items are fixed so they can be handled. Along the other wall are examples of fakes, displays on conservation and an installation by the artist Richard Wentworth, creating “museum collections” from objects bought in poundshops and supermarkets.

“The traditional cabinet of curiosities approach is matched by the use of mobile technology to supplement museum labels with information available digitally, offering additional information on more than 1,000 objects and 3D photography of 50 key items.” (Weeks 2013, 42-5).

National Museum of Wales, Cardiff (national museum) Grace Todd, Senior Learning, Participation and Interpretation Manager at the National Museum of 8

Wales, Cardiff, explained about their new archaeology exhibition in a phone interview. Below is a narrative based on the conversation.

There has not been much archaeology in the museum for the past two years, so the decision was taken to display some of the objects that are usually in store. The exhibition is called Adventures in Archaeology and is centred around props from the Indiana Jones film The Crystal Skull, including the hat, jacket, whip and one crystal skull from the movie and one borrowed from a museum in Paris. The exhibition focuses on how archaeological adventure has inspired popular culture.

There are three sections to the exhibition, one looking at real life archaeologists such as Petrie, Schliemann and Giovanni Battista Belzoni, and objects from Ancient Greece, Mycaenae, and pre- Columbian America. One of the ideas the museum wanted to get across was that archaeologists were not necessarily trained as archaeologists from the outset but could be anyone, for instance, Belzoni was a strongman and an engineer before becoming interested in antiquities. They acknowledge the difficulty in both making archaeology seem like an accessible career for children while also making it clear that there are professional and very skilled people working in it today, which they explore in a later section of the exhibition.

The second section on Welsh treasures also emphasises that anyone can be an archaeologist. The finders of the objects are highlighted and are often people going about their regular work e.g. builders, prospectors for manganese, metal-detectorists. One story focuses on the discovery of some weights and coins by metal-detectorists who subsequently got in touch with the museum who undertook an excavation in Llanbedrgoch and uncovered some Viking burials. The scientific analysis of the stable isotope on the bones suggested they were from Scandinavia, and the pathology shows they were brutally killed. The thrust of this story is to show that some questions remain open and emphasise that archaeologists make interpretations on the available evidence.

The final section looks more at the scientific process of studying archaeological objects, e.g. using techniques like x-ray etc... The process of digging and objects arriving in the museum is also revealed, with an emphasis on the importance of reporting finds made by the public. The major thrust of the exhibition was to find the stories that would make archaeology accessible, focussing on the people doing archaeology. Stories are key to the exhibition, and the museum is running a story-writing competition for 12 and under, inspired by something in the exhibition.

The use of archaeological jargon was discussed as the exhibition was put together and curators felt that removing certain words was dumbing down, whereas in reality there was a strong drive to make sure any jargon words were explained. One curator wanted some of their personal collection of Victorian books of archaeological adventures in the exhibition, but objects were chosen that it was felt would make a better conversation between family members. There was generally one lead object in each case with big appeal, aesthetically pleasing, and other objects in the case tied in with it.

One major need for families was for a visual timeline to explain the dates at the very beginning. A formula was also given in the text to help families work out how old the objects were – i.e. add this year's date to any BC date to work out how old something is.

Early on in the exhibition there was an open day called “So you want to be an archaeologist?”

where local archaeology groups and projects came and ran various activities like medieval pot printing, medieval and bronze age foam object painting, and so on. There is always a team of volunteers in the gallery with handling objects. These volunteers all ended up being archaeology under-graduates or graduates, so that helps families access the displays.

Schools activities will include a Celtic warrior grave school workshop, which involves having a grave reconstruction and helping the children work out what they can find out about the person from what objects were buried with them. One very useful activity that schools have liked to have is a simple drawing sheet split into quarters, where children draw something made of bone, stone, shell and other materials...

National Curriculum Links The national curriculum was reviewed after the 2010 general election and the majority of it was implemented in September 2014. This was the first large scale review that has been implemented since the national curriculum was first published in 1982, over thirty years. It is likely that the current curriculum would not be substantially changed for many years. Recent developments have revealed, however, that the government plans for every primary school to become an academy, which would mean they would not need to follow the national curriculum, though in practice most will continue to do so.

The world archaeology collection could feed in to several subjects in the primary national curriculum, especially history, but also science and geography. Not only could visiting schools use the world archaeology displays in their workshops, tours or self-guided visits but parents who are aware of what their children are learning will be keen to explore them as well.

Key Stage 1 covers Year 1 and 2, ages 5-7. Key Stage 2 covers Years 3-6 and ages 7-11.

History curriculum The content of the Key Stage 1 history curriculum does not overlap with world archaeology collections but the aims of the curriculum include: • They should know where the people and events they study fit within a chronological framework and identify similarities and differences between ways of life in different periods. • They should use a wide vocabulary of everyday historical terms. • They should ask and answer questions, choosing and using parts of stories and other sources to show that they know and understand key features of events. • They should understand some of the ways in which we find out about the past and identify different ways in which it is represented.

There are more opportunities to support the Key Stage 2 history curriculum: • Changes in Britain from the Stone Age to the Iron Age (including comparing hunter- gatherers and farmers, Skara Brae, Stonehenge and Iron Age hillforts and art) • Roman Empire and its effect on Britain • Anglo-Saxon and Viking settlement of Britain

• One of the following ancient civilisations: Ancient Sumer, Ancient Egypt, Indus Valley, Shang Dynasty of China • Ancient Greece • One of the following non-European societies: Baghdad c. AD 900, Maya c. AD 900, Benin c. AD 900-1300.

Teachers need a lot more support to teach many of these topics, although they have much more experience teaching Roman and Anglo-Saxon Britain and Ancient Greece and Egypt. The majority of schools are teaching these periods chronologically, with Stone Age to Iron Age Britain in Year 3 up to 1066 at the end of Year 6. Ancient civilisations are meant to contrast with Stone Age to Iron Age Britain, whereas the non-European societies are meant to contrast with the late Anglo-Saxons.

Historical skills are extended from Key Stage 1: • Pupils should continue to develop a chronologically secure knowledge and understanding of British, local and world history, establishing clear narratives within and across the periods they study. • They should note connections, contrasts and trends over time and develop the appropriate use of historical terms. • They should regularly address and sometimes devise historically valid questions about change, cause, similarity and difference, and significance. • They should construct informed responses that involve thoughtful selection and organisation of relevant historical information. • They should understand how our knowledge of the past is constructed from a range of sources.

Science curriculum The proposed organisation of the world archaeology collection by material would provide a great resource for parents to support their children's understanding of the Everyday materials section of the Key Stage 1 science curriculum. In Year 1 children are expected to learn to: • distinguish between an object and the material from which it is made • identify and name a variety of everyday materials, including wood, plastic, glass, metal, water, and rock • describe the simple physical properties of a variety of everyday materials • compare and group together a variety of everyday materials on the basis of their simple physical properties.

Year 2 takes the understanding of materials a little further: • identify and compare the suitability of a variety of everyday materials, including wood, metal, plastic, glass, brick, rock, paper and cardboard for particular uses • find out how the shapes of solid objects made from some materials can be changed by squashing, bending, twisting and stretching.

In Year 3 children focus on rocks and fossils including: compare and group together different kinds of rocks on the basis of their appearance and simple physical properties.

In Year 4 and 5 the opportunities in the science curriculum start to focus on chemical processes 11

which could relate to how some of the objects on display are made: • Year 4: observe that some materials change state when they are heated or cooled, and measure or research the temperature at which this happens in degrees Celsius (°C) • Year 5: give reasons, based on evidence from comparative and fair tests, for the particular uses of everyday materials, including metals, wood and plastic; demonstrate that dissolving, mixing and changes of state are reversible changes; explain that some changes result in the formation of new materials, and that this kind of change is not usually reversible, including changes associated with burning and the action of acid on bicarbonate of soda.

Year 6 children will be concentrating on evolution and electricity so there is nothing to link to.

Geography curriculum Key Stage 1 children will need to know the five oceans and seven continents and be familiar with using maps, compass points and should be happy with the following terms to relate to physical and human geography: • beach, cliff, coast, forest, hill, mountain, sea, ocean, river, soil, valley, vegetation • city, town, village, factory, farm, house, office, port, harbour and shop

Key Stage 2 children are specifically supposed to know the location of Europe, the Americas and Russia and should know these terms: • latitude, longitude, Equator, Northern Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere, the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, Arctic and Antarctic Circle, the Prime/Greenwich Meridian

Using maps with keys and labels should be accessible to primary school aged children.

Consultation

The sample

Young Archaeologists Club The Young Archaeologists Club is a monthly club for young people aged 8-16 who are interested in archaeology. The club at the Pitt Rivers Museum has been running for just over a year. On the day of our consultation with them, there were 17 young people there aged 7-14 and a few parents. The average age of the young people was 9.5.

The young people were generally very local and came from Oxford, Didcot, Cassington, Wolvercote, Abingdon, Chieveley, Coombe, Summertown, Botley and Streatley.

Family consultation day Thirteen families took part in the consultation day on 18th February. This comprised 25 adults and 22 children. There was a diverse range of family groups within the self-selecting sample. The full break down of the make-up of individual families can be seen in Appendix 2. There were single

parent and child families, three generations of one family, grandparents and grandchildren and extended family groups including aunts, uncles, nephews and nieces. There were eight girls and fourteen boys in the sample, and ages ranged from 3 to 14, though the average age was 8.

0 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Illustration 1: Range of ages of children on the family consultation day 18th February

About half of the families had travelled some distance to be in the Oxford area for the half-term break and had included the museum in their holiday activities. These families came from south Devon, south Wales, Stratford upon Avon, Birmingham and Hertfordshire. The rest of the families came from Banbury, Bicester, Carterton and Chipping Norton and were regular visitors, coming 4-6 or more times a year.

Family focus group The focus group consisted of five people, two men and three women. All were parents and one of the men was a grandparent. The age of the participants' children ranged from 3 to 12. Two of the women were teachers of primary aged children. The other woman was an anthropology lecturer. The younger man was a? They came from? The sample seems to have been well-educated and well acquainted with the museum, which coloured their discussions and their views on occasion contrasted sharply with those of the families who attended at half-term. Summary of the results of the consultations

Young Archaeologists Club Notes from the consultation with the Young Archaeologists Club are in Appendix 4.

Call my bluff game The call my bluff game had a word or phrase with three possible definitions. The words were excavation, organic, stratigraphy, radiocarbon dating, archaeological record, artefact. The purpose of this game was to test these young people's knowledge of archaeological terminology that may be used in the new archaeology displays.

The majority of children knew what excavation, radiocarbon dating and stratigraphy were, or could work them out using their knowledge of related words. A few children thought that the 'radio' in radiocarbon referred to 'Using radio waves to work out how old an object is'. Even those who worked out what radiocarbon dating meant, didn't know why 'radio' was in the phrase and didn't know how radiocarbon dating works. The group was asked follow-up questions after each call my bluff round, and were aware of tree-ring dating as another way to determine the age of things, but did not know the word dendrochronology. The group could also identify geophysics and LiDAR as other archaeological methods, but not field-walking, survey or aerial photography.

The vast majority of children associated the word organic with 'Food produced using environmentally-friendly farming methods'. After the answer was revealed one girl did know the opposite of organic is inorganic and the group generally understood the distinction between what rots and what doesn't.

The archaeological record was thought to be what archaeologists write down about what they find, rather than the actual physical remains themselves, and artefacts were thought to be objects in museums rather than anything made by humans. When asked to sort the handling objects into artefacts and biofacts, they struggled.

Timeline Children were asked to place period names on a timeline that stretched from 3mya to today. They were confident in the order of the Three Age system, and about half the children could work out or knew which order the Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic came in. They were not confident at putting absolute dates on these periods, though. They were much more confident on when the medieval and industrial periods had been.

They had not heard of Chalcolithic, Hellenistic and did not realise that post-medieval meant after medieval. They were not sure of what prehistory meant.

Object handling Children were invited to work out what the objects were. They were unsure of the difference between an axe and an adze and hadn’t heard of hafting. They knew sinew was like tendon but assumed it came from just one animal, a deer. Some had heard of ‘tang’ and ‘barbs’ regarding arrowheads.

The children had no cultural or chronological reference for glass, they didn't know when or where glass was first made. They knew what amber and flint were. They did know that burn marks on pottery could indicate cooking but there was no mention of firing. They had heard of the coil and wheel methods of making pottery. 14

With animal bones they knew to look for sharp or blunt teeth to indicate herbivore / carnivore on animal jaws but were unsure of the difference between horn, tooth and claw and could not distinguish each from each other.

Family consultation day The notes taken by volunteers on the day can be found in Appendix 2.

Highlights of the feedback are presented below.

Timeline The timeline activity was only used in the morning of the family consultation day as the reaction from the families were very similar.

All the families were familiar with BC and AD. The majority of families were happy to put the Three Age system in the right order, but could not attach them to any dates on the timeline. One six year old and one eight year old equated the Stone Age with dinosaurs.

Many of the families started with the Romans as a familiar word. One nine year old decided they were around AD 1500 but then was reminded that they were around at the same time as Jesus, so located the period at the junction of BC and AD dates. Several other families referred the Romans to Jesus and children were able to see straight away where they should go on the timeline.

They were also familiar with the Egyptians but placed them anywhere between 5000 and 1 BC. One eight year old knew that the Egyptians and the Romans overlapped because of personal knowledge about Cleopatra and Julius Caesar (not learned at school).

One family started with medieval around AD 1500 and was happy to put industrial around AD 1900, and then tried to work backwards.

Most of the families had not heard of Hellenistic and were confused by the subdivisions of the Stone Age. Most children did know what post-medieval meant, or the difference between pre- and post-.

What is it game Six objects were put on a table and families were given three options for their identification. A copy of the three options for each object is in Appendix 3.

One or two of the objects were easier to identify than others, and some children knew about things like fire bows from watching survival programmes. Many them could see that the stone axe head was not natural. Their answers are quantified below and reflect the uncertainty about and unfamiliarity with the objects, apart from the flute, which was universally correctly identified.

8 1 2 6 3

0 Bullroarer Flute Cooking bag Fire bow Axe head Flint and pyrite

Illustration 2: Table showing the families identifications of the mystery objects in the What is it? game

The mystery objects did promote critical and logical thinking e.g. the bullroarer could have been a fishing float because wood floats. The children were very happy when their background knowledge meant they knew the answer. It also stimulated conversations within families who were trying to work out what objects were. Some of the families who were familiar with the museum remembered seeing something similar in one of the cases.

“Not sharp enough for a weapon and not the right shape for a musical instrument “

The families didn't necessarily need to agree on what the objects were and were happy to be independent in their answers (all but the very small children). Parents and grandparents were able to explain to their children or grandchildren how some of the objects worked once they'd been given the answers.

My museum The families were asked to decide out of a selection of handling objects (different to the ones used in the What is it? game) what they would put in a desk-top case using a mock-up.

Families could be divided up into those who chose to work chronologically, thematically, aesthetically or by material. Interestingly, though each objects had a provenance (invented in some cases) no family chose to display objects by geographical location. Some chose more than one of these organising principles for their mocked-up case.

0 Thematic Chronological Aesthetic Material

Illustration 3: Chart showing the breakdown of approaches to museum display

The themes were very much dictated by the handling objects available. The families chose to name them domestic/everyday life, personal, clothing, weapons and there was one theme just called 'sharp things'.

Those who grouped their objects by material made one section of stone and one of metal, while another young person wanted to have a display of domestic pottery from around the world of the same date to compare what was going on in different cultures at the same time.

Some families took a lot of time making sure the objects were arranged well, with larger ones at the back and smaller ones towards the front. One girl didn't want to use all the objects because she liked to see things nearby, so she can compare them better. The youngest children, the three and four year old, chose the spectacular items like the bear claw necklace, as well as objects that they could relate to, like the drinking beaker and the shoe. Two boys divided up their case, which was arranged between domestic objects and weapons, with a bow drill that made a convenient visual barrier.

Illustration 4: Mock-up "My museum" case with bow drill as visual barrier between thematic groups of objects

One girl who insisted on arranging things chronologically started with the earliest on the left because “that's how time goes”.

Families who arranged their objects by theme wanted to have images or video showing how objects were used in the past. Another parent said it was important to have clear labelling so the children can read it, or so parents can read to the children.

“Amazing that I can recognise that that is a needle yet it was used hundreds of thousands a years ago – I like that the design of some things doesn't really change. I can connect with something I recognise.”

Reaction to displays The families were asked to react to two different desk-top displays in the Lower Gallery, namely Khami Ruins case, L.80.A, and the Tools - Cutting, Scraping and ?,L.81.A. Some families only reacted to one of these cases because of time constraints. In the afternoon the cases were augmented with images on the front of the drawers underneath the cases giving some context for objects inside. The images that were used are in Appendix 3.

Almost universally the tool case was considered to be too cluttered. Families reported “it’s very messy”, they “wanted to come away knowing about two or three objects rather than seeing hundreds of objects and not knowing anything about them”, “there's an overwhelming number of objects”, “you can't even see all of the objects as some are on top of the others”, “I can't process what things are”.

Most families wanted some clearer sorting of these objects into a chronological display,

thematically or geographically. Recommendations were to have different coloured backgrounds to demarcate the sub-divisions, raised areas, or labelling.

Many families commented that the labels were very difficult to read and confusing, but several quite enjoyed doing so, trying to read the very small text sideways. One family pointed out that the bone objects blended in to the light background.

The images dramatically increased the engagement with the case, though placement on the front of the drawers underneath the case did not work. Families recommended putting images at the back of the case, next to objects or in a book that could be chained to the metalwork under the cases.

A few objects caught the children's eyes, including the shell scrapers, the toddy tapper (largest object in the case) and the worked antler.

The Khami Ruins case was considered to have too dark a background, faded display and be badly lit, and the small amount of text in there would not be read by any of the families usually. Most of the families thought it was just a display of patterned pottery, rather than being objects from a specific place. If there were whole pots rather than just fragments, the families would have been more interested.

“It is not that I immediately want to stop by”

Some children were able to identify Africa from the shape of the landmass depicted on the map, but some couldn't (one child thought it was India, another South America).

Generally the images at the back of the case were welcomed but some families wanted images showing how the pottery in the case was made and used. The images on the front of the case in the afternoon didn't make much impact in this case.

Call my bluff game This game was only played in the morning as the results were similar from each family. As could be expected, there was a general lower level of knowledge about archaeological terminology among these families compared to the children in the Young Archaeologist's Club. One family had never heard the words artefact, excavation or stratigraphy and had only heard of radiocarbon dating in relation to dinosaurs.

The word organic is very firmly associated in most children's and adults minds with environmentally friendly food production rather than the way the word might be employed when writing about archaeological collections.

The processes of archaeology are not well understood, including stratigraphy and radiocarbon dating. The word artefact is thought to merely relate to objects in museums, rather than any object that has been made by humans, which is a fine distinction, but may be useful to keep in mind when writing text to support the displays.

Family focus group The transcript of the discussions that took place at the focus group on 15th March 2016 with five participants can be found in Appendix 5. In this section, certain pertinent observations will be highlighted, and the general consensus presented. Participants will be identified by the letters, C, L, K, Ma, and Mi.

Content, display ethos and interpretation The proposal to display objects by material was queried by L, who wanted to know that it would not supersede the display by typology, which she found very useful and interesting to use with children. Once assured this would not happen, she was happy to concede that grouping objects by material might also be useful, particularly when teaching the design and technology curriculum. K was essentially interested in how we found out how objects are made and used, so grouping by material would be very engaging for him and his son. Ma mentioned exhibitions at the V&A where short silent films were placed in the cases next to objects to show how they had been made (or how similar objects were made today) and/or how they work or are used and said that would be very useful for these displays which don't otherwise have a lot of interpretation, and especially for children who would not be able to read very much.

Labels were not deplored, in fact Ki enjoyed the sense of adventure and discovery in deciphering the labels on many objects, and relaying that information to his son. L never read the labels because they were too small and cases too cluttered, but she said she didn't want them dumbed down and if they were replaced, she would want some of the originals kept, to show that people labelled objects in the past too. C said she thought it was “pretty odd” to not have the date of the object on the label. Ma mentioned that low lighting levels and placement of labels too high to read were also barriers. Ki mentioned the redisplay of the Ashmolean and that with the new labelling, which is often low enough for children to see and big enough for them to read, even emerging readers like his son could read at least the name of the object and felt a sense of achievement after doing so.

L mentioned a layered approach to information delivery, from labels as the first level of information, accompanied by folders of information chained to the cases and/or delivery via mobile (whether that be internet based or app based). Ki quoted a statistic that 80-90% of visitors will have smart mobile technology with them (data from Ofcom for 2015 indicate that 93% of adults own a mobile phone but only 66% of adults own smartphones). There is already free wifi in the museum, and many visitors could use this facility to access more information about the objects in front of them. How they come across that information e.g. QR codes, iBeacons etc... is for the museum to decide, but there would need to be an alternative method of delivery for those visitors without smartphones. Participants shied away from touch screens in the gallery saying “children get sucked into them”, “and they don't look at the stuff”. Mi also pointed out that he really liked the lo-tech ethos of the museum and hated it when there were lots of different audio stations booming out their sound in battle with each other at certain museums he had been to.

“Stuff” was very much appreciated. C mentioned how the major works at the Ashmolean took away so many objects, especially from the Egyptian displays that her daughter liked, and that was a shame. She felt like the cluttered nature of the Pitt Rivers Museum made it like a “quest” to find objects. Ki felt the opposite, saying that his six year old son doesn't really like the dark and busy 20

nature of the Pitt Rivers Museum and liked the space to run around and the light of the Ashmolean.

Story and narrative were mentioned by the participants, the story of the discovery of objects, the story of how to work out what objects were for, the story of the local area. There was also a desire to make the displays relevant, for instance to link to themes that children and families would identify with, such as everyday life, sleeping and eating, for instance. L wanted the displays to tell grander stories about what it means to be human and our thought processes; the joy of being alive. In many ways, the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. Mi was interested in how people would problem-solve and in firing the imagination of the next generation to understand the process of having a need and working out a way to solve it with what you've got to hand.

“You need to inspire people for the future.”

L wanted context for the objects. She enjoyed seeing dioramas in Canadian museums in the 1970s and 1980s on her travels, and wondered if there was some way of doing that in the museum, though she conceded full scale dioramas would be difficult. She thought videos or images of people using these objects would be useful. C brought up the issue that using historical ethnographic photos might be problematic because of the perception it might give about the contemporary source communities today, who may not still be using these objects. L didn't feel the need for images showing them being used in their original context, but would be content with images of replicas being used today just to show how they worked.

Other themes were of interest to the participants. C was very keen to know about trade and movement of objects, an interest that was echoed by others. She focused specifically on the stone objects, but it could be widened out to encompass all the materials. She was also quite interested in linking the objects in the world archaeology cases to the standing cases opposite that would hold objects sorted by biome. L was also very keen on this topic, suggesting that it was critical to show children that people had always moved around, and particularly into this country, from elsewhere, to counter contradictory contemporary narratives in the media.

Ma mentioned how teaching one topic on treasure at her school had brought up the idea of what from the past survives and what doesn't. While children could grasp that pottery, metal and stone would survive well, they were surprised that things like cloth and food wouldn't survive. The organic case would be a good place to discuss this topic. Ma mentioned the Viking sock as an object of wonder for her class once they appreciated it's rarity, and C brought up the pottery bowls from Must Farm near Peterborough with vitrified food inside them and wondered whether there was anything like it in the Pitt Rivers Museum collection. L talked about how the process of archaeology is useful to know about for children, because they otherwise think that we just need to know facts, but have no idea of where those facts come from or how we arrive at them. C was keen on the mystery of archaeology to be foregrounded, for the museum to admit to how much it doesn't know, and how much information about archaeological objects is just interpretation.

C was also very interested in the local aspect of archaeology, to help to make the displays relevant to families. She linked to the early collections of Pitt Rivers of objects found along the Thames, as the Thames goes through Oxford as well as London, and to the model made of Waylands Smithy by Pitt Rivers, as a famous Oxfordshire archaeological site. There was also mention of the fake Greek

statuettes and how fascinating those were by Ki and C.

“The ancestors are right here.”

The majority of the participants conceived of archaeology as a more European thing, and focused in the prehistoric past. C was surprised to see an eighteenth century tankard as one of the objects that could potentially be put on display, and it was news to her that archaeology could reach into historical periods. Despite offering the information that the national curriculum dealt with such topics as the Maya and Baghdad and that the geography curriculum focused on North and South America as well as the UK, Ma, like the others, was most interested in objects that said something about Britain, if not an even more local area.

The concept of time was discussed, and how difficult it is for children to understand the great depths of time. Though not noted by the participants, this would be even more difficult with objects of all sorts of dates placed in the same case together. It may well be useful to have some kind of simple time line in one or more of the cases, with links back to several objects as archetypes of a particular period (though this is complicated by diversity in global archaeological period labels).

“Children struggle with time because they haven't had much of it.”

Logistics and accessibility L (backed up by Ki and Ma) was very keen to have stools under the cases to be brought out to allow smaller children to see in to the desk-top cases. It was pointed out that this would have to be subject to making sure that wheelchair and buggy access was maintained along the Upper Gallery.

There was a general trend towards images and video rather than written interpretation for a family and child audience.

Ki mentioned making labelling and interpretation accessible to those with visual impairments, in which case touchable objects would be very valuable. The museum already provides torches and magnifying glasses for visitors with visual impairments who would benefit from them. If any delivery of sound was considered, there would be implications for visitors with hearing impairments and learning disabilities.

Family friendly and school programme The participants had lots of ideas for the family friendly programme of activities that could accompany the redisplay of the cases.

The need to touch was the focus of much discussion and L suggested having pieces of pottery to fit together somehow attached to the cases. While this is impractical given the nature of the desk-top cases, the opportunity to touch could be provided through backpacks of archaeological artefacts (whether real or replica) with examples of the materials to touch and through regular object handling sessions, both of which fit in to the current Pitt Rivers family programme. L also wanted a trail or quiz to help children engage with the objects and learn something about them. Ki mentioned a materials trail that his son had undertaken at the Ashmolean Museum where they

had to find an object made of metal, one of stone, and so on, and how he had really engaged with this. This would also be a great way to connect the archaeology display on the Upper Gallery with other world archaeology objects in the typological displays downstairs.

The teachers were very complimentary about the school programme, both having brought many classes to the museum in the past and finding the style very engaging, and the promotion of critical thinking excellent. L liked the fact that the Pitt Rivers Museum has real stuff that just couldn't be replicated in the classroom on the “shoestring budget” teachers have, provides cross- curricular links and opens up a whole world for the children. Ma mentioned that a trip to do the Haida tour started a topic on Canada including geography, science, literacy and history links. She did mention that during the tour her children could never quite concentrate as they always felt in the way, and was happy that on the Upper Gallery there was more space. There was much discussion about the need for children to learn how information and facts are discovered, and the process of archaeology was deemed a very useful way to discuss this.

“It brings joy to my heart because it's children seeing real things.”

Ki thought that his six year old would not be interested in the archaeological process, though, but would be interested in how things are made, and that some hands-on making activities would be really great to see or do in a family friendly programme of activities and events. Ma said it was great to get to do things you couldn't do at home easily, real stuff with clay and wood, although paper based and phone based activities were also good. L said it was always nice to be able to take stuff away after making it. Mi loved the “What is it?” game that he played with his granddaughter during the family consultation day, where they got to handle objects and communicate with each other, and work together to find out what they were.

Ki suggested the possibility of signposting links between the university's collections. He pointed out that there are similar objects in two or more collections and that they could be rationalised, but L decried that idea, saying that each collection was doing something slightly different with its objects. Ki thought if the links were made between an eighteenth century tankard in the Pitt Rivers Museum and one in the Ashmolean, for instance, then families could see it in different contexts, and be encouraged to visit more than one museum. Whether that is delivered via mobile technology or labelling was left unexplored.

L had an idea about linking to children's literature and pop culture to bring world archaeology to life, mentioning Satoshi Kitamura's Stone Age Boy, for instance, and C brought up Stig of the Dump. There might be scope to tie in either family activities or the school programme to literacy or creative writing.

For outreach events, C thought it might be nice to have a Neolithic hut with Neolithic activities going on that people could relate to and have a go at, like grinding grain, making food, finding out where people slept and what they wore. Recommendations

World Archaeology for a family audience A number of themes have been identified through research and consultation that should inform 23

the world archaeology displays to help make them attractive and accessible for family audiences and useful for school ones.

Aesthetically pleasing Specific mention was made by Alice Stevenson from the Petrie Museum about the selection of stone tools by colour and shape as well as geographical or chronological spread. These included red flint or chert from Scandinavia, Pitcairn and Rapanui, 'eccentrics' from the Americas, jadeite from the Alps and obsidian tools.

The Medieval London gallery at the Museum of London chose gold and other striking objects to put in each case to grab visitor's attention, and the National Museum of Wales in Cardiff also chose one spectacular object for each case that others linked to.

At the family consultation day it was mentioned that some of the backgrounds in the desk-top cases were too brown and dark, or that the light background meant the lighter objects made of bone and antler didn't stand out well enough.

Embodying narrative Participants in the focus group mentioned stories as the way to keep visitors attention and to make sense of the mass of displays. The National Museum of Wales focused on the stories of famous archaeologists from the past, such as Schliemann and Petrie, and highlighted how they weren't professional archaeologists to encourage children to feel like they too could discover archaeological treasures. Alice Stevenson recommended highlighting female archaeologists as well as male, in the interest of balance.

Certain narratives were preferred by participants in the focus group. Many of them wanted to know more detail about how objects were made and used and suggested various ways of showing that, from images from the museum's collections showing people from other cultures and in the past using them or those of modern day experimental archaeologists making and using them, to short videos delivered into the cases themselves similar to those used in the V&A exhibition Fabric of India.

Trade and movement of objects and people was also highlighted as an important theme by focus group participants, especially with the opportunity to link to the displays on biomes planned for the standing cases on the Upper Gallery. Participants thought it would be able to highlight how objects and people had always moved around to counter the dominant negative mass media messages.

The family consultation day highlighted that families were more drawn to creating displays on a theme such as domestic life or weapons rather than by material (though this may have been influenced by the availability and selection of handling objects). Focus group participants did query the proposed grouping by material with some trepidation that the typological displays would be superseded. Several of the participants found the typological displays very useful for showing children how people are the same the world over, we face the same problems and solve them in similar ways.

Relevant The Londinium gallery at the Museum of London tried to make the displays more relevant to their visitors by including contemporary artefacts with the Roman displays with mixed results. Some visitors didn't think it was appropriate while many families and schools found it thought-provoking and a great way in to engage more deeply with the Roman objects. It did not work with children with special educational needs, for whom the contrast was not always immediately apparent. This approach could be employed in the archaeology displays, by including a modern object of a similar type or material in the case, which was suggested by focus group participants. The engagement with replica objects on the family consultation day, however, suggested that some objects we may think children would be unfamiliar with, they can identify immediately, such as a fire bow, and it would pay remember children do have a cultural awareness.

The choice of themes for “My museum” that families on the consultation day made highlighted themes that they could identify with, such as wearing clothes, eating and drinking and so on. These themes were also touched on by the focus group participants as good ways to engage children with archaeology displays and activities.

The focus group participants were particularly interested in objects that were from places they knew, particularly local ones. The objects found by Pitt Rivers in London, his model of Waylands Smithy and any other objects from Oxfordshire would be welcome additions in the display. It may be even more important for people conducting outreach activities to know about and reference local archaeological sites, and would also be very engaging for schoolchildren.

There is great potential for the world archaeology displays to tie in to the national curriculum, particularly the Key Stage 2 history curriculum with topics such as Stone Age to Iron Age Britain, the Maya, Benin, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece and the Roman Empire. The display by material would provide a good basis for design and technology topics, including the existing Materials schools workshop. If trade and movement of objects was also highlighted in the interpretation, this would support the geography curriculum and, along with the biome displays, the Extreme Environments schools workshop.

Historical skills, the process of archaeology, how objects are studied and the existence of many interpretations could all be themes to become part of a critical thinking thread through the displays that would be particularly welcome to schools.

Accessible The three consultation events engaged with three contrasting audiences within the 'family' umbrella, the children themselves, families travelling relatively long distances for irregular visits and more local families intimately familiar with the museum. All had issues with chronology, the knowledge of archaeological processes and terminology. I strongly recommend that interpretation be written in plain English and if specific jargon needs to be used, it is explained. The National Museum of Wales provided a simple formula at the start of the exhibition to help families work out how old something was if its date was given as BC (i.e. add 2000 years). I appreciate that a time line is not an easy thing to display in these cases, but it could be provided for families in an

accompanying trail or backpack.

Most of the families on the consultation day and in the focus group admitted that they didn't even try to read the labels, which were indecipherable, covered over by other objects, not lit well, too high up or up the wrong way. Despite this, the focus group participants very strongly didn't want to get rid of the old labelling, seeing it as a charming feature of the Pitt Rivers Museum. When pressed, the families at the consultation day actually enjoyed trying to read the labels sideways, and one of the focus group participants admitted he enjoyed the sense of discovery this game him. When looking at the tool case on the Lower Gallery families on the consultation day could not work out why the objects were grouped together and did not appreciate they were from different places and of varying ages. The interpretation in the Khami Ruins case, by contrast, was too long- winded, the maps lacked clarity and the images provided no context for the objects. There is a balance to be struck between too much information and too little for the average family to make any sense of the objects in a case.

The provision of images to put the objects in context in the desk-top cases on the Lower Gallery certainly improved engagement with the objects, though some small captions would also have helped, and they were not useful on the front of cases. In the focus group it was suggested that images or video could be provided in the case, or in books attached to the cases, or that images and further information could be provided via mobile technology. Care should be taken that if images of people doing things are included in any of these ways, that they reflect the entire population and not just adult men.

The families at the consultation loved the opportunity to touch objects in the “What is it?” game and “My museum”, and the focus group participants felt very strongly that there should be touchable objects for families. The Kids in Museums Manifesto is quite clear on that point, also. The idea of having permanent touchable exhibits near the cases may well be entirely impractical, but it is worth considering including replica or real archaeological objects in the regular object handling sessions on weekends, and creating an archaeological backpack with examples of similar materials as those on display, or some other method of allowing children to touch something.

On a very practical note, some children up to the age of around seven found it difficult to see into the desk-top cases on the family consultation day, and the focus group participants related the physical strain of lifting children up to see things in the cases many times on a visit. The small gaps between the cases could provide storage for foldaway stools for children to use. Consideration would have to be made about the need to check they are cleared away after every use, and that they don't get taken elsewhere.

Family friendly programme of activities When asked what kind of archaeology related activities they and their children would like to take part in focus group participants specified things that can't be done at home, hands-on, practical things like working with wood, clay or stone. Experimental archaeology was seen as very exciting and participants wanted to be quite involved in the process of making. Forensic archaeology was also mentioned. Paper based activities with something to take away was also acceptable. One focus group member suggested a Neolithic hut for outreach activities with various examples of replica working objects such as a quern, pots, a loom, for people to have a go with.

The hands-on replica object handling with directed tasks went down well at the family consultation day, and could easily be replicated on other family activity days. Other museums provide handling of real archaeological artefacts with a knowledgeable guide or volunteer. The National Museum of Wales provided a sandpit with the excavation of a 'Celtic' warrior in it which was very popular. Trails, backpacks and school workshops have already been mentioned.

Report compiled by Kim Biddulph, 2016

References Agate, A, Brown, S, Campbell, L, Gooch, T & Gordon, D 2006. The new Medieval Gallery at the Museum of London. London Archaeologist 11:04, p109-110.

Deprtment for Education, 2013. National Curriculum in England: framework for Key Stages 1-4. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/national-curriculum

Hicks, D & Stevenson, A. 2013. World Archaeology at the Pitt Rivers Museum: a characterization. Oxford, Archaeopress.

Kids in Museums Manifesto, 2010. http://kidsinmuseums.org.uk/manifesto-2/

Morris Hargreaves McIntyre, 2012. Breathing new life into Roman London: Summative evaluation of Our Londinium at the Museum of London. Manchester.

Ofcom facts and figures. http://media.ofcom.org.uk/facts/

Smith, L 2003. A Vision Translated – a review of the Museum of London’s new prehistory gallery. London Archaeologist 10:04, p102.

Stephens, S 2011. Journey through the Afterlife: Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead/Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology. Museums Journal Issue 111/02, p48-49.

Weeks, J 2013. Ancient Worlds, Manchester Museum. Museums Journal Issue 113/02, p42-45.